Now I understand! So the canal was covered up with a highway, water was just going beneath it (Edit: I read it appears to have been drained when the highway was constructed). Removing the highway just uncapped it again.
Cool comparison, but it's worth pointing out that the second picture is taken from the bridge that you can see in the first picture. So those big buildings you see on the left in the first picture didn't just disappear, they're just moved out of the shot.
That's why I said it's still a cool comparison. But cropping out the buildings and focusing more on the trees exaggerates the change a bit and makes it seem as if the entire area has been given back to the wilderness.
Was in Bayreuth a couple of weeks ago - they had pictures of the city centre 40-50 years ago hanging there. Couldn't find the exact image on the internet but here is a postcard from around that time.
This is how it looks today (you can see the fountain and the house with the steep roof on both images)
Not uncommon. Cities grew and the aqueducts just went director to their river, si they suck and paving them was a good excuse to get rid of the sanitation problems they had while expanding car infrastructure. Cities today know better and built aqueducts that didn't dump everything to the river.
The paradox that arises from the tension between the literal truth of something and the disbelief it inspires compels me to contemplate the consequences of having to wonder what yesterday's prediction about tomorrow will be.
The grass and vegetation is lush, it’s just unmowed, the second picture shows foot traffic wear (which I’d wager comes from people getting on/off a canal boat there)