Bridges to Downtown

lzppjb · #1 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 12:41 AM**

Do you think when the current bridges reach their expiration the city will replace them with more concrete, or perhaps something more architectural and pleasing to the eye?

What kind of bridges would y'all like to see? I like ones with more structure above the street level and not just below it.

P.S. I realize the bat colony under the Congress bridge would keep them from replacing that one if they could help it.

the Genral · #2 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 1:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Do you think when the current bridges reach their expiration the city will replace them with more concrete, or perhaps something more architectural and pleasing to the eye?

What kind of bridges would y'all like to see? I like ones with more structure above the street level and not just below it.

P.S. I realize the bat colony under the Congress bridge would keep them from replacing that one if they could help it.

I would like to see some architectural features above street level, I even posted a few concept pics on my what if thread, but they were not well received.

KevinFromTexas · #3 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 2:07 AM**

I've never been crazy about bridges with overhead structure. It's one thing to have that out in the boonies when it adds some contrast to all the nature, but to have something like that in the city blocking the view of downtown, I just don't like it. I also wonder how an arched bridge on Congress would interfere with the CVC looking down Congress. It would be one thing if Austin was flat, but our hilly topography means that a mile down South Congress could put Capitol dome right in the middle of the bridge's arch.

Besides, the bridges in downtown wouldn't be replaced because of structural issues. As long as they're maintained properly, they'll last for a very long time. The only thing that would necessitate them being replaced is an increase in capacity.

lzppjb · #4 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 2:18 AM**

I can totally understand not wanting to interfere with views and photo opportunites from lower elevations. If we don't go above street level, what about going below to open up the flow underneath even better?

Imagine the arches at Cowboys Stadium on a smaller scale spanning the river and supporting the bridges.

KevinFromTexas · #5 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 2:20 AM**

Something like the London pedestrian bridge?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...w=1920&bih=912

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London

lzppjb · #6 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 2:24 AM**

That's pretty cool. I think I just like the idea of a little more exposed steel and less concrete than what we have.

Spaceman · #7 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

That's pretty cool. I think I just like the idea of a little more exposed steel and less concrete than what we have.

Put the crossings under the river like the Lincoln and Holland tunnels..If engineers can do this under the Hudson then Lady Bird Lake should be much easier..Add bridge like structures over the water that could be used for dwellings and retail..Of course this will never happen in this city but it is something to think about

Komeht · #8 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 4:42 AM**

Would love to see something like what Dallas is doing with the Calatrava Bridges...but I don't expect to ever see something like that here.

Hill Country · #9 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 5:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman

Put the crossings under the river like the Lincoln and Holland tunnels..If engineers can do this under the Hudson then Lady Bird Lake should be much easier..Add bridge like structures over the water that could be used for dwellings and retail..Of course this will never happen in this city but it is something to think about

We have the Waller Creek tunnel which would be big enough for traffic. I tend to agree with you though, but at least we have a precedence for a big tunnel project.

lzppjb · #10 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 5:29 AM**

What is normally the reasoning for going under a body of water rather than over it? Just wondering.

Komeht · #11 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 1:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

What is normally the reasoning for going under a body of water rather than over it? Just wondering.

Might tunnel when a bridge would interfere with shipping traffic...not really the case here.

Spaceman · #12 Posted: **Feb 28, 2013, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

What is normally the reasoning for going under a body of water rather than over it? Just wondering.

I just think the concept of structures over the lake is interesting..I know of no city in the US that has that..

KevinFromTexas · #13 Posted: **Mar 1, 2013, 1:45 AM**

Maybe not in Texas so much, but there's tons of cities with skylines next to rivers with arched bridges. Ohio and Pennsylvania are full of them. Pittsburgh has a dozen of them around it's downtown and at least two dozen around the city.

Komeht · #14 Posted: **Mar 1, 2013, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Maybe not in Texas so much, but there's tons of cities with skylines next to rivers with arched bridges. Ohio and Pennsylvania are full of them. Pittsburgh has a dozen of them around it's downtown and at least two dozen around the city.

Sure they have them up in Dallas -

And a second one just approved:

KevinFromTexas · #15 Posted: **Mar 1, 2013, 3:26 AM**

That's why I said "not so much." Dallas is just about the only one with any major bridges, other than Corpus Christi of course. Waco has a couple, but I wouldn't really call them grand. Those ones in Dallas are unlike anything in Texas. I guess our nearest similar bridge is the Pennybacker Bridge, but it isn't "in" the city.

One place where I wish we could have a bridge like that is I-35 or Mopac with improved pedestrian pathways.

lzppjb · #16 Posted: **Mar 1, 2013, 3:34 AM**

Exactly. I like arches or whatever the design is called for ones similar to these in Pittsburgh:

(in the center)

But you're right about killing views of the skyline. I'd be ok with it on Mopac, though.

KevinFromTexas · #17 Posted: **Mar 1, 2013, 4:01 AM**

^Those in the middle are suspension bridges. The others are truss bridges. There's also cable stayed bridges, which is like what the Fred Hartman Bridge is near Houston.

The Lamar bridge is one that should be replaced with a different bridge. And it's too bad they didn't use a more flashy design for the Pfluger pedestrian bridge.

Most suspension and cable stayed bridges are hundreds of feet tall and would probably overshadow our skyline. The Golden Gate Bridge for instance is 746 feet tall. There are some in Asia that are nearly 1,000 feet tall. Even that Fred Hartman Bridge near Houston is 440 feet tall. It's the tallest bridge in Texas.

Here's a video I made a few years ago crossing the Fred Hartman Bridge.

• Video Link

And someone else's from the daytime.

• Video Link

lzppjb · #18 Posted: **Mar 1, 2013, 4:04 AM**

Duh. Suspension just wasn't coming to mind. Of all the in town bridges, I dislike South First the most. It's the most boring of all.

KevinFromTexas · #19 Posted: **Mar 1, 2013, 4:20 AM**

^I love the view, though. The bridge is almost smack dab in the middle of the skyline. I love the way the skyline just grows in front of you as you get closer. It's one of my favorite views in the city.