The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: SXSW on March 13, 2017, 08:52:44 am



Title: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on March 13, 2017, 08:52:44 am
Article from the Frontier about the new pedestrian bridge concepts to replace the existing bridge.  The V2025 renewal was supposed to rehab the bridge and add an upper deck for bikes but was deemed too costly due to the age and structural integrity of the bridge.  So instead we're getting a new bridge and these are some of the concepts:

1
(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/USE-Network-Tied-2017-03-09-at-2.13.27-PM.png)

2
(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cable-Stayed-USE-2017-02-22-at-5.42.04-PM.png)

3
(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Deck-Arch-USE-2017-02-23-at-2.59.37-PM.png)

4
(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Extrados-USE-2017-02-22-at-5.44.35-PM.png)

5
(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/USE-Trapezodial-Slab-2017-03-08-at-1.38.05-PM.png)

https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/city-to-solicit-design-ideas-for-new-pedestrian-bridge-over-arkansas-river/ (https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/city-to-solicit-design-ideas-for-new-pedestrian-bridge-over-arkansas-river/)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Ibanez on March 13, 2017, 09:30:08 am
Some good designs.

Unfortunately we will get something much closer to this:

(http://i.imgur.com/VJxsIeS.jpg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on March 13, 2017, 09:31:37 am
Anyone know the functional requirements?

I know the dbl-decker version was to have the lower level for pedestrians and the top for bicyclists.
The renderings all show single-level bridges.   Are they wider to accommodate split traffic like the newer trail system?

FWIW, I like #3 the best


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on March 13, 2017, 11:03:48 am
#1 appears to show a double-decker bridge which I would assume would be split into pedestrians on one level and bikes on the other.  The others all appear to show a single level.  I personally like the idea of having the double-deck but if cost is an issue (which it is) then we'll probably end up with a single deck.  In that case I hope it's wide enough, at least double the width of the current bridge.

I like the suspension bridges but also the arched ones because they can relate to the 21st and 11th St bridges.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 13, 2017, 11:34:41 am
Double-decker would be a really good idea.  Split trails work fine, but on a bridge people often tend to hug the railings to look at downtown, take photos, eyeball fish, or whatever.  As a cyclist even slow speeds are nerve wracking because of dogs (who while on a leash can cross the entire path), people suddenly turning around, fisherman, etc.  There isn't an escape route if things go bad and sometimes your center of gravity could be over the railing.  Not a necessity, but if we are putting up a purpose made bridge to last another 100 years, it may as well be awesome.

- Pedestrians
- Cyclists
- Fisherman
- Photo ops
- Kayaks?  If we have to build new piers anyway, could be a cool opportunity to add to the kayaking envisioned.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on March 16, 2017, 09:51:48 am
FWIW, they knew the bridge was coming down about a year ago. Apparently old rail bridges are only good for villains with twirly mustaches to blow up these days.

I would guess all concepts could be double decker, or physically divided if not.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: joiei on March 21, 2017, 12:01:29 pm
Here is an original idea from a friend of mine on another site. Maybe it's the extra caffeine I've swilled today, but I'm contemplating submitting something for this -- or, at least, posting something about it now so that others will take my idea and run with it. I was envisioning a new pedestrian bridge like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, except Tulsa's could be the Art Dec-chio over Arkansas -- or something much less stupid-sounding -- with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas! Anyway, I'm excited to see what some of our area's awesome visionaries come up with.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: patric on March 21, 2017, 12:11:00 pm
FWIW, they knew the bridge was coming down about a year ago. Apparently old rail bridges are only good for villains with twirly mustaches to blow up these days.

Is restoring the historic railroad bridge completely out of the question?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on March 21, 2017, 12:38:46 pm
Here is an original idea from a friend of mine on another site. Maybe it's the extra caffeine I've swilled today, but I'm contemplating submitting something for this -- or, at least, posting something about it now so that others will take my idea and run with it. I was envisioning a new pedestrian bridge like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, except Tulsa's could be the Art Dec-chio over Arkansas -- or something much less stupid-sounding -- with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas! Anyway, I'm excited to see what some of our area's awesome visionaries come up with.

That seems like some cool discussion. What site?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on March 21, 2017, 12:49:32 pm
Is restoring the historic railroad bridge completely out of the question?

You can propose building a replica. I think that is your closest option.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on March 21, 2017, 12:50:12 pm
Here is an original idea from a friend of mine on another site. Maybe it's the extra caffeine I've swilled today, but I'm contemplating submitting something for this -- or, at least, posting something about it now so that others will take my idea and run with it. I was envisioning a new pedestrian bridge like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, except Tulsa's could be the Art Dec-chio over Arkansas -- or something much less stupid-sounding -- with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas! Anyway, I'm excited to see what some of our area's awesome visionaries come up with.

But. but. but... then you can't park in front of the store


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: johrasephoenix on March 21, 2017, 01:29:38 pm
I just looked up that bridge in Florence.  Wow.  It still amazes me how a few centuries back they could build these amazing cities with muscles and chisels while we, who can engineer space ships and nuclear submarines, are stuck with Bass Pro Shop and Chili's. 

Anyway, I heard that the bridges over the railroad downtown used to have stores on them.  Don't know if it's true but sounds cool. 


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on March 21, 2017, 01:54:48 pm
with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas!

I saw that idea on either the Tulsa World or Reddit.   but instead of local-centric shops, it was just a long REI bridge across the river.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on March 21, 2017, 01:55:52 pm
I just looked up that bridge in Florence.  Wow.  It still amazes me how a few centuries back they could build these amazing cities with muscles and chisels while we, who can engineer space ships and nuclear submarines, are stuck with Bass Pro Shop and Chili's.  

That bridge was built covered so that Royalty didn't have to mingle with the plebs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasari_Corridor


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Red Arrow on March 21, 2017, 08:15:54 pm
You can propose building a replica. I think that is your closest option.

Putting some (real) trolley rails across the river there might be a good route for a trolley to get downtown folks to both the Gathering Place and Turkey Mountain.  There would be some difficulties using the old Midland Valley R.O.W. but it is a possibility. Think trolley parks of the late 1800s.





Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TheArtist on March 21, 2017, 09:06:15 pm
Here is an original idea from a friend of mine on another site. Maybe it's the extra caffeine I've swilled today, but I'm contemplating submitting something for this -- or, at least, posting something about it now so that others will take my idea and run with it. I was envisioning a new pedestrian bridge like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, except Tulsa's could be the Art Dec-chio over Arkansas -- or something much less stupid-sounding -- with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas! Anyway, I'm excited to see what some of our area's awesome visionaries come up with.

Believe it or not back in the early oil boom years of the 20s & 30s they envisioned a Ponte Vecchio type bridge over the Arkansas River.  I wish I had saved the drawing I saw of it.  


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Conan71 on March 21, 2017, 09:10:08 pm
Putting some (real) trolley rails across the river there might be a good route for a trolley to get downtown folks to both the Gathering Place and Turkey Mountain.  There would be some difficulties using the old Midland Valley R.O.W. but it is a possibility. Think trolley parks of the late 1800s.


I like the sound of that...a lot!


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 22, 2017, 08:44:51 am
We just added a rail crossing at Southwest Blvd/244.  To go along with the 2 interstate bridges, the abandoned bridge, the SW Blvd bridge and the pedestrian bridge.  I do not believe that rail line is in use or even leased out to anyone yet.  My guess is adding the requirements to carry trains would exponentially increase the expense.'

There are a ton of awesome designs out there:
http://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/worlds-best-pedestrian-bridges/all

https://www.google.com/search?q=best+pedestrian+bridges&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY37DvqurSAhXDxVQKHXSPAksQ_AUIBigB&biw=1600&bih=771

There are some that are really high and look awesome (like the Big Dam Bridge in Little Rock, but that doesnt make much sense for this crossing).  Others have multiple access points for one span.  Still others have elements that support the bridge in interesting ways (cable stay, diagonal piers, arches, etc.).  Some have amazing covers.  Still others see a bridge that is basic, but is covered in artwork that makes it amazing.  Tons of ideas to grab, combine, and come up with something Tulsa can love.

One element I would love to see incorporated (aside from usefulness as a crossing for pedestrians and cyclists) is something to draw people to the bridge itself.  Not just a crossing.  Platforms for fishing.  Observation points. Kayaking from the middle.  A central tower that you can go up in for awesome views.  An area to rent for birthday parties... whatever.    Pick one, pick them all. 

Please, oh please, not a basic design that just gets the job done. If we are removing a century old bridge with charactor, lets add something with character. 


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on March 23, 2017, 04:18:22 pm
I vote more character. It could be a giant big mouth billy bass and I'd be okay with it. I want it to be a real focal point. The old bridge was neat but not amazing.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Red Arrow on March 23, 2017, 04:47:59 pm
We just added a rail crossing at Southwest Blvd/244.  To go along with the 2 interstate bridges, the abandoned bridge, the SW Blvd bridge and the pedestrian bridge.  I do not believe that rail line is in use or even leased out to anyone yet.  My guess is adding the requirements to carry trains would exponentially increase the expense.

A trolley is admittedly not going to happen right now.  Adding the capability to easily add a trolley later might be a reasonable expense.  Also, the requirements to add a trolley should not be as difficult to meet as providing for a train.  Trolleys run in the streets in a lot of places.  The bridge trolley to pedestrian separation could be as simple as a fence with periodic crossing points.





Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on March 23, 2017, 04:57:57 pm
A trolley is admittedly not going to happen right now.  Adding the capability to easily add a trolley later might be a reasonable expense.  Also, the requirements to add a trolley should not be as difficult to meet as providing for a train.  Trolleys run in the streets in a lot of places.  The bridge trolley to pedestrian separation could be as simple as a fence with periodic crossing points.





Technically the new rail bridge has no rails on it currently. Could run something else.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on March 24, 2017, 12:09:48 pm
I read through this sting yesterday, and took the opportunity to ride out onto the bridge later in the day.   I had not been out on the bridge since they closed the East side, and I had forgotten how cool it is out there.   I'm not an architect, and don't have time to put together a submssion, but here are a few thoughts from my time out there yesterday.

(In no order)

- A viewing platform, tower, or similar, out in the middle is a must-have.   It's such a neat perspective, and we want to draw people out onto the bridge, not just use it to get to the other side.

- Fishing, Kayaking, etc.  I love to fish and kayak, and some kind of water-level platform (or two, placed at "thirds" on the bridge) to provide water-level access would be amazingly cool.  But, I also have some concerns with this.  Right now, the "no go" cable is very close on the down-stream side of the bridge, between the bridge and dam.  Particularly in a higher-water situation, I could see this being a safety issue.  Now, if the new dam is safe to go over in an emergency, then the low platform would work.  Otherwise, for safety reasons, I don't see it happening.  (But seriously, this should be looked at hard.  Would be really cool.)

- Bridge is (obviously) way too narrow in its current form.  Even if were double decked, it's a bit more narrow than comfortable if restricted to pedestrian and/or bike per level.  My initial emotional opinion was "keep the bridge", but after riding out yesterday I agree that it is better to build a new bridge.

- Double deck, or wide single?  There are downsides to each option.  If a person is "actively" riding, as I was yesterday, then double-deck is the way to go.  Unlike the river trails, where walkers, etc, can stay to their lanes,  on the bridge I think we will see people switching sides, standing, fishing, whatever, and that's going to greatly restrict flow for cyclists.  However, what if I have commuter bike and I want to access the pedestrian level?  Could I walk it across on that level?  Again, if the bridge itself (with sightseeing, a tower, platforms, etc) is to be the actual destination,  movement on the bridge will be chaotic, not linear.   Also,  the upper (cycling) deck would provide needed shade for the pedestrian users below.  I'm leaning double-decker, but not sure.

- Style.  Admittedly, I don't have a firm opinion as there are so many interesting options.  I do think we need to consider some level of continuity with the Gathering Place and other bridges.  Some very modern looking structure, while in and of itself might be cool, would (to me) seem out of place.  I did have one thought.  Would it be possible to re-use certain sections of the trusses from the existing bridge an incorporate them in a new bridge purely for style/decoration?  This would work best with some kind of platform bridge as compared to a suspension, but would be a good way to stylistically blend the old with the new.  But again, I like the old bridge so maybe I'm being sentimental on this last point.

Just thoughts from a bike ride yesterday.



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Red Arrow on March 24, 2017, 05:11:04 pm
Would it be possible to re-use certain sections of the trusses from the existing bridge an incorporate them in a new bridge purely for style/decoration? 

Considering the age and potential corrosion issues, it may be less expensive to duplicate the trusses.  I agree that trusses look better than plain old concrete.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on March 24, 2017, 08:32:36 pm
Considering the age and potential corrosion issues, it may be less expensive to duplicate the trusses.  I agree that trusses look better than plain old concrete.

Give the old ones to a metal artist, make some big sculpture.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: johrasephoenix on March 25, 2017, 08:02:10 am
Speaking of bridges, is anything planned for the old Highway 66 bridge next to the I-244 bridge?  It always seems like it could be cool again.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on March 25, 2017, 08:28:59 pm
Speaking of bridges, is anything planned for the old Highway 66 bridge next to the I-244 bridge?  It always seems like it could be cool again.

Structurally unsafe for vehicles at the present time. There were some ideas to try to turn it into something, but there would be weight/usage limitations.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Conan71 on March 26, 2017, 09:55:09 am
Structurally unsafe for vehicles at the present time. There were some ideas to try to turn it into something, but there would be weight/usage limitations.

Structurally unsafe for pedestrians as well, IIRC.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Red Arrow on March 26, 2017, 10:17:59 am
Structurally unsafe for pedestrians as well, IIRC.

I remember it that way too.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 03, 2017, 08:20:03 am
Structurally unsafe for pedestrians as well, IIRC.

And millions of dollars to rehab to make it safe.  My hope is that if the Route 66 museum is ever built that eventually they will want to have the bridge open for pedestrians as part of the overall museum/Rt 66 plaza experience. 


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: DTowner on April 03, 2017, 02:55:57 pm
And millions of dollars to rehab to make it safe.  My hope is that if the Route 66 museum is ever built that eventually they will want to have the bridge open for pedestrians as part of the overall museum/Rt 66 plaza experience. 

I hope it makes it that long.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Hoss on April 17, 2017, 12:51:31 pm
And the four finalists....

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/vision


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on April 17, 2017, 02:08:46 pm
Quick ranking:  1,2, 4, 3

#3 I'm eliminating it straight up because it's just too narrow and confined.  By far the least useful.

#4 is pretty cool, but I just can't get with the structural elements, and I think they constrain the angled views too much.  But I like the idea of the various sections, levels, areas, etc.

#2 has promise, and I like the design, but there is no access to the river. No fishing platforms, etc.  Plus, not sure about it meandering over the dam area.

#1 still has things I'd like to see changed, but I like the island idea (access for kayaking, fishing, etc), and having a viewing platform over the rapids area.  Would love to have a lowered area out in the middle for additional river access, but that could always be added later, and the general design with the varying widths, etc, would allow for as good a combination of bike and pedestrian traffic as you are going to get without a double decker design.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: PonderInc on April 17, 2017, 02:17:06 pm
Let the nicknaming begin...

I'm not a fan of the twisted slinky and the monorail...  But who knows.  I like the BOK center a lot, and I hated that design when I saw it.  It was so much better in real life because of the way the light reflects off the building.

My main feedback is that SHADE is a requirement for any outdoor space in our climate.  No shade, no people.  So we need a design that recognizes that we have an increasingly hot and humid climate, and we need a bridge people can enjoy throughout the year.

On those rare occasions when it's cold, I appreciate the wind breaks on the north side of the bridge, but it's been so long since we had a cold winter, it's not top of mind for me.

Hoping they will also be thinking about longevity and maintenance costs.  We really don't want to be spending millions to build something that won't hold up over time.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on April 17, 2017, 02:23:42 pm
My main feedback is that SHADE is a requirement for any outdoor space in our climate.  No shade, no people.  So we need a design that recognizes that we have an increasingly hot and humid climate, and we need a bridge people can enjoy throughout the year.

On those rare occasions when it's cold, I appreciate the wind breaks on the north side of the bridge, but it's been so long since we had a cold winter, it's not top of mind for me.

Shade.  I thought of that.  That's one of the things I like about #2 that #1 doesn't have.  But, #1 is a platform proposal.  I do think it will need some shade, but it seems like that would be fairly easy to add as-needed.

As for the wind.  I'm not so worried about that.   Mostly, simply because when it is that cold there will be few if any people using the bridge.   (and I say this as someone who bikes the river trails all year round.  The wind is a bi#@$ sometimes, but it's manageable.   



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 17, 2017, 02:24:34 pm
#1 hands down

But I would prefer to see it cross the river in a straight line in the same path as the current bridge.  The lighting is the key for this one and hopefully it makes it through the inevitable VE process.  Also the deck needs to be wide enough for separated bike and jogging/pedestrian pathways.  That part is unclear and is a major concern.

(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ARPB-Finalist-1.jpg)

#4 is pretty interesting though but I just wonder what material they are proposing for the decorative fins and if it will hold up over time..

(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ARPB-Finalist-4.jpg)

I like the rail/deck design better on #4.  Pair that with the bridge design for #1 and you have a winner IMO


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: DowntownDan on April 17, 2017, 02:29:58 pm
Yeah, number 1 by far.  Number 4 has cool elements but is ugly as sin.  It would be nice if number 1 could incorporate some of those types of features without the ugly outer design.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: swake on April 17, 2017, 03:05:48 pm
I like 4, then 1.

2 and 3 are boring.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on April 17, 2017, 03:23:15 pm
4, then 1.

I saw some great other submissions that didn't make the finals. 2 and 3 are boring, and 1 is pretty bland. I want iconic and #1 from a distance could easily look like a highway bridge over any midwestern town.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: ZYX on April 17, 2017, 03:28:46 pm
#4 is beautiful and by far the most interesting.

Also, I designed a bridge in architecture school that looked a decent amount like that and always thought it would be cool to have in tulsa. It's a dream come true  ;D.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 17, 2017, 04:15:35 pm
How about #1 from the deck down with decorative/shade elements of #4?   :)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: swake on April 17, 2017, 04:22:50 pm
4, then 1.

I saw some great other submissions that didn't make the finals. 2 and 3 are boring, and 1 is pretty bland. I want iconic and #1 from a distance could easily look like a highway bridge over any midwestern town.

I'm worried about what 1 would look like as it ages.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: joiei on April 17, 2017, 08:38:58 pm
You want an iconic design, #4.  You want white bread #1 & #3


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: johrasephoenix on April 17, 2017, 10:39:23 pm
It has to have SHADE and call outs that allow for sitting, hanging out, taking pictures of downtown, ie doing things other than walking/biking from one side to the other. 

Lack of shade is why Centennial Green on 6th & Boston is never used. 


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Nik on April 18, 2017, 01:59:48 pm
Ok, so who has provided their feedback yet? I haven't, but I plan to. I liked #2 the best at first glance, but after reading the comments here, I need to look at the designs closer. I love the shade provided in #2 but I can see how it could be perceived as boring. As someone has already said, no shade on #1 concerns me.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TheArtist on April 18, 2017, 05:24:47 pm
I like 2 or 4.  The lack of shade or protection from rain on the first one is a big oversight imho.  I lean towards the fourth one for it would definitely be striking and unique, though you do see a lot of that wavy design element in architecture these days almost to the point of it being boring, (oh no not another wavy design) and this bridge could be seen as being extremely derivative.  But then again, hey nice to have something with that modern design element on it in Tulsa.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_(skyscraper)

https://archpaper.com/2016/02/arquitectonica-gets-real-wavy-new-seaside-tower-florida

http://architecturestyle.net/projects/zahner-factory-expansion

http://theluxhome.com/banq-restaurant-interior-unique-design-ceiling-restaurant-by-office-da/

etc. etc.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: swake on April 18, 2017, 07:37:02 pm
I notice that option one is Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates while four is the local firm KKT.

2 and 3 are from MAX GEARY & JAMESON SHAFFER, who seem to be students at OSU. Good for them, they have talent.

KKT does good work here in town but I would say the good money is on Michael Van Valkenburgh. I still like #4 the best.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 19, 2017, 07:09:09 am
The old bridge provided:

1. A smooth transition from the trails
2. A river crossing
3. Shade
4. Fishing areas
5. One or two small gathering places
6. and was architecturally cool by virtue of aging well
also...
7. had we gotten the renovations that were planned, it also would have been a double-decker structure that separated cyclists and pedestrians. 

Generally speaking, none  of these bridges check off all those boxes.  Certainly some have improvements here, others there, but none really amazes me.  Since we are in the conceptual phase, I'm really surprised by that.  Generally speaking,  elements are stripped away for engineering or budget reasons as we go along.  It is less likely that things are added from conceptual design to actual bridge.

#1 is low on my list because it has no shade, has "exposed aggregate" as the surface, and the design seems fairly straight forward bridge

#2 is OK.  It has shade and is a vaguely interesting design

#3 is about the same. Hard to say for sure, but it appears to give some thought to separating cyclists and pedestrians using surfaces. The lighting concept is also interesting (but I wonder if the copper would also serve as a heat radiator).

#4 is very interesting. It offers some shade, gathering places, and is the most unique design. 


So I guess I'd go with #4.  Can't say I'm blown away by any of them.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: DowntownDan on April 19, 2017, 07:39:08 am
I'd go with No. 4 if it didn't look so ridiculous from the outside.  Like a Tomorrowland design of puffball weirdness.  It'll look as bad as the ORU super futuristic nonsense design.  It otherwise has the most unique features.  I wish there was some middle ground.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 19, 2017, 07:41:32 am
I like 2 or 4.  The lack of shade or protection from rain on the first one is a big oversight imho.  I lean towards the fourth one for it would definitely be striking and unique, though you do see a lot of that wavy design element in architecture these days almost to the point of it being boring, (oh no not another wavy design) and this bridge could be seen as being extremely derivative.  But then again, hey nice to have something with that modern design element on it in Tulsa.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_(skyscraper)

https://archpaper.com/2016/02/arquitectonica-gets-real-wavy-new-seaside-tower-florida

http://architecturestyle.net/projects/zahner-factory-expansion

http://theluxhome.com/banq-restaurant-interior-unique-design-ceiling-restaurant-by-office-da/

etc. etc.

I also like 4 but wish it could incorporate more shade. I love the idea of amphitheater and other places people can hang out on the bridge. I think those would need something for shade though.

Yes the concept of wavy/irregular rounded shapes might be overdone in a lot of places, this look would be pretty unique here and unique overall for a bridge. The renderings look pretty neat to me. From the river view, it looks pretty wild and intriguing. From the Gathering place, this could be a fantastic complementary design to draw in crowds. It looks like more than just a bridge (and is!). If they can get something like this done for the budget, I would be all for that.

1 is nice but has the potential to look completely ordinary and somewhat dull. It looks like a bridge. Might be the most practical and affordable though.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 19, 2017, 08:10:53 am
Link to page asking for comments with link for providing comments:
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/vision (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/vision)

Direct link to submit your comments on each bridge finalist:
https://qtrial2017q2az1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2hQyeY4S8Qc46dD (https://qtrial2017q2az1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2hQyeY4S8Qc46dD)



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on April 19, 2017, 08:43:02 am
I'd go with No. 4 if it didn't look so ridiculous from the outside.  Like a Tomorrowland design of puffball weirdness.  It'll look as bad as the ORU super futuristic nonsense design.  It otherwise has the most unique features.  I wish there was some middle ground.

That is my overt and main issue with #4.   Even in their mock-ups, when standing at an angle to the bridge from the bank, you can't see onto the bridge.  Which conversely means that when you are on the bridge you can't see out, except for relatively straight down and up river.  I see this as a major shortcoming.   It by-far has the more interesting overall features, and the style itself is different enough that I could get over it, or maybe even grow to like it, but if the views from the bridge are severely restricted then it's a no-go for me. 

I agree with the shade issue with #1, but don't see why it would be that hard to add cantilevered awning-type shade areas intermittently down the bridge without changing the overall design, and these could be added up-front or later as needed.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 19, 2017, 10:01:21 am
Honestly the way #1 is designed you could extend the diagonal supports below the deck (above the arches) and create some shade areas.  Similar to what they are showing at the deck view on #4 which is beautiful.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 19, 2017, 12:44:24 pm
That is my overt and main issue with #4.   Even in their mock-ups, when standing at an angle to the bridge from the bank, you can't see onto the bridge.  Which conversely means that when you are on the bridge you can't see out, except for relatively straight down and up river.  I see this as a major shortcoming.   It by-far has the more interesting overall features, and the style itself is different enough that I could get over it, or maybe even grow to like it, but if the views from the bridge are severely restricted then it's a no-go for me. 

Go look at the renderings of #4 again, especially on page 1. The walk paths are on top of the fins/shapes mostly. There are a couple short parts where the view is obscured, but most of the bridge will have a completely unabated view, especially from the West side. You will be able to see onto the bridge perhaps even better than the current pedestrian bridge which blocks the view quite a bit from the bank. The view where you see only shapes is from on the water,  below the bridge.

Yes, they will need to optimize which portions are somewhat blocked and covered (and minimize those areas - and open up best views to the Gathering Place), but most of the bridge design shows an open view so it seems like a good start. Having at least partially obscured view, especially at the entrance, will help to create a sense of space and distinguish the bridge as a place rather than just a path.

Having views in a few places obscured makes the parts where you can see more special. If the entire bridge is unblocked and plain, it will be like the 21st street bridge without cars - i.e. not that interesting. That bridge has completely unabated views and yet I never see groups congregating there.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: LeGenDz on April 19, 2017, 01:21:35 pm
Wish we would have been able to see all of the submissions..

Here is one of my buddies:

(http://i.imgur.com/4oj18nu.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/R5bjpyI.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/EwXOLp2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/sFQMTm6.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/hVbA6Sh.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/lqIbIOz.jpg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: AngieB on April 19, 2017, 02:40:51 pm
Go look at the renderings of #4 again, especially on page 1. The walk paths are on top of the fins/shapes mostly. There are a couple short parts where the view is obscured, but most of the bridge will have a completely unabated view, especially from the West side. You will be able to see onto the bridge perhaps even better than the current pedestrian bridge which blocks the view quite a bit from the bank. The view where you see only shapes is from on the water,  below the bridge.

Yes, they will need to optimize which portions are somewhat blocked and covered (and minimize those areas - and open up best views to the Gathering Place), but most of the bridge design shows an open view so it seems like a good start. Having at least partially obscured view, especially at the entrance, will help to create a sense of space and distinguish the bridge as a place rather than just a path.

Having views in a few places obscured makes the parts where you can see more special. If the entire bridge is unblocked and plain, it will be like the 21st street bridge without cars - i.e. not that interesting. That bridge has completely unabated views and yet I never see groups congregating there.

You're making me reconsider #4.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: swake on April 19, 2017, 03:56:40 pm
Go look at the renderings of #4 again, especially on page 1. The walk paths are on top of the fins/shapes mostly. There are a couple short parts where the view is obscured, but most of the bridge will have a completely unabated view, especially from the West side. You will be able to see onto the bridge perhaps even better than the current pedestrian bridge which blocks the view quite a bit from the bank. The view where you see only shapes is from on the water,  below the bridge.

Yes, they will need to optimize which portions are somewhat blocked and covered (and minimize those areas - and open up best views to the Gathering Place), but most of the bridge design shows an open view so it seems like a good start. Having at least partially obscured view, especially at the entrance, will help to create a sense of space and distinguish the bridge as a place rather than just a path.

Having views in a few places obscured makes the parts where you can see more special. If the entire bridge is unblocked and plain, it will be like the 21st street bridge without cars - i.e. not that interesting. That bridge has completely unabated views and yet I never see groups congregating there.

Yeah, the view with all the fins is from underneath.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on April 19, 2017, 08:24:39 pm
#4 or bust, I think is where we ended up.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Weatherdemon on April 20, 2017, 07:28:25 am
1- Good: Open, winding. Bad: No shade... none. Yikes.
2- Good: Winding, open, some shade. Bad: Looks like a monorail.
3- Good: Shaded, distinguishable difference in people and bike areas. Strangely reminiscent of existing bridge. Bad: Straight, plain bridge. No real area to get away from the main traffic way.
4- Good: Generally interesting design.  Amphitheater area is definitely interesting. From a distance the design looks like a shelf cloud rolling in. Bad: Very little shade. Are there lights?



My rankings:
1) 2 - Assuming it has lights... I like the design as it's open and winding with gathering areas but I'm not fan of monorail look but do like the shady areas.
2) 3 - Nice, open, reminiscent of old bridge but it has no gathering areas away from main traffic way even though it has defined biking/ped paths and is covered.

Both designs 2 and 3 seems to have tie in's to the old bridge with a modern twist.

3) 4 - If it had more shade I might be in but it will be super bright and super hot in the summer and just super bright the rest of the year. For some reason it reminds me a little of the CoU with the flower beds and benches and the wood keeps the feel of the old bridge a little. Mini amphitheater is a nice touch.
4) 1 - Nice, open, winding, but would be so bright and hot in the summer it would be brutal. Not very safety conscious to have a kid playing on the rocks by the kayak plume with no life vest.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 20, 2017, 08:20:15 am
Any bridge that is built will have a connection to the new island/whitewater flume that was part of the Vision renewal.  What is the timeline for that to be built?  I would assume that would need to be done first along with the work on the Zink Dam before the new bridge is built, right? 

(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/ec/7eca6292-f898-56c9-9471-cb2ccd8e687f/56c277c4d23a7.image.jpg?resize=300%2C213)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on April 20, 2017, 09:14:36 am
Well,  I'm moving #4 up to the top two, with #1.    I did have another look at the level of the pedestrian deck, and agree that my initial concerns regarding visibility from the bridge itself have been alleviated a bit with a closer look.    And I do like all the "stuff" out on the bridge itself.  However, I still have two main issues with it:  Shade and general style.

Shade-wise, it really doesn't have much more shade, if any, than number one.   Could it be added?  I'm sure it could, but so could shade on #1, and more easily and cleanly on #1 I think.

Style-wise, I'm trying.  I really am.  It wouldn't kill me if this one is chosen, but it just doesn't work for me.  Doesn't fit in, etc.   I would be "iconic", but not sure that is always a good thing.

So I'm going #1, then #4, with a major suggestion that additional shade be added to both.



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: bacjz00 on April 21, 2017, 01:37:38 pm
I'm a little disappointed that neither of the 2 designs which had "iconic" towers or arches made the final cut as I believe a bridge that can be spotted from far away would be a very good focal point and a draw for visitors to Tulsa.   All 4 of the final designs are very low profile and IMO none of them are going to be very visible from anywhere other than the immediate area.   4 has the most potential maybe and is more unique, but honestly it's just a little too out there for my tastes.   I dunno.  Just wouldn't have minded seeing a little more height or "grandness" in the final designs


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 21, 2017, 02:19:08 pm
I'm a little disappointed that neither of the 2 designs which had "iconic" towers or arches made the final cut as I believe a bridge that can be spotted from far away would be a very good focal point and a draw for visitors to Tulsa.   All 4 of the final designs are very low profile and IMO none of them are going to be very visible from anywhere other than the immediate area.   4 has the most potential maybe and is more unique, but honestly it's just a little too out there for my tastes.   I dunno.  Just wouldn't have minded seeing a little more height or "grandness" in the final designs

Hey there's still hope for that with the future 41st St bridge.  Who knows when/if that will get built though.   :)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 21, 2017, 02:19:23 pm
I'm a little disappointed that neither of the 2 designs which had "iconic" towers or arches made the final cut as I believe a bridge that can be spotted from far away would be a very good focal point and a draw for visitors to Tulsa.   All 4 of the final designs are very low profile and IMO none of them are going to be very visible from anywhere other than the immediate area.   4 has the most potential maybe and is more unique, but honestly it's just a little too out there for my tastes.   I dunno.  Just wouldn't have minded seeing a little more height or "grandness" in the final designs

They may have been trying to avoid interfering with the views of downtown from the South(west).


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on April 21, 2017, 04:41:41 pm
I'm a little disappointed that neither of the 2 designs which had "iconic" towers or arches made the final cut as I believe a bridge that can be spotted from far away would be a very good focal point and a draw for visitors to Tulsa.   All 4 of the final designs are very low profile and IMO none of them are going to be very visible from anywhere other than the immediate area.   4 has the most potential maybe and is more unique, but honestly it's just a little too out there for my tastes.   I dunno.  Just wouldn't have minded seeing a little more height or "grandness" in the final designs

Here are a couple I liked and didn't make it:

Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU

KKT Design #2 (which I like better than the one that got through): https://t.co/BqMFzieHiO


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: AngieB on April 23, 2017, 09:22:29 am
Here are a couple I liked and didn't make it:

Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU

KKT Design #2 (which I like better than the one that got through): https://t.co/BqMFzieHiO

I like both of those better than any in the final four! Maybe they were out of budget?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on April 23, 2017, 08:07:07 pm
I like both of those better than any in the final four! Maybe they were out of budget?

Only thing I can guess.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 23, 2017, 08:57:38 pm
Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU

This would have nicely complemented The Gathering Place's land bridges....


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Weatherdemon on April 24, 2017, 07:50:08 am
Tri-Arch was really, really nice. Tying in the new, the old, and providing shade and sun.
I can't believe it didn't make it.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on April 24, 2017, 08:16:05 am
Tri-Arch was really, really nice. Tying in the new, the old, and providing shade and sun.
I can't believe it didn't make it.

$$$


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Vision 2025 on April 24, 2017, 09:47:28 am
$$$
++ but way cool!


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 24, 2017, 10:15:48 am
I hadn't seen this night-time rendering of #4.  Starting to like this one more but want to know more about the material selection for the decorative fins.  I'll guess we'll know soon..

(http://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/ed39acf7-6772-490a-a2c5-363c7d540e83-original.jpeg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2017, 11:02:32 am
Looks 'unkempt'.  Disjointed and not quite finished.

Not elegant or pretty at all.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Ibanez on April 24, 2017, 11:18:16 am
Looks 'unkempt'.  Disjointed and not quite finished.

Not elegant or pretty at all.


I overheard someone discussing this at a downtown bar over the weekend. They kept calling it "The Glowing Earthworm Bridge"


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 24, 2017, 12:05:24 pm
Looks 'unkempt'.  Disjointed and not quite finished.

Not elegant or pretty at all.


I think it looks awesome at night. The lighting and reflection would really make it stand out. That is a blurry image. It looks far more refined in the better-quality image. It could probably use some refinement to make it look a bit more wavy and smooth at some points, but the concept really stands out.

This one is maybe slightly better quality (mostly just scaled so you can see it without it being as blurry):
https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3 (https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 24, 2017, 12:14:25 pm
Here are a couple I liked and didn't make it:

Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU

KKT Design #2 (which I like better than the one that got through): https://t.co/BqMFzieHiO

The Tri-arch one was an amazing concept. It does look expensive. Looks sort of like some of the things they've done with bridges and parks along the river in Brooklyn.

Speaking of NYC, it would be neat if the design could incorporate some of the things they did for the High Line in NYC: https://www.google.com/search?q=high+line+nyc&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju5qT7173TAhUH64MKHawzCHAQ_AUICCgB&biw=1478&bih=953#imgrc=_ (https://www.google.com/search?q=high+line+nyc&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju5qT7173TAhUH64MKHawzCHAQ_AUICCgB&biw=1478&bih=953#imgrc=_)
It might be one of the best pedestrian bridges in the world. It incorporated an old raised rail tracks and turned them into a brilliant walking path lined with green space and lots of common areas.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Townsend on April 24, 2017, 12:23:03 pm
I overheard someone discussing this at a downtown bar over the weekend. They kept calling it "The Glowing Earthworm Bridge"

And that is what I will see going forward.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 24, 2017, 12:26:41 pm
I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: swake on April 24, 2017, 12:38:56 pm
I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.

There's water in the river now. Lots of it.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 24, 2017, 01:32:26 pm
I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.

Even during dry season there will be water in the river at this location once they permanently fix the dam (which isn't rendered).  I don't know how that affects the rocky area to the south if it will look the same or not depending on water flow.  

Vision 2025 or someone knowledgeable, what is the construction timeline for the Zink Dam improvements, whitewater flume and this new pedestrian bridge?  


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2017, 01:34:13 pm
I think it looks awesome at night. The lighting and reflection would really make it stand out. That is a blurry image. It looks far more refined in the better-quality image. It could probably use some refinement to make it look a bit more wavy and smooth at some points, but the concept really stands out.

This one is maybe slightly better quality (mostly just scaled so you can see it without it being as blurry):
https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3 (https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3)


Tri-Arch and option 2 are both much better ideas.



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2017, 01:35:11 pm
There's water in the river now. Lots of it.


If we had a canal system, we could be storing up some of that water for future use.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on April 24, 2017, 02:09:49 pm
I think it looks awesome at night. The lighting and reflection would really make it stand out. That is a blurry image. It looks far more refined in the better-quality image. It could probably use some refinement to make it look a bit more wavy and smooth at some points, but the concept really stands out.

This one is maybe slightly better quality (mostly just scaled so you can see it without it being as blurry):
https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3 (https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3)

I guess I'm still very, very dubious regarding this whole design.  How would the lighting shown affect night visibility from the bridge?  If I am out on the bridge at night, is the glow going to detract from the view of downtown, etc?   And, really, do we want to look at a glow-worm across the river every night?  Artsy?  Yes. Cool?  Yes.  Practical for everyday?  Not so sure.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on April 24, 2017, 04:00:23 pm
I guess I'm still very, very dubious regarding this whole design.  How would the lighting shown affect night visibility from the bridge?  If I am out on the bridge at night, is the glow going to detract from the view of downtown, etc?   And, really, do we want to look at a glow-worm across the river every night?  Artsy?  Yes. Cool?  Yes.  Practical for everyday?  Not so sure.

1. I'm sure it's pretty easy to point a light away from the pedestrians (ask Patric)
2. <1% of the people looking at the bridge in a given day are actually on it.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: johrasephoenix on April 24, 2017, 08:18:18 pm
I'm just tickled at how awesome this park is going to be. Sometimes I wish the BA didn't exist so the park could be right where downtown meets the Arkansas, but regardless this is going to be so freaking cool. 


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: PonderInc on April 24, 2017, 10:23:26 pm
To everyone who wants lots of fancy lighting, please spend some time by the river in the summertime.  EVERY light bulb near the river attracts bugs, and thus, they also attract an impressive number of spiderwebs.  Anything that is glowing at night will be laced with spiderwebs.

If you've ever lived at Westport or spent much time at night on the old bridge or along the river trails, you know what I mean.  Ducking under spiderwebs gets really annoying after a while.  Spiderwebs in hair is even worse. 

I would recommend being cautious about the lighting thing. 

Plus, I vaguely recall another bridge design that had really cool lights that set off the artwork along the bridge....hmmmm... did that one survive a year before it failed and was deemed too expensive to replace?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: AngieB on April 25, 2017, 08:03:37 am
To everyone who wants lots of fancy lighting, please spend some time by the river in the summertime.  EVERY light bulb near the river attracts bugs, and thus, they also attract an impressive number of spiderwebs.  Anything that is glowing at night will be laced with spiderwebs.

If you've ever lived at Westport or spent much time at night on the old bridge or along the river trails, you know what I mean.  Ducking under spiderwebs gets really annoying after a while.  Spiderwebs in hair is even worse. 

I would recommend being cautious about the lighting thing. 

Plus, I vaguely recall another bridge design that had really cool lights that set off the artwork along the bridge....hmmmm... did that one survive a year before it failed and was deemed too expensive to replace?

I mentioned the spider problem on the feedback survey. Unless someone sweeps daily, it's going to get out of control, just like the current bridge.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Weatherdemon on April 25, 2017, 08:05:52 am

If we had a canal system, we could be storing up some of that water for future use.


Or a big dam upstream. wait...


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2017, 08:20:56 am

Tri-Arch and option 2 are both much better ideas.



Yes, a $100,000 car is going to be a much better car than a $30,000 car. They did cost-analysis on the top-10 designs and that included the Tri-Arch one. Apparently it was the one of the most expensive and far out of the range of this project. It would've been nice to see them make a cheaper version of this, but probably would've eliminated many of the features that made it so awesome.

Cost is a key part of design. If we assume unlimited funds, the bridge could be extremely awesome and blow all 4 of these finalists away. The  wave one is unique and has a lot of interesting useful features compared to other finalists.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2017, 08:29:50 am
To everyone who wants lots of fancy lighting, please spend some time by the river in the summertime.  EVERY light bulb near the river attracts bugs, and thus, they also attract an impressive number of spiderwebs.  Anything that is glowing at night will be laced with spiderwebs.

If you've ever lived at Westport or spent much time at night on the old bridge or along the river trails, you know what I mean.  Ducking under spiderwebs gets really annoying after a while.  Spiderwebs in hair is even worse. 

I would recommend being cautious about the lighting thing. 

Plus, I vaguely recall another bridge design that had really cool lights that set off the artwork along the bridge....hmmmm... did that one survive a year before it failed and was deemed too expensive to replace?

Good points. With whichever design wins, I wonder if it would help if they can keep it lit certain times, perhaps only on weekends or just a few hours per night (say 8-10pm in summer, 6-10 pm in winter).

LED lighting attacts fewer bugs so that could help. I wonder how much LED lighting helps - I haven't noticed a crazy amount bugs on the new LED lights on the trails but a whole bridge of lights would be completely different scenario. Having a couple modes would be neat (1 for bare lighting for lighting path and another fully on for special occasions/busier times).


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2017, 08:36:51 am
Yes, a $100,000 car is going to be a much better car than a $30,000 car. They did cost-analysis on the top-10 designs and that included the Tri-Arch one. Apparently it was the one of the most expensive and far out of the range of this project. It would've been nice to see them make a cheaper version of this, but probably would've eliminated many of the features that made it so awesome.

Cost is a key part of design. If we assume unlimited funds, the bridge could be extremely awesome and blow all 4 of these finalists away. The  wave one is unique and has a lot of interesting useful features compared to other finalists.


Ha!   Sometimes - at least one would hope.  But then I have driven some nice BMW's and Mercedes and really weren't $70k better than a Lexus/Merc/Subaru!  Some tinsel and random, stray pieces of high gloss trim can really put a glare in people's eyes.  And as much as I like Tesla, I don't think the one I want is worth $140,000 either.


True - cost is always a trade off factor.  The glow worm seems overly complex - over thought.  Maybe we should just wait and get some more ideas.  Just because you have a batch of ideas doesn't mean you have to compromise on a bad one - what would be the rush that would require "settling"?   Keep looking....




Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: DowntownDan on April 25, 2017, 09:19:18 am
I still like 1, and 3 is growing on me.  3 can be considered "iconic" in that it resembles the current structure.  It also is shaded throughout.  I'd probably still lean towards 1 with the hope that they can incorporate some shade features, but 3 works too.  I'm convinced that 4 doesn't work.  It's ugly and weird, doesn't have shade, and I honestly don't think that people would visit an amphitheater on the bridge with the Gathering Place just a few steps away.  The bridge to me is for running, biking, and maybe a stroll for a view of the skyline or water.  I don't see people gathering on the bridge for long periods of time, which is why I'm leaning towards 1 even without shade features, though I think shade features could be incorporated without much cost increase, and I would hope they'd consider it. 


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on April 25, 2017, 10:08:09 am
I mentioned the spider problem on the feedback survey. Unless someone sweeps daily, it's going to get out of control, just like the current bridge.

That's a good point.  Lots of spiders in those steel rafters at the current bridge during the summer.  Go to any lake or river during summer in the Southern U.S. and you'll see the same thing...water attracts bugs which attract spiders.  #1 wouldn't have that issue but would not have enough shade during the day.  Hmm..


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Hoss on May 01, 2017, 01:33:32 pm
Finalists narrowed to 2...

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/design-for-arkansas-river-pedestrian-bridge-narrowed-to-two-finalists


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on May 01, 2017, 04:02:16 pm
14,000 feedback comments, 30 days... ready, set,...


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on June 04, 2017, 04:28:53 pm
Bridge design selected:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/source-gateway-bridge-design-chosen-for-new-arkansas-river-pedestrian/article_984da3c0-d3da-50f8-9d76-3a459afe955b.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/source-gateway-bridge-design-chosen-for-new-arkansas-river-pedestrian/article_984da3c0-d3da-50f8-9d76-3a459afe955b.html)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Tulsa Zephyr on June 05, 2017, 05:40:28 am
Now, if we only had a flag... ;)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on June 05, 2017, 07:30:12 am
Now, if we only had a flag... ;)

Is it just me, or were the flag and bridge selection processes nearly identical.

1) Lots of submissions
2) committee narrows choices to 3
3) public votes for one of the 3

bridge:  I'm fond of the current bridge but I'll vote for x  (cost to taxpayers:  $millions-o-dollars)
flag:  what the hell's wrong with our current flag?!  What a waste of tax money.   What a sham selection process!  #flagoutrage  (cost to taxpayers:  $0)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: RecycleMichael on June 05, 2017, 07:36:03 am
The three flag designs picked by the committee sucked. The two bridge designs picked by the committee were cool.

Big difference in results.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on June 05, 2017, 08:00:53 am
Is it just me, or were the flag and bridge selection processes nearly identical.

1) Lots of submissions
2) committee narrows choices to 3
3) public votes for one of the 3

bridge:  I'm fond of the current bridge but I'll vote for x  (cost to taxpayers:  $millions-o-dollars)
flag:  what the hell's wrong with our current flag?!  What a waste of tax money.   What a sham selection process!  #flagoutrage  (cost to taxpayers:  $0)

The important differentiator, which you allude to in your (correct) "what the hell's wrong with our current flag?" comment is that there has never been any real question that we need a bridge.   Like a lot of others, I would have liked to keep the old bridge.  But as that one was coming down one way or the other, we need a new bridge.  Then its simply a matter of going through the process.   Also, I think by allowing public comment on the finalists and giving the architects a chance to address those concerns, the committee greatly improved the overall process.  It allowed for increased public input and engagement/acceptance of the final selection.

I really don't care one way or the other as to whether we need a new flag.  But if we are going to have one, we need better options, and better/more public input on the process.










Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on June 06, 2017, 02:27:55 pm
The bridge designs were all identifiable as bridges.

The bridge process involved a redesign round, so did the Orlando flag program we modeled ourselves after, but Tulsa's flag program didn't.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 29, 2017, 11:51:40 am

Quote
Pedestrian bridge cost estimate more than $23.2 million city has allocated for the project

Building the new bridge could cost $2 million to $7 million more, but final figure could change


The latest cost estimate for construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the Arkansas River is about $2 million to $7 million more than the city has allocated for the project, according to figures provided Tuesday by the city of Tulsa.

The estimate, which ranges from $25 million to $30 million, covers the projected cost to build the base model of the Gateway Bridge. The figure is expected to change by the time final plans for the bridge are completed next fall.

The pedestrian bridge, designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates — the same company that designed A Gathering Place for Tulsa park — was selected by a bridge design committee appointed by Mayor G.T. Bynum.

The bridge will be built at approximately 29th Street and Riverside Drive and connect to the west bank of the Arkansas River.

Not included in the cost estimate are the wooden deck, vegetation, shading and other design elements that were part of the rendering on display in June when the winning bridge design was announced.

In making the announcement, Bynum said the city would not spend more than the $24.5 million it has allocated for the project and that it would look to the private sector if additional funds were needed. In fact, the mayor asked the finalists in the bridge design competition to provide two designs — one that could be built for $24.5 million and one that could be built for $35 million.

“We have a world-class bridge if we don’t add another dime to this,” Bynum said at the time.

Since that pronouncement, the city has spent approximately $1.3 million on design work for the project, leaving $23.2 million for construction.

Nick Doctor, the city’s chief of community development and policy, said a lot of value engineering remains to be done on the project to bring it within the city’s budget.

“There is still a great deal of work to do to refine those numbers and bring them down,” Doctor said.

Asked what the city would get for $25 million to $30 million, Henry Som de Cerff, design engineering manager for the city, said the bridge would have iconic steel arches and a concrete deck.

“But in terms of any aesthetic lighting, shade structure, seating structures, I believe those would not be present,” he said.

Som de Cerff stressed, however, that the bridge design is far from complete and that he is hopeful the city will be able to fund not only the base design but amenities on the deck as well.

“At this point it is a concept-level design,” he said. “As we design it more closely, we may find more saving.”


Som de Cerff said a more precise cost estimate will be presented to Bynum and other members of the Pedestrian Bridge Selection Committee in the spring. It will then be up to the committee to determine how to proceed.

Doctor said the city won’t know whether it needs to raise private money — and how much — for the project until it has a more definitive cost estimate.

“We need that information to know what is being added and what it will cost,” he said. “We have to have realistic numbers.”

Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates worked with the city for about a year to come up with a pedestrian bridge design before Bynum opened the process to the public in March. The city received 234 design submissions.

The pedestrian bridge is expected to take 18 to 24 months to build once construction begins.

The city actually budgeted $27.5 million for the pedestrian bridge project, but $3 million of that has been set aside for contingency. The three major funding sources are the Improve Our Tulsa capital improvements program ($7.7 million); a federal TIGER grant ($4.7 million); and Vision Tulsa sales tax ($15 million).

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/pedestrian-bridge-cost-estimate-more-than-million-city-has-allocated/article_e9891de7-b593-531e-b74e-0582aea46b88.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/pedestrian-bridge-cost-estimate-more-than-million-city-has-allocated/article_e9891de7-b593-531e-b74e-0582aea46b88.html)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 29, 2017, 12:05:42 pm
Not included in the cost estimate are the wooden deck, vegetation, shading and other design elements that were part of the rendering on display in June when the winning bridge design was announced.

...

Asked what the city would get for $25 million to $30 million, Henry Som de Cerff, design engineering manager for the city, said the bridge would have iconic steel arches and a concrete deck.

“But in terms of any aesthetic lighting, shade structure, seating structures, I believe those would not be present,” he said.



So, it will cost $2-$7 million more than planned to build a bare-bones bridge with almost none of the characteristics that led that bridge to win in the first place. It will be $35 million (at least) to get a design anything close to the rendering.

So why did we even vote for a design if we get none of the things that made that design attractive? So We pay up to $7 million over the stated budget to get a bare concrete bridge with no seating, shade or lighting! It will be far worse than the existing pedestrian bridge. All for $30 million dollars! The city has spend $1.3 million on the design. What a failure! You'd think the Gathering Place designers would be better at estimating costs.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Townsend on November 29, 2017, 12:32:44 pm

TULSA!

(http://www.semissourian.com/photos/12/08/08/1208083-L.jpg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 29, 2017, 12:34:02 pm
The city once again has proven that the only thing it does at a high level is incompetence.

Serious question: Has Bynum made anything better? Can someone point to something he has improved over the previous 2 mayors? Seems like he has just taken everything and made it a bit worse or the same while acting like he is some sort of great compromiser/negotiator. See: 71st and Riverside parkland development, Tulsa Flag, BMX/fairgrounds fiasco which wasn't his fault but still a bad look, crime rates continue to rise, terrible Amazon pitch, and the Oh so very helpful statement that "Greatest issue facing Tulsa is racial disparity".  

No, the greatest issue isn't terrible education, inadequate road funding and a lack of high-end jobs, it is "racial disparity". How does he propose we fix that? Tax the heck out of all the white people and make them poorer so everyone can live a similarly poor life?  Has he been to some of the poorer neighborhoods all over, but especially West Tulsa, full of poor white people? There was no outrage about the white man with a hammer and another unarmed who were killed by police. Maybe that is in line with a new mayoral executive order - for every 1 black person police shoot, they must shoot at least 2 white people (which is basically how the stats are anyways, actually closer to 4 to 1, but it's that 1 who brings in Jessie Jackson and CNN).


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: MostSeriousness on November 29, 2017, 01:21:12 pm
You've seen Tulsa's Amazon pitch? Share?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 29, 2017, 01:34:32 pm
The city once again has proven that the only thing it does at a high level is incompetence.

Serious question: Has Bynum made anything better? Can someone point to something he has improved over the previous 2 mayors? Seems like he has just taken everything and made it a bit worse or the same while acting like he is some sort of great compromiser/negotiator.



Doesn't seem to be living up to his hype.  And certainly not expectations.  Oh, wait - I have no expectations from him or Dooby or any of them so far, so I guess they are fulfilling those expectations perfectly.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 pm
The city once again has proven that the only thing it does at a high level is incompetence.

Serious question: Has Bynum made anything better? Can someone point to something he has improved over the previous 2 mayors? Seems like he has just taken everything and made it a bit worse or the same while acting like he is some sort of great compromiser/negotiator. See: 71st and Riverside parkland development, Tulsa Flag, BMX/fairgrounds fiasco which wasn't his fault but still a bad look, crime rates continue to rise, terrible Amazon pitch, and the Oh so very helpful statement that "Greatest issue facing Tulsa is racial disparity".  


  • 71st and Riverside:  inherited turd.  how would you like him to polish it for you?
  • Tulsa Flag:  Private venture.   You think the mayor should get involved?
  • BMX:  Tulsa county, not the mayor.   Wasn't bynum involved with the new site selection?
  • crime rates:  not enough warm fuzzy from the mayor, should he be patrolling the street?
  • terrible Amazon pitch:  apparently you have inside info
  • Greatest issue facing Tulsa is racial disparity:  you got a problem with that?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 29, 2017, 04:42:06 pm
  • 71st and Riverside:  inherited turd.  how would you like him to polish it for you?

Side with the people. Most people do not want the generic outdoor retail development to go in there. Bynum seemed to side with the people before he was in office and then claimed having it built was a good compromise. The developer would still gets the land for a tiny fraction of what it's worth.

  • Tulsa Flag:  Private venture.   You think the mayor should get involved?

Yes. The "City of Tulsa" flag is not private. Sure citizens spurned on the effort, but the official change needs to be pushed by leadership. He claims to be different and wanting to bring something new to Tulsa. This is an opportunity for that and to show some leadership. There were naysayers but I bet the vast majority of people would be ok with changing to the new flag. Maybe tell them to reopen voting for a much longer amount of time to get more votes. Or something. Work out a deal to change it. The new one is very nice and something people are rallying behind.

  • BMX:  Tulsa county, not the mayor.   Wasn't bynum involved with the new site selection?

It was a terrible waste of fairground space to dismantle it and not work out a deal with BMX. Rather than abandoning plans to build there, the mayor should've just used the new site as leverage to get the county to work it out. It was possible. The new BMX location would've been much better to be used as something else more mixed-use considering its proximity to downtown (It has had several more interesting proposals. Eventually something better would likely work). The fairgrounds are a far better place for a big BMX facility that doesn't really help walkability.

  • crime rates:  not enough warm fuzzy from the mayor, should he be patrolling the street?

You are oh so funny!!! Or maybe you're just a clown who doesn't understand what a mayor is. Did he not run on improving public safety and better management of resources? So far things are seemingly getting worse. Statistically, this is one of the worst years for crime in a long time. That ultimately falls on the mayor.

  • terrible Amazon pitch:  apparently you have inside info

His interview about it posted on the Amazon thread was terrible. If he wasn't far more polished and convincing by that point, it is almost certain his official pitch was pretty bad.


  • Greatest issue facing Tulsa is racial disparity:  you got a problem with that?

Yes because it is not even close to true. Most would say education is the #1 issue and poverty is #2. Health and crime are massive problems also. Racial disparity might be top-100 or top-50 but not even remotely close to the very top. Education is in crisis mode right now and that is a huge driving force behind all of the other issues so it should be a top priority.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 29, 2017, 05:05:55 pm
  • Greatest issue facing Tulsa is racial disparity:  you got a problem with that?


Yes because it is not even close to true. Most would say education is the #1 issue and poverty is #2. Health and crime are massive problems also. Racial disparity might be top-100 or top-50 but not even remotely close to the very top. Education is in crisis mode right now and that is a huge driving force behind all of the other issues so it should be a top priority.

Also, if they mayor truly believes that, that means he will think that any kind of "Social Justice" victory his administration has will be a victory for him he can tout as some kind of achievement (like proclaiming city contractors aren't allowed to discriminate based on orientation... which is not really enforceable and is probably already the case... just a proclamation so he can act like he did something). In reality, most of those types of things do little for helping anyone.

Despite all the supposed symbolic "victories" for people of color through the Obama era, it appears black poverty is as bad as it ever has been in recent history and home ownership is at a 50-year low! So far worse off in many ways than before the Equal-Opportunity and PC culture that aimed to improve equality. A mayor who focuses on those types of things might just be wasting his time and is almost certainly pandering for votes.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: ZYX on November 30, 2017, 01:30:15 am
Donald, chill out.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 30, 2017, 08:20:40 am
Donald, chill out.

Another funny guy. I did not vote for Trump. So anyone who says they don't like the brown-nosing politics and lack of achievements of certain politicians is "Donald". I'm surprised you didn't just straight up call me hitler considering I probably hurt your feelings.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 30, 2017, 08:27:32 am
Donald, chill out.


And that's your only reprisal to facts you don't like. The mayor is not living up to expectations. The PC/Equal Opportunity Act ways he touts have not done anything to help boost the black population financially in the US at all and they are near a 50-year low financially. Turns out giving groups of people a pacifier doesn't help them grow up but can get you elected. And now we're left with a mayor who is messing up the largest project he has dealt with to date as mayor in a major way and we might get a $25 million plain concrete bridge.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TeeDub on November 30, 2017, 08:38:03 am

$1.3 million to find out the budget wasn't even close?

If it was contractors, someone should be fired.   If it was in house "costs" using city staff, then I care a lot less.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: ZYX on November 30, 2017, 10:27:41 am
Another funny guy. I did not vote for Trump. So anyone who says they don't like the brown-nosing politics and lack of achievements of certain politicians is "Donald". I'm surprised you didn't just straight up call me hitler considering I probably hurt your feelings.

Alrighty then. I'm not interested in taking this thread in this direction.


With regard to the bridge, it is frustrating that we aren't allocating enough money to it to get anything nice. I would rather no pedestrian bridge be built at all until we can give it the resources it needs.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: swake on November 30, 2017, 10:49:39 am

And that's your only reprisal to facts you don't like. The mayor is not living up to expectations. The PC/Equal Opportunity Act ways he touts have not done anything to help boost the black population financially in the US at all and they are near a 50-year low financially. Turns out giving groups of people a pacifier doesn't help them grow up but can get you elected. And now we're left with a mayor who is messing up the largest project he has dealt with to date as mayor in a major way and we might get a $25 million plain concrete bridge.

Another white guy with hurt feelings. Please take to the politics board.

And while racial disparities continue, you statement that blacks are "near a 50-year low financially" is very wrong.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/st_2016-06-27_race-inequality-ch1-03-2/





Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 30, 2017, 11:55:28 am
Another white guy with hurt feelings. Please take to the politics board.

And while racial disparities continue, you statement that blacks are "near a 50-year low financially" is very wrong.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/st_2016-06-27_race-inequality-ch1-03-2/


I said "they are near a 50-year low financially" and did not say in income (Notice that everybody's income went up in that chart you linked to). I was referring to home ownership being at a 50-year low which per the article below is their largest portion of wealth:
Quote
“Homeownership is the number one way for African Americans to build wealth,”

“We lost a trillion dollars worth of wealth that we must regain”

If someone makes $43k/year but owns no home and has no savings, how much better off are they than 10-20 years ago when they owned a house and had savings on a little less income? With real estate booming lately, many who own homes are getting those gains and it looks like most blacks will be left out of that boom and to make it worse, home prices are substantially higher.

http://www.nareb.com/african-american-homeownership-falls-50-year-low/ (http://www.nareb.com/african-american-homeownership-falls-50-year-low/)
http://time.com/money/4665272/mortgage-homeownership-racial-gap-discrimination-inequality/ (http://time.com/money/4665272/mortgage-homeownership-racial-gap-discrimination-inequality/)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 15, 2018, 08:52:09 am
Quote
City officials say they have not spoken to GKFF about building pedestrian bridge


City has yet to determine whether it will partner with River Parks


A Mayor’s Office official on Tuesday left open the possibility that the city could partner with River Parks Authority to build the new pedestrian bridge over the Arkansas River but added that the city is not talking to the George Kaiser Family Foundation about assuming control of the project.

“No,” Nick Doctor, the city’s chief of community development and policy, said when asked whether the city had spoken to the foundation about the construction and maintenance of the project. “This (discussion) is with River Parks.”

The city and River Parks signed an amendment to their 1975 pedestrian bridge lease in November that allows the city to either build the bridge directly, or “partner with the Authority to lead the design and construction process.”

The amendment was executed along with the city’s new master lease with River Parks Authority to ensure that the parties can work together effectively in the future, Doctor said.

“The amendment we made for this lease provides a clear path and a framework to ensure that both the city of Tulsa and River Parks are cooperating throughout the design and construction of any new dam or pedestrian bridge,” Doctor said. “And it ensures that as we’re working toward River Parks also maintaining that new dam and bridge long term, that they are part of the process from the very beginning.”

Doctor said the city has yet to determine whether it will partner with River Parks on the construction of the pedestrian bridge or the mechanics of how such an arrangement would work.

“There are not a lot of details I can talk to you (about) at this point,” Doctor said.

He did add, however, that since the Gathering Place is a subsidiary of River Parks, “I think it (Gathering Place) is an example of how River Parks could lead on a project of that scale.”

If the city were to partner with the Gathering Place through River Parks Authority, it would seem unlikely that such a deal could be reached without discussions with GKFF.

The foundation is building Gathering Place park along Riverside Drive. The park will connect with the new pedestrian bridge at approximately 29th Street and Riverside Drive. The foundation donated the park to River Parks Authority in 2014.

Mayor G.T. Bynum announced last year that the same company that designed the park, Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates of New York City, had won the public competition to design the bridge.

At the end of the public process, which included 234 submissions, MVVA’s Gateway Bridge edged out The Crossing Bridge, designed by KKT of Tulsa.

Jeff Stava, executive director and trustee of Tulsa’s Gathering Place LLC, was not available for comment Tuesday.

Jamie Marchesano, chairman of the River Parks Authority board of trustees, said last week that River Parks retains the lease on the pedestrian bridge but that there are several options as to who will control the project going forward.

“The question will become, Who is going to take care of it? Is it the city? Is it the authority? Or could it be the Gathering Place, because it ties in with the Gathering Place,” Marchesano said. “It could be multiple people that end up managing and controlling that.”

The city initially planned to rehabilitate the 100-year-old-plus pedestrian bridge and add a second deck in time for the opening of the Gathering Place this summer. But the idea was scrapped in 2014 after an inspection uncovered deficiencies in the bridge that made the planned reconstruction impractical and cost-prohibitive.


The city then worked with MVVA and Gathering Place officials for more than a year on a bridge design. The city came up with six major bridge styles ranging in cost from $14.9 million to $30.4 million, but none of the concepts garnered unanimous support.

In March 2016, soon after taking office, Bynum announced the public design competition.

At the time, he laid out three criteria by which the bring designs would be judged: that it relate to the Gathering Place and the natural surroundings of the area; accommodate pedestrians and cyclists; and be no more expensive than the $24.5 million the city has budgeted for the bridge.

At the end of the selection process, however, the mayor asked the finalists to come up with two final designs: one that could be built within the city’s $24.5 million budget, and one that could be built for $35 million.

Doctor said Tuesday that the latest cost estimates for the bridge are $24.4 million, for a basic 16-foot-wide structure, and $25.9 million for a bridge that varies in width from 16 feet to 21 feet.

The city hopes to find private donors who can pay for the wooden decking, shading, vegetation and other amenities that were part of MVVA’s $35 million bridge design.

The city, for its part, has only $23.2 million left to contribute to the project.

City officials plan to build the pedestrian bridge and a new Zink Dam simultaneously. The city is expected to go out for bids on the projects in September, with construction expected to take 18 months to two years.



http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-say-they-have-not-spoken-to-gkff-about/article_0a8de775-e791-50a7-9011-37f94d2a4601.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-say-they-have-not-spoken-to-gkff-about/article_0a8de775-e791-50a7-9011-37f94d2a4601.html)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Townsend on February 15, 2018, 11:21:02 am
City officials say they have not spoken to GKFF about building pedestrian bridge


City has yet to determine whether it will partner with River Parks


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-say-they-have-not-spoken-to-gkff-about/article_0a8de775-e791-50a7-9011-37f94d2a4601.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-say-they-have-not-spoken-to-gkff-about/article_0a8de775-e791-50a7-9011-37f94d2a4601.html)

Quick - someone read all the comments on the story and report back.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Hoss on February 15, 2018, 01:39:24 pm
Quick - someone read all the comments on the story and report back.

Challenge accepted.

Comment 1 complains about the bid being contracted to a NY company and not a Tulsa company.
Comment 2 complains about the length of time taken for the Gathering Place to be completed.
Comment 3 complains about the cost and the inefficiency of our local government.

As of my posting just 3 comments.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Conan71 on February 15, 2018, 03:55:41 pm
Challenge accepted.

Comment 1 complains about the bid being contracted to a NY company and not a Tulsa company.
Comment 2 complains about the length of time taken for the Gathering Place to be completed.
Comment 3 complains about the cost and the inefficiency of our local government.

As of my posting just 3 comments.

Where's Sauer been?  Kind of odd he hasn't been popping in to complain about how the taxpayers can't afford to maintain the Gathering Place.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Townsend on February 16, 2018, 11:59:12 am
Where's Sauer been?  Kind of odd he hasn't been popping in to complain about how the taxpayers can't afford to maintain the Gathering Place.

(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6300000/Leonard-McCoy-leonard-bones-mccoy-6347756-500-379.jpg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Hoss on February 16, 2018, 12:32:59 pm
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6300000/Leonard-McCoy-leonard-bones-mccoy-6347756-500-379.jpg)

Kind of my thought as well, given that we all had a pretty good idea about how old he was.  That's my first guess anyway.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on February 19, 2018, 06:41:22 am
Wave park/rapids moving to the west bank (like it was before)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on February 19, 2018, 09:32:43 am
Wave park/rapids moving to the west bank (like it was before)

Not on the east side?  That is what is shown in the renderings

(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3977/pedestrianbridge2-sm.jpg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on February 19, 2018, 10:59:00 am
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT5LMKE200qw6Sq4BG/giphy.gif)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: patric on February 19, 2018, 11:07:20 am
Monorail?  Release the Inhofe!


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TeeDub on February 19, 2018, 11:09:16 am

One of the nicest things about the old bridge was the cover.  Made it bearable to watch the sand in the river when it was 100 degrees outside...   

Oh well...   Such is the price of progress. 


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on February 19, 2018, 11:47:09 am
One of the nicest things about the old bridge was the cover.  Made it bearable to watch the sand in the river when it was 100 degrees outside...   

Oh well...   Such is the price of progress. 

Shade structures are planned but we can't afford them right now

(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3978/pedestrianbridge3.jpg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TeeDub on February 19, 2018, 03:28:35 pm
Those aren't in your earlier picture...   Of course, that one also shows a glass guardrail as well.

Would it be silly to suggest they just use the existing concrete piers to save money for the bridge or is that idea already off the table?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Red Arrow on February 19, 2018, 06:00:07 pm
Would it be silly to suggest they just use the existing concrete piers to save money for the bridge or is that idea already off the table?

I believe there were some structural problems with the piers too.  I looked through this thread but couldn't find the reference.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: patric on February 19, 2018, 09:51:34 pm

Would it be silly to suggest they just use the existing concrete piers to save money for the bridge or is that idea already off the table?

I actually preferred the old trestle bridge to any of the proposed ones. Sentimentality perhaps, but it had character.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TeeDub on February 20, 2018, 08:17:25 am
I actually preferred the old trestle bridge to any of the proposed ones. Sentimentality perhaps, but it had character.

Me too.   But unfortunately, I have learned that what I like, and the possibilities of putting millions of taxpayer dollars into someone's pocket rarely have similar interests.



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on February 20, 2018, 08:24:59 am
I too preferred the old bridge.  Old bridge next to a shiny new park would have been awesome.  I really hope we had the engineering study double checked before committing to investing $100mil (or whatever) to replace it.  I'd probably get a second opinion before replacing an engine in my car for $1k...


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: shavethewhales on February 20, 2018, 12:47:37 pm
Would it be silly to suggest they just use the existing concrete piers to save money for the bridge or is that idea already off the table?

Yeah, it kinda would. Those existing concrete piers are the whole reason the bridge has to be replaced. They were found to be basically gravel held together by sheeting and straps. The concrete completely deteriorated years ago and it has been unsafe for a long time. Kind of a scandal, IMO... Fortunately we never had to pay the consequences. Hopefully that was the only bridge like that.  ::)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 20, 2018, 01:51:12 pm
Yeah, it kinda would. Those existing concrete piers are the whole reason the bridge has to be replaced. They were found to be basically gravel held together by sheeting and straps. The concrete completely deteriorated years ago and it has been unsafe for a long time. Kind of a scandal, IMO... Fortunately we never had to pay the consequences. Hopefully that was the only bridge like that.  ::)


How old is that bridge...??   About 100 years... (1915 or so.)   Not sure that is much of a scandal - - lasted and was used for a long time for trains (until 1974).  Especially compared to new highways we have that are getting rebuilt every 4 to 5 years or so.  But they are assfault, so that's ok...  Jobs!!


There are a lot more bridges like that and worse in this state.  There were several on the Turner Turnpike that I commented on repeatedly for quite a while.  They did a major replace cycle on some of them a few years ago.   The state has several hundred more that are also bad.


http://okbridges.wkinsler.com/tulsa_county/arkansasbridge8.html


This is kinda interesting....

http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-we-built-a-bridge-to-the-future-in/article_6ab158de-cee3-58ef-990a-d7f75f10f053.html



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: TeeDub on February 20, 2018, 02:39:36 pm

This is kinda interesting....

http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-we-built-a-bridge-to-the-future-in/article_6ab158de-cee3-58ef-990a-d7f75f10f053.html


February 1975 – Tulsa Urban Renewal Authority approves $256,000 contract to remodel the bridge for pedestrians.

Makes $100 million seem like a bargain.




Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on February 20, 2018, 02:50:14 pm
February 1975 – Tulsa Urban Renewal Authority approves $256,000 contract to remodel the bridge for pedestrians.

Makes $100 million seem like a bargain.


Especially when adjusted for inflation.
256,000 Feb 1975 dollars is equivalent to 1,208,646.70 Jan 2018 dollars

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on February 20, 2018, 09:46:33 pm
Not on the east side?  That is what is shown in the renderings

(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3977/pedestrianbridge2-sm.jpg)

Saves a ton of $$$ to keep it on the west side, makes the bridge (including the shade) feasible.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on February 20, 2018, 09:47:23 pm
Especially when adjusted for inflation.
256,000 Feb 1975 dollars is equivalent to 1,208,646.70 Jan 2018 dollars

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

One amount is for adding stairs and removing rails, the other is for an entirely new bridge and dam


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on February 20, 2018, 10:27:34 pm
Saves a ton of $$$ to keep it on the west side, makes the bridge (including the shade) feasible.

How so?  I could care less if it's on the east or west side if that is what is needed to make this feasible.  

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/gT0pMluIILQD0ZND7ujSzxwbcWSnvYbAZFrifQwEGse4JtXUKbRqK1Bi6q4jpdfJXJcHmF7Dzr4zAH8jCW93cmWvG_uH6XrRYbG1-nenpHbt3SxkxbMBLwx9GaXtTi-EeIsNICfLaizrxl4BC73eFtjSd9X2S7CQIgAeMfzOMG7_g77BLh3FujIxiOix_ZF-_1jfRqLe5E6VjUizg6zwKk9YAJz-pDUzl0-EbJN33MpaUmc1eeumHkKFZglMpgmM1y0yqMgR8fpC-3ZshwHM3HeNYRfh5yZQMifWkCVnYFfCYiownMbfp3c80rToC32wcog7KNRWNJGFYfT5RmTefJA_CdX_tnr7wUhDIl-xgucgosqoQP-n7Wcr91iSdLGi27WogUg2yh8RpkG0nmL6gpZ3_Xfh1AySOeB9QRNo3k0SxVm7kbG1rg91GNdsEl5pmUNBSuQ8HZZ0Snwb3IRRMT8WkAyPovgG2_SKd9b3JTabMbVri_DnobiCGuHjvJTfyaG_8XOoV7Wc-wAT4dLJnHFrpGWCgAv-nyCjWXj-yqXUGSp73425bknDOj9K6ps8yvmhtlln7hM217dpFDMrr7CKWf2YTj7_vo7psg=w1004-h702-no)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on February 21, 2018, 08:32:12 am
How so?  I could care less if it's on the east or west side if that is what is needed to make this feasible.  

The rendering shows rapids underneath the bridge.
It's not clear whether that rendering is facing east or west...  (assuming the kayaker is paddling upstream, he's on the west side)
regardless...  unless they're moving the bridge south of the dam (or moving the damn north of the bridge, there's no "arkansas flume" underneath the bridge.  (or have I missed something?)

map of current kayak rapids (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1155127,-95.9899867,242m/data=!3m1!1e3)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on February 21, 2018, 10:37:55 am
The rendering shows rapids underneath the bridge.
It's not clear whether that rendering is facing east or west...  (assuming the kayaker is paddling upstream, he's on the west side)
regardless...  unless they're moving the bridge south of the dam (or moving the damn north of the bridge, there's no "arkansas flume" underneath the bridge.  (or have I missed something?)

map of current kayak rapids (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1155127,-95.9899867,242m/data=!3m1!1e3)


The original design (and as far as I can tell, the rendering), shows the kayak park on the East side:

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf)

My biggest question with moving it to the West side is access.   Do we expect the kayakers to paddle all the way across the river from the East to use the flume?  There is no parking or access on the West end of the bridge right now. 





Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: AngieB on February 21, 2018, 10:50:21 am
Perhaps the kayak in the rendering is nothing more than artistic license?


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: Conan71 on February 21, 2018, 11:26:40 am

The original design (and as far as I can tell, the rendering), shows the kayak park on the East side:

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf)

My biggest question with moving it to the West side is access.   Do we expect the kayakers to paddle all the way across the river from the East to use the flume?  There is no parking or access on the West end of the bridge right now. 




There is a ramp at the boat house at 23rd & Jackson so it's a bit of a paddle upstream to get back to it but quite do-able unless the river is at max flow.  That said, I'm not sure what the mechanism is supposed to be to get there given the current flume is below the LWD.  I'm guessing it's been used in the past though I don't ever recall seeing anyone using it.  I'm curious if people parked at the soccer field off Elwood and portaged their kayak from there.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on February 21, 2018, 01:01:12 pm

The original design (and as far as I can tell, the rendering), shows the kayak park on the East side:

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf)

My biggest question with moving it to the West side is access.   Do we expect the kayakers to paddle all the way across the river from the East to use the flume?  There is no parking or access on the West end of the bridge right now. 


said rendering

(https://i.imgur.com/poThsTj.png)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on February 21, 2018, 01:43:24 pm

There is a ramp at the boat house at 23rd & Jackson so it's a bit of a paddle upstream to get back to it but quite do-able unless the river is at max flow.  That said, I'm not sure what the mechanism is supposed to be to get there given the current flume is below the LWD.  I'm guessing it's been used in the past though I don't ever recall seeing anyone using it.  I'm curious if people parked at the soccer field off Elwood and portaged their kayak from there.

Looking at maps again, and I guess an option would be to continue the road on the West side down from the skate park and put a small parking lot near the West end of the bridge. I  could see that being convenient used for other reasons, and not just for Kayakers.






Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on February 23, 2018, 10:07:06 am
Looking at maps again, and I guess an option would be to continue the road on the West side down from the skate park and put a small parking lot near the West end of the bridge. I  could see that being convenient used for other reasons, and not just for Kayakers.

That's a negative Ghostrider. 

The land that isn't River trails is own by Holy Refinery.  It's probable that it is a require distance from giant tanks of petroleum or, at very least, something they aren't likely to part with (let alone to allow vehicles closer).   Ignoring that we can't get the property, there is still the cost of a couple million dollars to build a half mile long road and have a parking lot for the convenience of a few kayakers.  I'm by no means against kayakers and hope the floom goes in for them - but there isn't a budget and I can't imagine where it would come from for such a specific use at the moment.

Currently they park at the west bank soccer complex and wheel their boats up to the PSO plant and down a sidewalk switchback. Major pain in the butt for a "meh" rapids as I understand it (depends on if PSO has worked it lately and water, obviously). 

Luckily, Zink is a lake.  So paddling down from and back up to the skatepark or even Riverparks west wouldn't be too bad.  I've done it myself - when you are out of the current the < mile to the floom location wouldn't be bad at all.   Not optimal, but maybe better than the alternatives (parking at Gathering Place or west bank soccer [which requires fighting the current]).



Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on February 23, 2018, 10:33:00 am
That's a negative Ghostrider. 

The land that isn't River trails is own by Holy Refinery.  It's probable that it is a require distance from giant tanks of petroleum or, at very least, something they aren't likely to part with (let alone to allow vehicles closer).   Ignoring that we can't get the property, there is still the cost of a couple million dollars to build a half mile long road and have a parking lot for the convenience of a few kayakers.  I'm by no means against kayakers and hope the floom goes in for them - but there isn't a budget and I can't imagine where it would come from for such a specific use at the moment.

Currently they park at the west bank soccer complex and wheel their boats up to the PSO plant and down a sidewalk switchback. Major pain in the butt for a "meh" rapids as I understand it (depends on if PSO has worked it lately and water, obviously). 

Luckily, Zink is a lake.  So paddling down from and back up to the skatepark or even Riverparks west wouldn't be too bad.  I've done it myself - when you are out of the current the < mile to the floom location wouldn't be bad at all.   Not optimal, but maybe better than the alternatives (parking at Gathering Place or west bank soccer [which requires fighting the current]).



Yeah,  I looked at the fenceline wrong the map.   I thought it was on the road near the tanks, but now see it is further East, more near the trail.. 

Parking at the skate park would work.  Coming up from below seems like too much of a deterrent.   I assume they want to move it because they are concerned with kayak traffic in the park.  But, to me, that would be the cool part.  Go to the park and here are all these kayakers running rapids right there.  This would increase kayak use and encourage general canoeing, etc, in the river as opposed to staying on the shore.  Moving it to the other side might be more practical, but is just enough of a  "barrier to entry" (both emotionally and physically) that it will almost certainly affect the number of people who use it.   


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on February 23, 2018, 11:48:27 am
But, to me, that would be the cool part.  Go to the park and here are all these kayakers running rapids right there.  This would increase kayak use and encourage general canoeing, etc, in the river as opposed to staying on the shore.  Moving it to the other side might be more practical, but is just enough of a  "barrier to entry" (both emotionally and physically) that it will almost certainly affect the number of people who use it.  

I agree, it would be better all around to have it on the east side as currently planned.  I found this plan that sheds some more light on the whitewater flume and Crow Creek developments.  It also shows the neighborhood entry points at Boston Ave, Hazel Blvd and 30th St

(http://www.mvvainc.com/media/files/b43b639ba5e71aec335d223935b0e0ee.jpg)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on February 23, 2018, 05:33:28 pm
said rendering

(https://i.imgur.com/poThsTj.png)


On the west side of the picture, just about the bottom edge, is the current "Riverparks Kayak Access" which I would assume Kayakers could also use.

I believe the problem is that the river has channels, flow patterns, etc. The "Wave Park" that spawned that Kayak ramp I just mentioned was there due to swift currents on the west side. I'm no hydrological engineer (but I did stay at a HolidayInn Express) but I believe there are some pretty big challenges to the whole dam plan trying to create rapids on the opposite side of where they currently are, but then also not so rapid that you're flooding out the nature walk just south of it. Going with the more natural location dropped the Dam construction cost from $39M to $33M and since the Dam and bridge are part of the same pool of money, $6M saved on the Dam is $6M more that can go towards making the bridge nicer. (And back when they did the old bridge they didn't have to pay $9M for design and engineering)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on February 26, 2018, 12:55:08 pm
I believe the flow challenge is simply that the PSO plant absolutely must have water at all times.  When a working dam is in, the flow of the river is where the engineers say it should be (to a reasonable extent, of course).  Kayaking across a river isn't a deterrent either, parking on the west or east...not a big deal.  But a power plant without water...that's an issue.  I believe that's why you often see big berms below the current dam directing water to the west side.

[typo fixed :)]


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on February 26, 2018, 02:41:04 pm
I believe the flow challenge is simply that the POS plant absolutely must have water at all times.  When a working dam is in, the flow of the river is where the engineers say it should be (to a reasonable extent, of course).  Kayaking across a river isn't a deterrent either, parking on the west or east...not a big deal.  But a power plant without water...that's an issue.  I believe that's why you often see big berms below the current dam directing water to the west side.

What is the lifespan of the PSO plant?  Since it is natural gas-powered I assume it will be operational for awhile but I have no idea.  IMO it’s one of the coolest industrial buildings in the city. 

I know there was a jetty built to direct the flow toward the plant, you can see remnants of it.  I would imagine AEP/PSO will be heavily involved in these discussions.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: sgrizzle on February 26, 2018, 06:22:31 pm
What is the lifespan of the PSO plant?  Since it is natural gas-powered I assume it will be operational for awhile but I have no idea.  IMO it’s one of the coolest industrial buildings in the city. 

I know there was a jetty built to direct the flow toward the plant, you can see remnants of it.  I would imagine AEP/PSO will be heavily involved in these discussions.

I believe they are involved in all discussions, and I believe the original design shown in one of the pictures showed a section of the dam to allow water flow for the plant separate from the main flow control.

As far as the plant's life, it is natural gas and I believe I was told was shut down for a long time and then restarted in the 80's or 90's so it looks way older on the outside than it does on the inside. (I went inside a few times, but it's been about 10 years)


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: patric on March 15, 2018, 09:37:01 pm
... a concrete rather than steel structure was chosen for the span to minimize vibrations and provide a comfortable environment for pedestrians. The broad span would have open sides and was also wide enough to accommodate benches. It would also provide Wi-Fi service to users. One reason for the amenities: pedestrians tend to shun confined bridges.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article205432029.html


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: rebound on March 16, 2018, 01:50:31 pm
... a concrete rather than steel structure was chosen for the span to minimize vibrations and provide a comfortable environment for pedestrians. The broad span would have open sides and was also wide enough to accommodate benches. It would also provide Wi-Fi service to users. One reason for the amenities: pedestrians tend to shun confined bridges.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article205432029.html

I don't know where you are going with this.   Given the drawings of the Florida bridge, it is not the same construction technique that would be used here.   


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 19, 2018, 07:03:54 am
And even if it is the same construction technique... it isn't like they collapse frequently.  Someone or something screwed up in Florida, no doubt.  But that isn't universal condemnation of any particular form of construction.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: patric on March 19, 2018, 10:31:44 am
I don't know where you are going with this.    

I meant to put more emphasis on the amenities and features of the bridge in the part I excerpted.  Thought that might be relevant.


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: BKDotCom on July 19, 2018, 07:29:57 am
River Parks Authority to take over pedestrian bridge project near Gathering Place (https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/update-river-parks-authority-votes-to-take-over-pedestrian-bridge/article_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html)

Quote
The River Parks Authority board will vote Thursday morning on an agreement with the city of Tulsa to take responsibility for the construction of the new pedestrian bridge over the Arkansas River.

The agreement calls for the Gateway Bridge to be constructed by Tulsa's Gathering Place LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the authority. Gathering Place LLC is the legal name given to the Gathering Place park in 2014 when it was given to the River Parks Authority by the George Kaiser Family Foundation.

The pedestrian bridge, near the 2900 block of Riverside Drive, will connect to the $465 million park, which is scheduled to open Sept. 8.

“It is really exciting to be able to partner with someone like River Parks and the Gathering Place” on the pedestrian bridge, said Nick Doctor, the city’s chief of community development and policy.

The Gateway Bridge was selected as the winner of a bridge design competition conducted by the city of Tulsa in 2017. The bridge was designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, the same company that designed the Gathering Place.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the pedestrian bridge should be completed within three years. The River Parks Authority would be responsible for routine and nonstructural maintenance of the bridge, with the city assuming financial responsibility for major capital improvements.

Jeff Stava, director and trustee of Tulsa's Gathering Place LLC, said he expects demolition of the existing pedestrian bridge to begin 45 to 90 days after the agreement is finalized. The design of the new bridge is expected to take nine to 15 months, with construction ranging from 18 to 22 months, Stava said.

more in the article


Title: Re: Pedestrian Bridge
Post by: SXSW on July 19, 2018, 08:33:05 am
Glad to hear this is moving forward.  How does this align with the schedule for Vision improvements to the low water dam/whitewater flume?  Hopefully all of this work will be complete at the same time as Phase 2 of the Gathering Place.