St Patrick's Island bridge comp: Which one do you like?

[Bokimon]

great designs.
I am impressed that Manu Chungh has a pretty solid submission. I was worried that this may be another one of his projects like Lusanne Montreaux and Grand Haras type of quality. But the bridge looks good.

Some of the designs from the engineering firms with absolute no knowledge of design are horrible.

Halcrow Yolles - The Reach is my favorite, a new style which is promising for a city up and coming like ours in the design mecca world.

Appreciate the comments from the Vancity dude! We are indeed fortunate for having these and waking up to our architecture standards.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

I think the attraction to the SPF with Arup (Glide) proposal is that it achieves something none of the other designs do by blurring the divide between the bridge and the island. The bridge becomes a part of island and the bridge also serves as a gathering space along with the connecting two points. I like the basic conceptual ideas of the Glide but in reality it's a very wide massing and would feel cold and underutilized until inner city population reaches enough critical mass to make it a lively gathering spot. Add in winter and it'll just be a giant snow drift.

conceptually interesting, but if you are looking at 8m to the top of deck (or whatever it is to have clearance underneath), you are really looking at 2-3 stories of stairs. That's 32-48 risers. Add to that you probably can't get away without landings, and suddenly it is much chunkier than the rendering shows.

of course, its the initial phase, so they could modify it if it goes to the next round.

[King1629]

Originally Posted by Bokimon

great designs.

Some of the designs from the engineering firms with absolute no knowledge of design are horrible.

Generally agreed. But I've been quite impressed by INFINITY's design .....they could improve on their renderings though. Some of the renderings from other engineers were not bad although the design sucked.

[Radley77]

In my opinion, the design should be focused on creating the highest quality pedestrian experience possible. This is key to the EV redevelopment. The design of the bridge should be engaging to the user and St. Patrick's Island is perceived to be an amenity.

For these reasons I liked:
SPF O-bar
SPF Glide
Sturgess
Busby Perkins And Will

I think that SPF O-bar has the potential to have the best possible night lighting with the accessed interior flood lights and recessed LED lighting and be very inviting. Coupled with more riverfront seating on the Island, I think this project could create a very high quality urban experience and be entirely unique to have a corridor of light.

I also like the benches on Sturgess design as well as the steps on SPF\Glide. SPF\Glide is the kind of place that one might want to take a book to read, or a meeting spot. It may not be an iconic landmark, but it could become as Wentworth pointed out an iconic gathering space.

Overall, I think it is important that the bridge that is selected is perceived as an amenity first to the pedestrian and to a much lesser extent has landmark appeal. It should serve to enhance the Riverwalk infrastructure.

I also think that the Busby Perkins and Will design is a compromise between people who desire a landmark and offers a better pedestrian experience rendition than the Infinity design (which would have large sacrifices of greenspace due to large footprint and poorer ingresses).

[unibrain]

I wonder instead of offering a public art program for pedestrian bridges, the money can go towards a better design... I know the pedestrian bridge budgets dont have a whole lot of funding in them... but for a designer to design something with a little bit more oomf would be nice... essentially, instead of a sculpture or a painting on one end, how about try and make the pedestrian bridge nicer by way of a spire and cables.. whatever..

[King1629]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I also think that the Busby Perkins and Will design is a compromise between people who desire a landmark and offers a better pedestrian experience rendition than the Infinity design.

The INFINITY design is certainly a 'worlds first' in terms of use of a cable net on a bridge and has great signature value. The walkways seem fun. Also they offer a clear view of the skyline from the outer ramp and a direct connectivity option to the N-S banks. Don't think any green space needs to be sacrificed, the space underneath could be landscaped and offer an interesting viewpoint of its underbelly structure. (which I agree is not clear from their renderings yet)

The Busby design has the twin towers, no central focal point and there are several similar designs out there.

[shogged]

so in terms of the vote, my "other" was Bosen Lu. Of all the tower designs I liked this one the most, very clean. The other ones just remind me of Provencher Bridge. Borrrrrring!

I also voted for O-Bar, which clearly won't win but in terms of radical thought, i think this one did it best! It's very unique and the concept is cool, but it's not going to fly because it just looks like you're going to be boxed in. Not something you'd want when walking over a beautiful river like the bow!

I think at the end of the day its going to come down to the reach and glide. I think the reach is far more friendly when it comes to photos and we'd see a design like that end up on alot more post cards than glide would... but I'd sure like to sit on the steps of glide facing the river and read a book! Either of those two would be a great addition to the bow river bridge family =D

Last vote was for Marc Boutin, because I felt I should use all 5 votes I had and it was the best of the rest =D

[Bigtime]

Designs for second Bow bridge unveiled
35 concepts vying for $25M project
By Jason Markusoff, Calgary HeraldSeptember 23, 2009 6:47 AM

The design contest for a pedestrian bridge at East Village pits towering structures versus sleek ones and the engineers of famous landmarks against Calgary architects who have never before dabbled in bridgemaking.

The city-owned agency behind the East Village redevelopment quietly released 35 competing concepts on its website Tuesday.

The island-hopping bridge over the Bow River is a sequel of sorts to Eau Claire's tubular Peace Bridge by Santiago Calatrava, a project city hall didn't open to competition.

But unless a similar red-steel curving cylinder wins out -- pitched by a Texas firm-- the St. Patrick's Island bridge will be a vastly different structure.

Marvin DeJong, who hasn't designed a bridge since a contest at his university 20 years ago, pitched a low twin arch with cables, with hooklike ribs along its winding platform.

"The S-turn makes it more of an experience to walk across," said the principal of residential design specialist DeJong Design Associates.

Even if his small Calgary firm doesn't win the competition, DeJong said it's a rare chance to have his work stand alongside that of world-renowned architects.

The open contest received a Golden Gate-styled design from an Austrian firm, and another that features two leaning cable-stayed towers that look like mountains, from a California designer.

Another entry boasts a low span with multiple on-ramps and a tower with solar panels that fuel the bridge lights. It's by Marc Boutin, the Calgarian behind the Peace Pole unveiled Sunday in Eau Claire.

"I don't think we would have got what we did out of this competition without the discussion that occurred over the Calatrava bridge," said Chris Ollenberger of the Calgary Municipal Land Corp., which is running the contest.

His agency will host an open house next month to let the public see the concepts up close--in addition to commenting online--before the corporation's advisory group determines a short list and eventual winning design.

The bridge, from East Village to the north bank near Bridgeland, with a stop on St. Patrick's Island, is estimated to cost $25 million, depending on the design. The agency will pay for its 2011 construction through a special infrastructure fund for East Village renewal. It expects to recoup the costs through property taxes and land sales.

Manu Chugh Architects, another local firm without experience in bridge design, submitted a design with low wavelike arches meant to complement the Bow River's gentle flow.

Arup, the international engineering giant behind Sydney's Opera House and other renowned works, collaborated on three designs, including one with Calgarybased Kasian. Its dominated by squiggly arches meant to look like the motions of fly-fishers.

Many designs pay tribute to the Bow's shape, while others clearly took inspiration from Calatrava's harp-like cable bridges, Ollenberger said.

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com---Visit our website for photos of the bridge entries

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Link

[Fernando]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Designs for second Bow bridge unveiled
35 concepts vying for $25M project
By Jason Markusoff, Calgary HeraldSeptember 23, 2009 6:47 AM

SSP Comments Jihad!

[Riise]

I think I have fallen in love with a bridge, hahaha! I really like The Reach by Halcrow Yolles and it continues to grow on me the more I admire it. It is striking, artistic, aesthetically pleasing, and admirably original. It does not remind me of any other bridge I have seen yet it feels contemporary. While the submission by Arup & Kasian has a similar waviness, it feels visually empty compared to The Reach; just bare bone beams.

[Bigtime]

Interesting Riise, I am actually leaning the other direction. I quite like the Arup & Kasian one more than 'The Reach'. However I'd love to get more detailed renderings and schematics for both.

I'm still convinced both firms are using the 500 meters of piping ordered for Micah Lexier's 'Half K' sculpture that was supposed to go on the arriVa site!

[LynnDen]

The reach does not even work structurally. You can make it work somehow, I suppose. But the design is too much of a sculpture.

[You Need A Thneed]

My Thought from last night:

I don't think the Rosales bridge works as rendered. There is a reason why these leaning tower cable stay bridges lean away from where the cables are pulling, to counteract the weight of the bridge. It's not going to be possible to have those towers leaning towards the bridges that they support as they are shown, without them either being a LOT bigger then they are, OR, if the two towers are tied together, so the forces balance out.

I'm not sure if DeJong's works as well, the "rings" likely have to be bigger so that the cables don't connect to the bridge at such a shallow angle, plus those half arches over top of the deck that the cable connect to likely would have to be bigger to be strong enough, with the cables and the weight of the bridge pulling them sideways.

[smitty67]

I would really like to thank Hed Kandi for the initial comments. Well said. Great to see public architecture/design discussion this interesting in Calgary. We have a long way to go as a city, but its great to see that there has been a lot of interest and commentary on this project…….. no matter how misguided some of it may be.

There are a few things that are being mentioned in these threads that I find problematic. I personally believe that a lot of the architects/designers have missed the point on this bridge. Not all, but quite a few.

The search for an ‘iconic’ form for the bridge is an issue that has been plaguing so much of contemporary architecture these days. The bridge does not need to be iconic, it needs to be a bridge. A great bridge that will one day become an important part of the lives of the people within the communities. If we build this city (Calgary) as a series of ‘icons’ then it will have no consistency, no real fabric…… only self indulgent statements. A structure that allows people to cross the river, to get to St Pats island, to stay out of the rain and snow, and to allow the Bow to feel as uninterrupted as possible to me is a very successful project.

The Calgary tower is an icon. A symbol of the city. The Ponte Vecchio in Florence is an icon, deserved through hundreds of years of service to the city (I guarantee that it was ever intended to be iconic).

As far as the structures themselves, I believe the mast/cable/suspension solutions are very troubling. If a mast structure was appropriate for a climate/region such as Calgary’s don’t you think that the master of all mast structures (Calatrava) would have done one himself? Instead he offered a solution that was more sympathetic to seasonal variation, rain, snow, etc. Very few of the designs in this competition actually took these issues into consideration.

Many of the architects/designers tried to make this bridge their opportunity for gestures that go way beyond the point of the competition. Some proposals actually incorporate three bridges/pathways into one solution (how much bridge does one actually need to get from A to B?! Some completely obstruct the visible link from east and west along the Bow.

Let’s not forget that this island are river should still be the focus, not the bridge.

Those are my thoughts.
Smitty76

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by LynnDen

The reach does not even work structurally. You can make it work somehow, I suppose. But the design is too much of a sculpture.

The renderings aren't nearly good enough to determine whether it works structurally. Obviously it requires some cables between the deck and the arches, cables that can't really be seen on the renderings.

I'm not worried that a structural engineer that engineered the Bow building would design a bridge that doesn't work. I think they have a pretty darn good idea of what works, and what doesn't.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by smitty67

As far as the structures themselves, I believe the mast/cable/suspension solutions are very troubling. If a mast structure was appropriate for a climate/region such as Calgary’s don’t you think that the master of all mast structures (Calatrava) would have done one himself? Instead he offered a solution that was more sympathetic to seasonal variation, rain, snow, etc. Very few of the designs in this competition actually took these issues into consideration.

The location of Calatrava's bridge further west didn't allow for any towers to support cables, etc, due to the Helipad nearby. It's not because of any climate issues. There are quite a few suspension and cable stayed bridges already in Calgary, so I don't think it's an issue.

[CorporateWhore]

nm beaten to it.

[smitty67]

i was unaware of the height restrictions. either way, in my opinion, the mast structures are over done and not right for our climate.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by smitty67

If a mast structure was appropriate for a climate/region such as Calgary’s don’t you think that the master of all mast structures (Calatrava) would have done one himself? Instead he offered a solution that was more sympathetic to seasonal variation, rain, snow, etc. Very few of the designs in this competition actually took these issues into consideration.

Calatrava could not give us a mast structure due to the height limits imposed by the nearby heli-pad.

The question would be would Calatrava have given us another mast structure if the heli-pad had not been by it?

Edit: Beaten like a red headed stepchild.

[Look way up]

I like the Infinity design.