I was out at lunch today and noticed two bulldozer things working on the boulder bridge. Is this the big fix for it?
They are tearing it down.
Why? I've been watching this ever since I started working downtown (from being closed to this) and have been wondering what is going on with it. My guess is that it's no longer safe, but then, so are a large number of other bridges in Oklahoma.
The current bridge is unsafe and must be torn down. It will be replaced by a similar bridge when funds become available. I seem to think that at least half of the funds have already been appropriated.
Actually, I hope its not going to be a similar bridge at all. Some initial scenario/renderings I have seen have wide sidewalks, trees, plantings, and lights going on the bridge. Would really also hope there is some sort of sculptural art and architectural interest on the bridge as well.
One neat thing I saw that another city had done, in a very similar situation actually. Was a bridge over a bunch of downtown railroad tracks that connected 2 redeveloping areas. They made it so that there were buildings on either side of the bridge. Walking across it you wouldnt really even know it was a bridge.
I thought the original one had side walks, isn't it just like the main street bridge? I just don't see the sculpture thing being a good idea unless it is in some sort of arch over the bridge. I wouldn't really like something in the center median or anything like that. Well actually, if they made a small center median with all the plants, that might be a nice contrast to the plain concrete look all around that area.
Street level crossing! Come on street level crossing!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on May 05, 2009, 08:08:53 AM
Street level crossing! Come on street level crossing!
Why? I was downtown this past weekend and waited almost 15 min. at the Elgin crossing. If there's ever a crossing that needs a bridge it's Elgin.
Would it be too difficult to make it an underground crossing like the Denver one?
The below grade crossings are not inviting to pedestrians. People don't want to walk down into a dark place where they can't see well.
Quote from: SXSW on May 05, 2009, 08:12:21 AM
Why? I was downtown this past weekend and waited almost 15 min. at the Elgin crossing. If there's ever a crossing that needs a bridge it's Elgin.
Why didn't you walk one block West to the bridge if you were in a hurry? Odds are pretty good you headed west after getting to the Brady district anyway. That option would be available from Boulder also. Where most of the pedestrians would end up going east after crossing the tracks.
Surface level crossing:
- Far cheaper
- Won't be closed for years in the future
- More inviting for pedestrians
- Less dead zone in the street scape
- less of a footprint (more availability of business lots on either side)
Honestly, those bridges are not conducive to a walkable, inviting downtown. They simply go too high--you literally can't see the other side when heading down the street. If you aren't familiar with the area it only increases your uncertainty about where you're headed.
I claim complete ignorance in how the train system works, but if it were a street level crossing that would be a nice place for a little passenger train depot. Like just a tiny one, and the bus lets off like three blocks from there. If that is only a commercial rail line, that seems like a terrible waste of space since we only get a few trains a day.
I remember the big arching bridges from my childhood. And yes, I just had a flashback of ice-skating in the Williams Center.
Something lower would be nice. More of a visual connection, etc...but I imagine the powers that be don't see that as practical. As far as street-level, there are far too many naysayers who don't like waiting for trains. I think a nice bridge--one that doesn't look like a freeway bridge--would be nice. What's wrong with the original design? http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=7294.0 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=7294.0). The combination of two-lane street and pedestrian promenade makes a lot of sense here.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on May 05, 2009, 11:18:39 AM
- More inviting for pedestrians
I like trains. They are awesome pieces of equipment. I don't like crossing train tracks at grade, especially on foot.
I'm hopeful we get just a grade crossing. But that wouldn't fit with the rest of downtown: cram as many traffic lanes as possible in creating an uninviting pedestrian environment as well as a road that will never, ever be filled to capacity with cars.
Current plans have the bridge to be replaced at some point in the future as the railroad is unwilling to allow grade/surface crossing and they own the land. Other developments seem to suggest that this might be done sooner as a result of planning by the Kaiser Family Foundation to provide street scaping and lighting from the ballpark, West on Brady to Cheyenne and South on Cheyenne to 2nd or thereabouts.
My spies tell me they have hired Bing Thom Architects (of Channels fame) to do renderings and planning.
Quote from: DowntownNow on May 06, 2009, 04:04:35 PM
Current plans have the bridge to be replaced at some point in the future as the railroad is unwilling to allow grade/surface crossing and they own the land. Other developments seem to suggest that this might be done sooner as a result of planning by the Kaiser Family Foundation to provide street scaping and lighting from the ballpark, West on Brady to Cheyenne and South on Cheyenne to 2nd or thereabouts.
My spies tell me they have hired Bing Thom Architects (of Channels fame) to do renderings and planning.
Mwuhahahahaaa.... Iconic? lol
I have heard and seen 2 completely different scenarios. One is the rumor of an architecturally striking bridge that will go catiwhompus at an angle linking in closer to the center of the Brady Arts district. The other is a bridge that has greenery, trees, lighting, etc, and wide brick sidewalks on either side.