It specifically was NOT a cable-stayed bridge. It was a non-redundant truss bridge with a tower and faux stays that contributed nothing to the structural capabilities of the bridge. The arrangement of the truss structure mimiced the stay angles purely for aesthetics, not for any other reason. The choice to use a single truss structure rather than a more traditional redundant set of trusses was due to the desire for a striking design.

Adding the tower or cables would have done nothing to strengthen the bridge. The engineers in the article suggest that the second shorter section of the bridge to be built afterwards may have alleviated some of the stresses on the north truss beam, but the truss itself was unorthodox, so they cannot say anything for certain.