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/)
Some good designs.
Unfortunately we will get something much closer to this:
(http://i.imgur.com/VJxsIeS.jpg)
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
#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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 16, 2017, 10:51:48 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.
Is restoring the historic railroad bridge completely out of the question?
Quote from: joiei on March 21, 2017, 01:01:29 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.
That seems like some cool discussion. What site?
Quote from: patric on March 21, 2017, 01:11:00 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.
Quote from: joiei on March 21, 2017, 01:01:29 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.
But. but. but... then you can't park in front of the store
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.
Quote from: joiei on March 21, 2017, 01:01:29 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.
Quote from: johrasephoenix on March 21, 2017, 02:29:38 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.
That bridge was
built covered so that Royalty didn't have to mingle with the plebs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasari_Corridor
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 21, 2017, 01:49:32 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.
Quote from: joiei on March 21, 2017, 01:01:29 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.
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 21, 2017, 09:15:54 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!
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.
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.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 22, 2017, 09:44:51 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.
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 23, 2017, 05:47:59 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.
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.
Quote from: rebound on March 24, 2017, 01:09:48 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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 24, 2017, 06:11:04 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.
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.
Quote from: johrasephoenix on March 25, 2017, 09:02:10 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.
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.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 25, 2017, 09:28:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 26, 2017, 10:55:09 AM
Structurally unsafe for pedestrians as well, IIRC.
I remember it that way too.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 26, 2017, 10:55:09 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.
Quote from: SXSW on April 03, 2017, 09:20:03 AM
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.
And the four finalists....
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/vision
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.
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.
Quote from: PonderInc on April 17, 2017, 03:17:06 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.
#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
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.
I like 4, then 1.
2 and 3 are boring.
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.
#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.
How about #1 from the deck down with decorative/shade elements of #4? :)
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 17, 2017, 04:23:15 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.
I'm worried about what 1 would look like as it ages.
You want an iconic design, #4. You want white bread #1 & #3
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 18, 2017, 06:24:47 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.
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.
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)
Quote from: DowntownDan on April 19, 2017, 08:39:08 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: rebound on April 19, 2017, 09:43:02 AM
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.
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)
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 19, 2017, 01:44:24 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.
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 19, 2017, 01:44:24 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.
#4 or bust, I think is where we ended up.
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.
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)
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.
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
Quote from: bacjz00 on April 21, 2017, 02:37:38 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
Hey there's still hope for that with the future 41st St bridge. Who knows when/if that will get built though. :)
Quote from: bacjz00 on April 21, 2017, 02:37:38 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
They may have been trying to avoid interfering with the views of downtown from the South(west).
Quote from: bacjz00 on April 21, 2017, 02:37:38 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
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
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 21, 2017, 05:41:41 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
I like both of those better than any in the final four! Maybe they were out of budget?
Quote from: AngieB on April 23, 2017, 10:22:29 AM
I like both of those better than any in the final four! Maybe they were out of budget?
Only thing I can guess.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 21, 2017, 05:41:41 PM
Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU
This would have nicely complemented The Gathering Place's land bridges....
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.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on April 24, 2017, 08:50:08 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.
$$$
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)
Looks 'unkempt'. Disjointed and not quite finished.
Not elegant or pretty at all.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2017, 12:02:32 PM
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"
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2017, 12:02:32 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)
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 21, 2017, 05:41:41 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.
Quote from: Ibanez on April 24, 2017, 12:18:16 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.
I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.
Quote from: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 24, 2017, 01:26:41 PM
I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.
There's water in the river now. Lots of it.
Quote from: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 24, 2017, 01:26:41 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?
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 24, 2017, 01:05:24 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.
Quote from: swake on April 24, 2017, 01:38:56 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.
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 24, 2017, 01:05:24 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.
Quote from: rebound on April 24, 2017, 03:09:49 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.
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.
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?
Quote from: PonderInc on April 24, 2017, 11:23:26 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?
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.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2017, 02:35:11 PM
If we had a canal system, we could be storing up some of that water for future use.
Or a big dam upstream. wait...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2017, 02:34:13 PM
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.
Quote from: PonderInc on April 24, 2017, 11:23:26 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?
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).
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2017, 09:20:56 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....
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.
Quote from: AngieB on April 25, 2017, 09:03:37 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..
Finalists narrowed to 2...
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/design-for-arkansas-river-pedestrian-bridge-narrowed-to-two-finalists
14,000 feedback comments, 30 days... ready, set,...
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)
Now, if we only had a flag... ;)
Quote from: Tulsa Zephyr on June 05, 2017, 06:40:28 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)
The three flag designs picked by the committee sucked. The two bridge designs picked by the committee were cool.
Big difference in results.
Quote from: BKDotCom on June 05, 2017, 08:30:12 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.
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.
QuotePedestrian 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)
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 29, 2017, 11:51:40 AM
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.
TULSA!
(http://www.semissourian.com/photos/12/08/08/1208083-L.jpg)
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).
You've seen Tulsa's Amazon pitch? Share?
Quote from: 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.
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.
Quote from: 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".
- 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?
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 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.
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 PM
- 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.
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 PM
- 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.
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 PM
- 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.
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 PM
- 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.
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 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.
Quote from: BKDotCom on November 29, 2017, 03:35:34 PM
- Greatest issue facing Tulsa is racial disparity: you got a problem with that?
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 29, 2017, 04:42:06 PM
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.
Donald, chill out.
Quote from: ZYX on November 30, 2017, 01:30:15 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.
Quote from: ZYX on November 30, 2017, 01:30:15 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.
$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.
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 30, 2017, 08:20:40 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.
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 30, 2017, 08:27:32 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/
Quote from: swake on November 30, 2017, 10:49:39 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/)
QuoteCity 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)
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 15, 2018, 08:52:09 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.
Quote from: Townsend on February 15, 2018, 11:21:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Hoss on February 15, 2018, 01:39:24 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.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2018, 03:55:41 PM
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)
Quote from: Townsend on February 16, 2018, 11:59:12 AM
(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.
Wave park/rapids moving to the west bank (like it was before)
Quote from: sgrizzle on February 19, 2018, 06:41:22 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)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT5LMKE200qw6Sq4BG/giphy.gif)
Monorail? Release the Inhofe!
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.
Quote from: 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.
Shade structures are planned but we can't afford them right now
(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3978/pedestrianbridge3.jpg)
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?
Quote from: TeeDub on February 19, 2018, 03:28:35 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.
Quote from: TeeDub on February 19, 2018, 03:28:35 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.
Quote from: patric on February 19, 2018, 09:51:34 PM
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.
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...
Quote from: TeeDub on February 19, 2018, 03:28:35 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. ::)
Quote from: shavethewhales on February 20, 2018, 12:47:37 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
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 20, 2018, 01:51:12 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.
Quote from: TeeDub on February 20, 2018, 02:39:36 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
Quote from: SXSW on February 19, 2018, 09:32:43 AM
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.
Quote from: BKDotCom on February 20, 2018, 02:50:14 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
Quote from: sgrizzle on February 20, 2018, 09:46:33 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)
Quote from: SXSW on February 20, 2018, 10:27:34 PM
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)
Quote from: BKDotCom on February 21, 2018, 08:32:12 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.
Perhaps the kayak in the rendering is nothing more than artistic license?
Quote from: rebound on February 21, 2018, 10:37:55 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.
Quote from: rebound on February 21, 2018, 10:37:55 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.
said rendering
(https://i.imgur.com/poThsTj.png)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 21, 2018, 11:26:40 AM
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.
Quote from: rebound on February 21, 2018, 01:43:24 PM
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]).
Quote from: cannon_fodder on February 23, 2018, 10:07:06 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.
Quote from: rebound on February 23, 2018, 10:33:00 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)
Quote from: BKDotCom on February 21, 2018, 01:01:12 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)
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 :)]
Quote from: cannon_fodder on February 26, 2018, 12:55:08 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.
Quote from: SXSW on February 26, 2018, 02:41:04 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)
... 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
Quote from: patric on March 15, 2018, 10:37:01 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
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.
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.
Quote from: rebound on March 16, 2018, 02:50:31 PM
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.
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)QuoteThe 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
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.
Vision 2025 or those in the know, has the city set a timeline yet for construction of the new pedestrian bridge and Zink Dam improvements? I've taken visitors to the Gathering Place and usually get the question "what is going on with the riverfront and bridge?" That and what's up with the gravel parking areas. I explain these are future phases but don't have a solid answer to when they will be completed..
The last I heard was that the bridge and dam projects will begin sometime after January of 2020. I did not hear anything officially on why that timing - but I'd guess it is time for the Gathering Place to be open without constant construction, for the trail loop to be complete for a while, and for essential design, engineering, permitting, Corps of Engineering review, environmental studies, stakeholder reviews (refinery, AEP, user groups?), etc. I believe the west side trail area will be the primary staging for construction. I'm guessing this is a several year long construction effort, but assume more details will be announced when the official plans are unveiled.
I heard. I'd guess. I believe. I assume. Clearly I don't have the best info, but no one answered for a month so I thought I'd chime in. :)
Big Changes Planned For Arkansas River In Tulsa
TULSA, Oklahoma - Construction is set to begin July 2020 for the new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge. Lead Engineer for Tulsa's Storm Water Development Brooke Caviness said plans for the pedestrian bridge and low water dam are about 90 percent complete.
"So we're raising the lake by three feet; we're changing out all the gates on the dam," said Caviness. She said this spring's record flooding prompted a design change to the dam to help improve flow when the water rises.
"So we'll be able to put this new dam in and this new flume in and have no rise condition so the water level doesn't come up," said Caviness.
https://www.newson6.com/story/41419672/big-changes-planned-for-arkansas-river-in-tulsa
Quote from: ComeOnBenjals on December 09, 2019, 01:30:38 PM
Big Changes Planned For Arkansas River In Tulsa
TULSA, Oklahoma - Construction is set to begin July 2020 for the new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge. Lead Engineer for Tulsa's Storm Water Development Brooke Caviness said plans for the pedestrian bridge and low water dam are about 90 percent complete.
"So we're raising the lake by three feet; we're changing out all the gates on the dam," said Caviness. She said this spring's record flooding prompted a design change to the dam to help improve flow when the water rises.
"So we'll be able to put this new dam in and this new flume in and have no rise condition so the water level doesn't come up," said Caviness.
https://www.newson6.com/story/41419672/big-changes-planned-for-arkansas-river-in-tulsa
Sounds like it is actually finally happening... or at least they might've cleared the way to start. I had heard about government approvals required (cities downstream, Corps of Eng, etc) for changing dam retention. Does anyone know if that's all dealt with or if it was ever an issue?
Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on December 11, 2019, 04:32:53 PM
Sounds like it is actually finally happening... or at least they might've cleared the way to start. I had heard about government approvals required (cities downstream, Corps of Eng, etc) for changing dam retention. Does anyone know if that's all dealt with or if it was ever an issue?
I believe those approvals have been going on for years.
Quote from: ComeOnBenjals on December 09, 2019, 01:30:38 PM
Big Changes Planned For Arkansas River In Tulsa
TULSA, Oklahoma - Construction is set to begin July 2020 for the new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge. Lead Engineer for Tulsa's Storm Water Development Brooke Caviness said plans for the pedestrian bridge and low water dam are about 90 percent complete.
"So we're raising the lake by three feet; we're changing out all the gates on the dam," said Caviness. She said this spring's record flooding prompted a design change to the dam to help improve flow when the water rises.
"So we'll be able to put this new dam in and this new flume in and have no rise condition so the water level doesn't come up," said Caviness.
https://www.newson6.com/story/41419672/big-changes-planned-for-arkansas-river-in-tulsa
Sounds like a little bit of wishful thinking. When there is the kind of water we had this year, even Keystone itself didn't help, so how is an extra 3 ft and some different gates downstream gonna help? It will give many people a "feel good" moment, though.
Looking forward to this project starting later this year, and having this view in a couple years..
(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Gateway-Bridge-2-2017-06-03-at-5.10.51-PM.png)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 11, 2019, 05:09:18 PM
Sounds like a little bit of wishful thinking. When there is the kind of water we had this year, even Keystone itself didn't help, so how is an extra 3 ft and some different gates downstream gonna help? It will give many people a "feel good" moment, though.
Not sure what you are asking. Obviously, if there is a flood and they open the gates on Keystone, then the water is going to rise downstream and will go over the dam. But adding the three feet and utilizing the flume as basically an overflow channel will greatly reduce the water level variability in the pool. Adding the extra height will also create more lake above the dam, which will moderate the flow issues as well, by allowing buffer for the flow and holding that extra water for times of low flow.
I remember when the current dam actually worked, and there was water in the river virtually all the time and the crew club was out on the lake regularly, as were others in kayaks and canoes. Very excited to see this all get fixed and have a new and better lake.
" I've taken visitors to the Gathering Place and usually get the question 'what is going on with the riverfront and bridge?' That and what's up with the gravel parking areas..."
Not surprised to hear this. I wish the bridge and its surrounding area across from the Blair property had been more capably handled. This was a special part of the river trail, and it has not been the same since the beginning of the new park's construction. With all that money being thrown around, a better solution should have been come up with by now...or rather...before now. Some people who loved the original bridge are no longer with us, a close friend of mine included.
Now begins another prolonged construction process, and I am not holding my breath. And I still am not sure I believe the original bridge could not have been salvaged, had anyone in charge really wanted to.
I don't believe Mr. Stava was a regular visitor to the River Parks before the GP was built. If he had been, more of what used to be special would have been preserved along with the nice new things.
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on September 05, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
" I've taken visitors to the Gathering Place and usually get the question 'what is going on with the riverfront and bridge?' That and what's up with the gravel parking areas..."
Not surprised to hear this. I wish the bridge and its surrounding area across from the Blair property had been more capably handled. This was a special part of the river trail, and it has not been the same since the beginning of the new park's construction. With all that money being thrown around, a better solution should have been come up with by now...or rather...before now. Some people who loved the original bridge are no longer with us, a close friend of mine included.
Now begins another prolonged construction process, and I am not holding my breath. And I still am not sure I believe the original bridge could not have been salvaged, had anyone in charge really wanted to.
I don't believe Mr. Stava was a regular visitor to the River Parks before the GP was built. If he had been, more of what used to be special would have been preserved along with the nice new things.
The current bridge while historical is not particularly beautiful or noteworthy. I think the new bridge will be a significant improvement along with the new dam and whitewater flume. Looking forward to the river banks improvements along GP and that chain link fence coming down. In 2023 all of this work should be completed along with phase 2 of GP which will take care of the gravel lots. Hopefully the Crow Creek Trail is underway by then.
Quote from: rebound on August 21, 2020, 12:52:43 PM
Not sure what you are asking. Obviously, if there is a flood and they open the gates on Keystone, then the water is going to rise downstream and will go over the dam. But adding the three feet and utilizing the flume as basically an overflow channel will greatly reduce the water level variability in the pool. Adding the extra height will also create more lake above the dam, which will moderate the flow issues as well, by allowing buffer for the flow and holding that extra water for times of low flow.
I remember when the current dam actually worked, and there was water in the river virtually all the time and the crew club was out on the lake regularly, as were others in kayaks and canoes. Very excited to see this all get fixed and have a new and better lake.
Whew! Way back time machine post - had to go review. I wasn't sure what 3 feet would do that original level wouldn't do. Still not sure. When it gets dry, it will still go down, maybe to a higher 'low' level, but flow over the kayak falls will still stop at some point. Could help, though, and I am certainly waiting to see - I would like to go fishing there sometime again!
This TW article indicates the current funding for the bridge is sufficient just for the structure itself and that amenities like shade structures will not be part of it, unless they are funded separately. It also included these new renderings:
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/13/1130a290-dbc5-51fa-99eb-b29a4056b3fd/5f52ff4ee5156.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C720)
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/ba/3baa26d0-4e10-5ea7-80bb-3fe1b5fbc13d/5f52ff505a6a0.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C501)
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gatheringplace/gathering-place-to-grow-with-pedestrian-bridge-project/article_49b60bfc-eeb3-11ea-acd5-9787e4e61513.html (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gatheringplace/gathering-place-to-grow-with-pedestrian-bridge-project/article_49b60bfc-eeb3-11ea-acd5-9787e4e61513.html)
Quote from: SXSW on September 08, 2020, 02:47:26 PM
This TW article indicates the current funding for the bridge is sufficient just for the structure itself and that amenities like shade structures will not be part of it, unless they are funded separately. It also included these new renderings:
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/13/1130a290-dbc5-51fa-99eb-b29a4056b3fd/5f52ff4ee5156.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C720)
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/ba/3baa26d0-4e10-5ea7-80bb-3fe1b5fbc13d/5f52ff505a6a0.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C501)
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gatheringplace/gathering-place-to-grow-with-pedestrian-bridge-project/article_49b60bfc-eeb3-11ea-acd5-9787e4e61513.html (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gatheringplace/gathering-place-to-grow-with-pedestrian-bridge-project/article_49b60bfc-eeb3-11ea-acd5-9787e4e61513.html)
The renderings showing the actual top part of the bridge is super disappointing. I can't believe there's no shade structures designed into it. That bridge will bake in the summer time being out in the office and sun reflecting off the water. I can see why the architect never showed those as much as the renderings where you're looking at it from below.
The KKT design I think was far, far better and had shade areas built into the design.
I think this will still be visually appealing, but how useful it will be in parts of the year I guess we will have to wait and see. That's frankly the best thing about the old bridge was it was covered and was super pleasant to be on during most of the year.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on September 09, 2020, 03:19:11 PM
The renderings showing the actual top part of the bridge is super disappointing. I can't believe there's no shade structures designed into it. That bridge will bake in the summer time being out in the office and sun reflecting off the water. I can see why the architect never showed those as much as the renderings where you're looking at it from below.
The KKT design I think was far, far better and had shade areas built into the design.
I think this will still be visually appealing, but how useful it will be in parts of the year I guess we will have to wait and see. That's frankly the best thing about the old bridge was it was covered and was super pleasant to be on during most of the year.
Kind of hideous IMO - Zero "personality."
If we're spending this much money on a bridge, it should be iconic. A landmark for our city.
What's worse, this isn't what was originally proposed when the design was selected from others. Here are some photos of the original design with shad structures and seating in the middle: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e35f7b32f69d76f6202afe4/the-gateway-design-selected-as-tulsas-new-pedestrian-bridge
Here are the final four again, if you have a TW subscription: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/pedestrian-bridge-design-narrowed-to-four-options-public-input-sought/article_424da06b-71da-564f-a3a9-fafa0cf3ae73.html
Out of 233 submissions, they picked a pretty basic design and then dumbed it down farther. Disappointing.
I guess the costs of everything around the bridge eat into the costs of the overall project. If they hadn't completely FUBAR'ed the gathering place budget, they could have finished the river side portion and then the bridge could have been focused on apart from all that.
Quote from: shavethewhales on September 11, 2020, 08:17:47 AM
If we're spending this much money on a bridge, it should be iconic. A landmark for our city.
What's worse, this isn't what was originally proposed when the design was selected from others. Here are some photos of the original design with shad structures and seating in the middle: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e35f7b32f69d76f6202afe4/the-gateway-design-selected-as-tulsas-new-pedestrian-bridge
Here are the final four again, if you have a TW subscription: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/pedestrian-bridge-design-narrowed-to-four-options-public-input-sought/article_424da06b-71da-564f-a3a9-fafa0cf3ae73.html
Out of 233 submissions, they picked a pretty basic design and then dumbed it down farther. Disappointing.
I guess the costs of everything around the bridge eat into the costs of the overall project. If they hadn't completely FUBAR'ed the gathering place budget, they could have finished the river side portion and then the bridge could have been focused on apart from all that.
While not the best outcome the new bridge will still be a major improvement and finally tie everything together. I feel like the Gathering Place, while amazing, is missing the riverfront interaction that this bridge, the dam and whitewater flume and riverbank improvements along the trail will bring. Having the Phase 2 portion completed with the gravel lots gone and the new science museum will complete the portion along Riverside.
Quote from: SXSW on September 11, 2020, 12:10:55 PM
While not the best outcome the new bridge will still be a major improvement and finally tie everything together. I feel like the Gathering Place, while amazing, is missing the riverfront interaction that this bridge, the dam and whitewater flume and riverbank improvements along the trail will bring. Having the Phase 2 portion completed with the gravel lots gone and the new science museum will complete the portion along Riverside.
Out of all the things they could have cut, shade structures should not have been one of them. I really hope the bridge is built in a fashion that they can be added later if a donor steps up with the funds.
Even though I preferred some of the other designs I think this will still look nice when done, just concerned about how usable it will be through much of the year if people bake. I'm also very concerned that it looks like they've gotten rid of a lot of the seating areas and that has become an after thought.
Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge in Austin isn't much of a looker - but the pedestrian experience is great and not just for runners/bikers. It's a place to just wonder across and can sit or stand and look out. I'd just hope the end design for ours incorporates some better pedestrian experience.
Otherwise it will be useless outside of looking at it from the Gathering Place.
Anyone know if there will be any kind of public access to the island between the dam and whitewater flume? It doesn't look like it but I can't tell.
(https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/beaa44b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/636x358+0+61/resize/1280x720!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediaassets.kjrh.com%2Fphoto%2F2018%2F09%2F10%2Fgathering5_1536613732875_97050119_ver1.0_640_480.jpg)
Also wondering how they plan to light up the bridge at night, the current renderings no longer show the lights like they had shown before. Lit-up railings on each side would be a cool effect.
(https://www.luxreview.com/wp-content/uploads/upload/rich/1448294323_Reading%20Bridge%20Central%20Mast.jpg)
This was also a problem with the old bridge that doesn't look like it is being addressed: mixing bikes with joggers/pedestrians. They need to have a bike lane along the bridge or else it will be a cluster.
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/ba/3baa26d0-4e10-5ea7-80bb-3fe1b5fbc13d/5f52ff505a6a0.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C501)
Quote from: shavethewhales on September 11, 2020, 08:17:47 AM
If we're spending this much money on a bridge, it should be iconic. A landmark for our city.
What's worse, this isn't what was originally proposed when the design was selected from others. Here are some photos of the original design with shad structures and seating in the middle: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e35f7b32f69d76f6202afe4/the-gateway-design-selected-as-tulsas-new-pedestrian-bridge
Here are the final four again, if you have a TW subscription: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/pedestrian-bridge-design-narrowed-to-four-options-public-input-sought/article_424da06b-71da-564f-a3a9-fafa0cf3ae73.html
Out of 233 submissions, they picked a pretty basic design and then dumbed it down farther. Disappointing.
I guess the costs of everything around the bridge eat into the costs of the overall project. If they hadn't completely FUBAR'ed the gathering place budget, they could have finished the river side portion and then the bridge could have been focused on apart from all that.
When it takes 3-5 years between allocating the money and the start of construction, the cost isn't going to be anywhere near what was projected at the start. I don't understand why this, the BMX facility and nearly everything else we vote on takes years to go from the vote to the start of construction --- forget about opening. And while I'm irritated, this city loves studies - we love to pay someone a couple hundred grand to study something into dust. And then 90% of the time, the study is the thing - it's almost like there was never any intention to do anything but the study. It's ridiculous. PlanitTulsa? Tell me I'm wrong and don't understand how these things go, but if it takes a decade or longer from idea/concept to ground breaking --- what's the point?
SXSW in reply #168 writes
"The current bridge while historical is not particularly beautiful or noteworthy."
I respectfully disagree. Two basic points in this post...
(1) The design as incorporated into the historical railroad bridge actually is noteworthy from a creative-design architectural standpoint. Credit goes to Memphis architect Roy Harrover. In the book The Tulsa River, Ann Patton writes:
"The idea had been to remove the old tracks and replace them with a walking path, but 'Harrover said, you can't do that. Take out the braces and build the trail underneath the structure, so people don't have to climb a ladder to get to the walkway, and they can walk out of the sun. It was a brilliant solution,' remembered Len Eaton."
Patton also writes that "The Pedestrian Bridge is key to the recreation potential of Tulsa's stretch of the Arkansas River." That is one thing I was getting at in my first post on this topic...when putting in the new park, the already existing "key" spot in Tulsa's River Parks was marred and remains that way; a most unfortunate case of mismanagement. Now why was it key? Not only for its connective function, but for the pedestrian experience, itself. See point two for more about this.
(I will not go into the thought that "'The bridge could serve as a symbol of the river itself,' Bubenik said when the Pedestrian Bridge was dedicated in July 1975..." [All my quotations from Patton's book are from page 33.])
(2) The pedestrian experience on the Midland Valley Bridge was, itself, often most beautiful and noteworthy. Visually cool (the water, the views of downtown and Turkey Mountain, the wildlife...). Historically cool. Physically cool (for instance, that old wooden bounce). And cool temperatures with sufficient shade cover... Do you know how many people of all ages and ethnicities I have seen enjoying that bridge in my lifetime? (Note: I borrow the phrase "the pedestrian experience" from LandArchPoke in reply #175.)
To quote LandArchPoke related to the shade point (quoting from post #171), "the old bridge...was covered and was super pleasant to be on during most of the year." And speaking of the new bridge, in contrast: "I can't believe there's no shade structures designed into it." Terrible.
Regarding the statement in reply #174, "While not the best outcome the new bridge will still be a major improvement," I agree only that it will be an improvement over the newly created problem (now years old) of no functioning pedestrian bridge at all. It is still my opinion as of this writing that the new $bridge$ should remain a "castle in the air" (or on paper) and the possibility of saving the old bridge be reevaluated...
At the VERY LEAST put in a replacement which is not obviously inferior (beyond the issue of "authentic character") in any major category as regards the pedestrian experience...
I completely agree Rio Gator.
When the final bridge design was decided on I was super let down that it wasn't 'The Crossing' design, that seemed to be the only bridge design that really fit with what the gathering place was intending to be. And frankly, with a more 'controversial', or rather unique design like the crossing the conversation around the construction process would've remained in focus and we may have had a bridge by now.
After reading your comment though it opened my eyes a bit, when it was all announced I was very gungho on the new pedestrian bridge, but with the original sitting there vacant for so long it has brought up lots of fond memories and seeing the final design concepts of the new bridge, I'd much rather have the original. I get the feeling that when they initially evaluated the bridge, they too were too focused on the new project, a reevaluation would be good.
In order to save the old bridge, it would have to be dismantled, the piers completely rebuilt, and then put back together with new timber. The supports are crumbling and can't be fixed.
This could probably be done. Arguable whether it would be better than the proposed design, but if the proposed really doesn't have dedicated bike lanes then its a wash for me.
Wonder how they're going to keep nesting birds and piles of trash out of the honeycomb part of the bridge. And chain link fencing? Where they've done this on overpasses like the 244 bridge on Yale near Admiral it just looks terrible - nothing says penitentiary like white concrete and chain link fencing. I dunno - maybe they should add some decorative razor wire to the bridge railing to really make it pop. ;D
Quote from: shavethewhales on September 24, 2020, 07:58:13 AM
In order to save the old bridge, it would have to be dismantled, the piers completely rebuilt, and then put back together with new timber. The supports are crumbling and can't be fixed.
This could probably be done. Arguable whether it would be better than the proposed design, but if the proposed really doesn't have dedicated bike lanes then its a wash for me.
Based on the renderings, I believe what they're shooting for is to have you park your bike and then take one of the new dedicated kayak routes across the river.
Quote from: tulsabug on September 24, 2020, 08:02:55 AM
Based on the renderings, I believe what they're shooting for is to have you park your bike and then take one of the new dedicated kayak routes across the river.
LOL but seriously there needs to be a bike lane on the bridge. That was one of the biggest issues I had with the old bridge. To work as a connector between the east and West Bank trails it needs dedicated bike lanes, and they should be on the south side as most people walking/jogging across will be on the north side because of the views.
Quote from: tulsabug on September 24, 2020, 08:01:22 AM
Wonder how they're going to keep nesting birds and piles of trash out of the honeycomb part of the bridge. And chain link fencing? Where they've done this on overpasses like the 244 bridge on Yale near Admiral it just looks terrible - nothing says penitentiary like white concrete and chain link fencing. I dunno - maybe they should add some decorative razor wire to the bridge railing to really make it pop. ;D
These are good points. All those voids are going to get full of bird trash. I wonder if they thought of that during the selection? As for the fencing, I assume it is welded wire... but that is an assumption at this point.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gatheringplace/gathering-place-to-grow-with-pedestrian-bridge-project/article_49b60bfc-eeb3-11ea-acd5-9787e4e61513.html
Some quotes:
"Stava said building a canopy or other sun shield over the deck would simply be too expensive. His hope is that construction bids will come in low enough that money will be available to install the up-lighting shown in the renderings and some kind of benches.
"If the $27.4 million in public funding for the project is not sufficient to pay for those amenities, the city and the Gathering Place will determine whether they want to try to raise private money for the up-lighting, benches and any other features they would like included in the project. No private funding has been secured yet."
"The new bridge will not have a fishing dock." (I am no fisherman, but just for the record.)
That thing is going to be TOASTY without any covering.
Yeah, that bridge needs to have a shade structure. I think it's a mistake to go forward without shade.
Equally important in my eyes is a clear separation between bikes and pedestrians. That was an issue with the old bridge. It looks like this one will be wider which is good. Two-way bike lanes on the south side and a pedestrian lane on the north side (where people will be looking at the view) would make this bridge a lot safer.
JMO, it sounds more like a car dealer bait and switch. Here's the car you want, but this is the car you can afford. The original winner did look wider with better separation for bikes and pedestrians as well as better benches and shade structures.
My favorite part of the article:
QuoteThe new pedestrian bridge will not be the exact one Tulsans were shown in renderings when Mayor G.T. Bynum announced that the Gateway Bridge had won the design competition. Those drawings were of the $35 million version of the structure, which included wood decking, shading, benches, vegetation and canopy to shield people from the sun.
Stava said building a canopy or other sun shield over the deck would simply be too expensive. His hope is that construction bids will come in low enough that money will be available to install the up-lighting shown in the renderings and some kind of benches.
So they don't even know if they will have enough money for the lighting and the benches even with building the stripped down base model?
This is looking more and more like a total cluster. Please scrap it and try again before spending $27.4 Million (before cost overruns) on a bridge that no one will be happy with.
I am sure we are all excited (or apparently are supposed to be excited) about having the "very first steel plate multiarch bridge ever built in the United States" ??? ??? ???, but it's not worth ending up with an inadequate facility that does not provide what we need.
It will have to have some sort of shade structure on it for people to actually want to use it. Heat is one problem, the sun imho will actually be worse, even if its cool out, or cooler over the river. That Oklahoma sun glaring down on you and then more sun reflecting up from the bridge and water surfaces... will be blindingly awful. At least having a covered structure here and there, or even one mid way would make it much nicer, doesn't have to be over the whole thing. Surely some company or someone would like to have naming rights for a covered area.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 13, 2020, 07:19:47 PM
It will have to have some sort of shade structure on it for people to actually want to use it. Heat is one problem, the sun imho will actually be worse, even if its cool out, or cooler over the river. That Oklahoma sun glaring down on you and then more sun reflecting up from the bridge and water surfaces... will be blindingly awful. At least having a covered structure here and there, or even one mid way would make it much nicer, doesn't have to be over the whole thing. Surely some company or someone would like to have naming rights for a covered area.
No covering will certainly limit use.
I don't care for the new drawings either but could live with it if it had a cover.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/councilors-urge-gathering-place-to-include-shade-structure-on-new-pedestrian-bridge/article_a7d70fce-0e57-11eb-9589-77c8173a3586.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest
Councilors urge Gathering Place to include shade structure on new pedestrian bridge
I feel like they're better off not striping it.
(http://tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/df/0dfdadc4-0cc0-11eb-80a8-1fe024465aef/5f84ac994777b.image.jpg?crop=824%2C402%2C40%2C1&resize=750%2C366&order=crop%2Cresize)
Quote from: Tulsan on October 15, 2020, 08:19:56 PM
I feel like they're better off not striping it.
(http://tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/df/0dfdadc4-0cc0-11eb-80a8-1fe024465aef/5f84ac994777b.image.jpg?crop=824%2C402%2C40%2C1&resize=750%2C366&order=crop%2Cresize)
Thanks for posting this, I have been wondering how it would be divided up. I was looking at the paths along the river and comparing them to ones here, and using the measuring tool on Google maps (I know it's not that accurate) and the all looked to be ~10 feet in width but that's for both cyclist and pedestrian traffic.
The one thing I find odd is that all the seating is to face north. JMO opinion is that there should be some south facing seating and this could easily be done with a chicane in the path to move cyclists from one side to the other.
Quote from: Tulsan on October 15, 2020, 08:19:56 PM
I feel like they're better off not striping it.
Why do you think it's better unstriped?
This layout looks nice, but of course it presumes they come up with money for benches...
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 16, 2020, 08:36:44 AM
Why do you think it's better unstriped?
This layout looks nice, but of course it presumes they come up with money for benches...
Just personal intuition... unlike the trail, the bridge will be a confined space for pedestrians to meander. Folks will not just be getting from point A to point B, but stop to gather, sight-see, sit and rest. The proposed division would confin pedestrians to 78" of the total 216" wide bridge deck, with 24" reserved for center benches and 114" for zooming cyclists. I feel that cyclists go much faster on designated lanes, which will cause the bridge to be more dangerous. What if a pedestrian wishes to look out over that side of the bridge, and has to dodge traffic?
I think the better configuration would be to open the entire space without designated lanes, and require cyclists to go slower and respect pedestrian traffic.
Quote from: Tulsan on October 16, 2020, 09:07:42 AM
Just personal intuition... unlike the trail, the bridge will be a confined space for pedestrians to meander. Folks will not just be getting from point A to point B, but stop to gather, sight-see, sit and rest. The proposed division would confin pedestrians to 78" of the total 216" wide bridge deck, with 24" reserved for center benches and 114" for zooming cyclists. I feel that cyclists go much faster on designated lanes, which will cause the bridge to be more dangerous. What if a pedestrian wishes to look out over that side of the bridge, and has to dodge traffic?
I think the better configuration would be to open the entire space without designated lanes, and require cyclists to go slower and respect pedestrian traffic.
$10.00 say the cycling crowd will whine and cry because people are meandering all over the bridge and they have to keep yelling at people when they approach pedestrians, and they have a right to have protected lanes on the bridge.
Another article that closes with this quote: "If it's too much for the shade, it would be best to build it without the shade for now," Wells said. "Just get the necessity taken care of and then maybe later we can address the shade issue."
https://ktul.com/news/local/shade-no-longer-part-of-tulsa-pedestrian-bridge
Rather, find a better/cost-effective solution before it's too late to go back to the drawing board. If sufficient funding cannot be secured for shade on this new design, it is effectively more compromised than the old bridge.
I don't remember the other designs, but is it possible one them might be more cost-effective? This appears to be a pretty expensive design. I'm afraid the best course at this point might be to start over. Cannon_Fodder's initial reaction to the design finalists captures the issues:
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.
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on October 16, 2020, 12:06:14 PM
Another article that closes with this quote: "If it's too much for the shade, it would be best to build it without the shade for now," Wells said. "Just get the necessity taken care of and then maybe later we can address the shade issue."
Massively stupid statement by a massively stupid person.
Wanna know what that is gonna be like? Get up on a Kohl's store, or Walmart, or whatever your favorite big box is (I have done that.). In July or August...or any other month of the year. Walk around a while and experience the thrill of no shade on an elevated surface.
This is gonna be a bust.
Various letters to the editor by different individuals from the last two months.
Bridge claims disputed, October 25 ("Editor's note: Charles Pratt is a licensed professional engineer.")
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-bridge-claims-disputed/article_5d6d7d74-1537-11eb-b5e9-ef5ce921d5a0.html
Selected quote: "Had the editors of the Tulsa World closely read the 2015 engineers report, deeming the old pedestrian bridge as dangerous, they would find out that any such conclusion of the bridge’s safety would be fake news."
Design for new pedestrian bridge looks less user-friendly, October 18
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-design-for-new-pedestrian-bridge-looks-less-user-friendly/article_8fe4201a-0e6f-11eb-abac-6bfb0e6ec7d3.html
Selected quote: "This taxpayer thinks this plan is outright stupid and wasteful. If the existing structure needs beefing up, do it."
Holding on to the River Parks bridge, September 16
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-holding-on-to-the-river-parks-bridge/article_8c06035c-f39c-11ea-8ca5-8b73737d3480.html
Selected quote: "In a city which has bulldozed many of its historic downtown buildings, maybe we might want to hold on to this old bridge. Just saying."
New pedestrian bridge is a step backward, October 20
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-new-pedestrian-bridge-is-a-step-backward/article_c8b3ebe8-10d4-11eb-9b82-8f63760b24e6.html
Selected quote: "Please, block the premature demolition of our time-tested, now-abandoned bridge. Research the question impartially. Do not settle for an unworthy successor. Replace it wisely or not at all."
Wonder if anyone with authority is listening...
And another one from today:
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-tulsans-deserve-a-covered-bridge-across-the-arkansas-river/article_c851b2a8-1f83-11eb-b40a-73daa276ce9d.html
Selected quote: "Tulsa deserves a bridge at least as good as what we had. If it is no longer safe, fix it.
"Surely it would cost less than a new one, and most of it is still there. We would then end up with a charming, old fashioned, safe, covered bridge."
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on November 08, 2020, 11:44:34 AM
Various letters to the editor by different individuals from the last two months.
Bridge claims disputed, October 25 ("Editor's note: Charles Pratt is a licensed professional engineer.")
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-bridge-claims-disputed/article_5d6d7d74-1537-11eb-b5e9-ef5ce921d5a0.html
Selected quote: "Had the editors of the Tulsa World closely read the 2015 engineers report, deeming the old pedestrian bridge as dangerous, they would find out that any such conclusion of the bridge's safety would be fake news."
Design for new pedestrian bridge looks less user-friendly, October 18
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-design-for-new-pedestrian-bridge-looks-less-user-friendly/article_8fe4201a-0e6f-11eb-abac-6bfb0e6ec7d3.html
Selected quote: "This taxpayer thinks this plan is outright stupid and wasteful. If the existing structure needs beefing up, do it."
Holding on to the River Parks bridge, September 16
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-holding-on-to-the-river-parks-bridge/article_8c06035c-f39c-11ea-8ca5-8b73737d3480.html
Selected quote: "In a city which has bulldozed many of its historic downtown buildings, maybe we might want to hold on to this old bridge. Just saying."
New pedestrian bridge is a step backward, October 20
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-new-pedestrian-bridge-is-a-step-backward/article_c8b3ebe8-10d4-11eb-9b82-8f63760b24e6.html
Selected quote: "Please, block the premature demolition of our time-tested, now-abandoned bridge. Research the question impartially. Do not settle for an unworthy successor. Replace it wisely or not at all."
Wonder if anyone with authority is listening...
Lies and distortions going on about the bridge being unsafe, just like so much other carp in Tulsa. That's what Republicans bring to the table. The era of 'Urban Renewal' all over again.
Stupid as expected.
I understand the disappointment and fondness of the old bridge, but don't want to see this become some grand conspiracy theory like everything else these days. If the experts say a bridge is unsafe, we should believe them. I do also agree that the bridge design needs to be revisted. We can call for a better bridge without assuming there's some conspiracy to deliver a poor design.
As much as I would like there to be shade on this bridge how many other pedestrian bridges have shade structures? Genuine question. I'm familiar with the one in Austin and it doesn't have any kind of shade, and their summers are longer and more brutal than ours.
Quote from: SXSW on November 09, 2020, 09:33:47 AM
As much as I would like there to be shade on this bridge how many other pedestrian bridges have shade structures? Genuine question. I'm familiar with the one in Austin and it doesn't have any kind of shade, and their summers are longer and more brutal than ours.
The pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake has three areas where shade can be added or removed as the weather changes.
https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA (https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA)
https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8 (https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8)
https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6 (https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6)
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 09, 2020, 12:34:30 PM
The pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake has three areas where shade can be added or removed as the weather changes.
https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA (https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA)
https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8 (https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8)
https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6 (https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6)
Interesting, seems like provisions for something like this could be designed into the bridge and added later. Fabric shade structures are probably the most cost-effective solution.
That would sure be better than nothing. One problem (other than money), if there is one, might have to do with this...
"Tulsa's Gathering Place LLC Director and Trustee Jeff Stava is overseeing the bridge project. He said shade structures on pedestrian bridges are uncommon, and this one would have to be built to withstand winds up to 75 mph."
https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/tulsa-city-council-takes-issue-pared-down-new-arkansas-river-pedestrian-bridge#stream/0
Also, on another point... The claim about the bridge's structural safety in the World letter cited above, if I understand it correctly, was that it was deemed unsafe for the double-decker design... (The idea being that it could be repaired/made safe, otherwise...)
A Pedestrian Bridge petition has recently been started. You can go to:
www.PedBridge.com
Sample quotes from early Tulsa signers:
"It's a Tulsa icon, equal to Cains. As a runner, it has always been a welcome sight. Additionally, it is a fixture of the river parks trail system that has been enjoyed over multiple generations and is tied to the history of this city."
"This bridge has a lot of memories for many tulsans, I've yet to meet a person who wants it's demolished."
"Blend the old into the new."
The petition's goal is a reevaluation before premature demolition (and settling for a problematic successor).
Quote from: shavethewhales on November 09, 2020, 09:31:20 AM
I understand the disappointment and fondness of the old bridge, but don't want to see this become some grand conspiracy theory like everything else these days. If the experts say a bridge is unsafe, we should believe them. I do also agree that the bridge design needs to be revisted. We can call for a better bridge without assuming there's some conspiracy to deliver a poor design.
If the experts don't have a financial interest in the outcome, true.
Another opinion in that list of links up there, from an expert.
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-bridge-claims-disputed/article_5d6d7d74-1537-11eb-b5e9-ef5ce921d5a0.html
Quote from: SXSW on November 09, 2020, 09:33:47 AM
As much as I would like there to be shade on this bridge how many other pedestrian bridges have shade structures? Genuine question. I'm familiar with the one in Austin and it doesn't have any kind of shade, and their summers are longer and more brutal than ours.
Then they have failed in part on their bridge. Doesn't mean we should fail, too....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 12, 2020, 10:27:03 AM
Then they have failed in part on their bridge. Doesn't mean we should fail, too....
Providence also built a new pedestrian bridge...no shade (but looks really nice with the wood planks): https://www.archpaper.com/2020/11/the-providence-river-pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-continues-a-shipbuilding-tradition/?trk_msg=VUS83G1H07UKF8KI6H1IGIVL4G&trk_contact=TJ4P18D0QVRFFGLVQQOQVURVKS&trk_sid=F1BE2V9NA7NHMO0RII06OKUIS4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+continues+a+shipbuilding+tradition&utm_campaign=Outdoor+Spaces%3a+The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+repurposes+highway+infrastructure (https://www.archpaper.com/2020/11/the-providence-river-pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-continues-a-shipbuilding-tradition/?trk_msg=VUS83G1H07UKF8KI6H1IGIVL4G&trk_contact=TJ4P18D0QVRFFGLVQQOQVURVKS&trk_sid=F1BE2V9NA7NHMO0RII06OKUIS4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+continues+a+shipbuilding+tradition&utm_campaign=Outdoor+Spaces%3a+The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+repurposes+highway+infrastructure)
Omaha also has a fairly new pedestrian suspension bridge...no shade https://www.visitomaha.com/bob/ (https://www.visitomaha.com/bob/)
Dublin OH (outside Columbus) has a new bridge...no shade https://www.forbes.com/sites/reginacole/2020/04/16/dublin-ohio-builds-a-pedestrian-bridge-between-old-and-new/?sh=7bf5f8192f75 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/reginacole/2020/04/16/dublin-ohio-builds-a-pedestrian-bridge-between-old-and-new/?sh=7bf5f8192f75)
The aforementioned Austin pedestrian bridge...no shade https://www.aiaaustin.org/firm_project/pfluger-pedestrian-bridge (https://www.aiaaustin.org/firm_project/pfluger-pedestrian-bridge)
Quote from: SXSW on November 12, 2020, 10:43:23 AM
Providence also built a new pedestrian bridge...no shade (but looks really nice with the wood planks): https://www.archpaper.com/2020/11/the-providence-river-pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-continues-a-shipbuilding-tradition/?trk_msg=VUS83G1H07UKF8KI6H1IGIVL4G&trk_contact=TJ4P18D0QVRFFGLVQQOQVURVKS&trk_sid=F1BE2V9NA7NHMO0RII06OKUIS4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+continues+a+shipbuilding+tradition&utm_campaign=Outdoor+Spaces%3a+The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+repurposes+highway+infrastructure (https://www.archpaper.com/2020/11/the-providence-river-pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-continues-a-shipbuilding-tradition/?trk_msg=VUS83G1H07UKF8KI6H1IGIVL4G&trk_contact=TJ4P18D0QVRFFGLVQQOQVURVKS&trk_sid=F1BE2V9NA7NHMO0RII06OKUIS4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+continues+a+shipbuilding+tradition&utm_campaign=Outdoor+Spaces%3a+The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+repurposes+highway+infrastructure)
Omaha also has a fairly new pedestrian suspension bridge...no shade https://www.visitomaha.com/bob/ (https://www.visitomaha.com/bob/)
Dublin OH (outside Columbus) has a new bridge...no shade https://www.forbes.com/sites/reginacole/2020/04/16/dublin-ohio-builds-a-pedestrian-bridge-between-old-and-new/?sh=7bf5f8192f75 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/reginacole/2020/04/16/dublin-ohio-builds-a-pedestrian-bridge-between-old-and-new/?sh=7bf5f8192f75)
The aforementioned Austin pedestrian bridge...no shade https://www.aiaaustin.org/firm_project/pfluger-pedestrian-bridge (https://www.aiaaustin.org/firm_project/pfluger-pedestrian-bridge)
The only one of those that has summer heat approaching that of Tulsa is Austin, and their bridge is about 1/2 as long as our planned bridge. Plus, we have (had) a bridge with shade, which made it quite lovely to walk across and linger. Now we are going backwards and building a bridge that one will just have to endure (or avoid) during the hot summer months).
I made a call the other day. Had a lengthy conversation (I mostly listened) about the much discussed bridge report/safety/restoration issues...
After that call, I was sent a copy of the 2015 HNTB report and given additional notes on it.
Very pertinent info; you can read about what I learned and can now download the full report (to see for yourself) at www.pedbridge.com/blog/
Please consider signing the petition.
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on November 14, 2020, 11:56:59 PM
I made a call the other day. Had a lengthy conversation (I mostly listened) about the much discussed bridge report/safety/restoration issues...
After that call, I was sent a copy of the 2015 HNTB report and given additional notes on it.
Very pertinent info; you can read about what I learned and can now download the full report (to see for yourself) at www.pedbridge.com/blog/
Please consider signing the petition.
Very interesting! Thanks for that information and the link to the report.
That answers a lot of questions! So the solution is to simply build new piers and move the bridge onto them. I had no idea that an actual engineering company had evaluated this option and assumed it would be too expensive.
Thanks for putting in that effort, I will try to rebroadcast this!
When the piers were exposed during the 80's LWD construction they were found to be highly eroded. It took awhile to obtain funding before I wrote the change order for the repairs to the dam contractor.
Unless somebody is discussing this as a design-build, then I really don't trust any of the cost estimates. This is a pretty special area and it's not like we have tons of pricing to get an accurate number of what would be the most efficient way to do construction. I would also like to see the existing bridge or something similar, but I really don't trust any engineer saying that this will save 10%.
Have you looked at the HNTB report?
They have the cred:
https://www.hntb.com/bridges/
Look at the numbers in their report.
Quote from: buffalodan on November 16, 2020, 02:08:35 PM
Unless somebody is discussing this as a design-build, then I really don't trust any of the cost estimates. This is a pretty special area and it's not like we have tons of pricing to get an accurate number of what would be the most efficient way to do construction. I would also like to see the existing bridge or something similar, but I really don't trust any engineer saying that this will save 10%.
Unfortunately, by statute, Design-Build is not easily authorized on Public work in Oklahoma.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on November 17, 2020, 07:54:25 AM
Unfortunately, by statute, Design-Build is not easily authorized on Public work in Oklahoma.
For something “not easily authorized,” there are legal solutions. That’s what good people/officials do to make a worthy project work when it’s the right thing to do.
One example involves my Grandfather, Colonel Vernon W. Pinkey, who was Tulsa District Engineer when the Arkansas-Verdigris River System was declared open for navigation in 1970.
Ann Patton (1970s Tulsa World reporter/author of “The Tulsa River”) told me, in a private email, that “he recommended special federal legislation that allowed the city of Tulsa to buy terribly flooded houses on Mingo Creek without disqualifying the city from the big Corps' Mingo project. It was a critical piece, and as far as I know, is unique. I can describe it in more technical detail if you are interested. It was really a creative and masterful idea, well executed. Probably almost nobody alive knows about it, so you have to be the keeper of that great contribution.”
Somebody can make this work from a legal standpoint.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on November 17, 2020, 07:54:25 AM
Unfortunately, by statute, Design-Build is not easily authorized on Public work in Oklahoma.
It seems that design build can be used but it is heavily restricted.
From
Title 61. Public Buildings and Public Works
§61-202.1. Design-build and at-risk construction management project delivery methods - Authorization required - Exemptions.Section C
QuoteC. The design-build and construction management project delivery methods shall not be used for any project unless the project meets the criteria established by the administrative rules promulgated as required by this act. Such methods shall not be used unless there is a need for compressed construction time as required to respond to a natural disaster or other emergency situation affecting public health and safety, or all of the following criteria for designation are met:
1. The project benefits the public;
2. There is a need for cost control; and
3. The need exists for specialized or complex construction methods due to the unique nature of the project.
https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2016/title-61/section-61-202.1/ (https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2016/title-61/section-61-202.1/)
Design Build has been allowed in Arizona for ~30 years and works quite well. The city I used to work did this for multiple buildings including seven fire stations, a public works facility and some parks & rec projects.
I have been informed (elsewhere) that...
"There are going to be a lot of stakeholders moving forward in the use of the new bridge and also the new dam underneath, with its kayaking flume, etc."
To these stakeholders and co. I would be tempted to say...
"The new dam, flume, etc., might be great, and there may be money to be made, but the new bridge itself is a mistake—downgrading from what we already had in key ways—and a preventable mistake at that (so much the worse). The 1917 bridge should not be demolished for it, of all possibilities. Clearly, many thousands feel this way; I have only encountered a small representative sample, already evidenced by the petition. Said stakeholders should read the 2015 HNTB report from beginning to end, for starters, and see about saving some money and keeping/renovating something truly unique. It ain't too late to stop this Brookside Blunder (or, anyhow, it should not be.) Have a nice day and Happy Thanksgiving."
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on November 16, 2020, 03:01:55 PM
Have you looked at the HNTB report?
They have the cred:
https://www.hntb.com/bridges/
Look at the numbers in their report.
I'm not saying that it is wrong, just that I would much rather have a contractor give us an estimate on something that is fairly abnormal. We are now comparing a 5 year old preliminary study done using RS Means and ODOT historical pricing to an as-bid price. They aren't really the same thing. I think your argument is strong enough that the new bridge as designed isn't a good use of our money compared to other options (KKT Bridge?). But I don't buy for an instant that we could rehab the old bridge for half the price of a new bridge. I think HNTB lowballed the repair option and we picked an expensive and bad new bridge.
Also, that is interesting about design-built. I think this would be a perfect implementation for it.
Quote from: buffalodan on November 23, 2020, 11:55:38 AM
I'm not saying that it is wrong, just that I would much rather have a contractor give us an estimate on something that is fairly abnormal. We are now comparing a 5 year old preliminary study done using RS Means and ODOT historical pricing to an as-bid price. They aren't really the same thing. I think your argument is strong enough that the new bridge as designed isn't a good use of our money compared to other options (KKT Bridge?). But I don't buy for an instant that we could rehab the old bridge for half the price of a new bridge. I think HNTB lowballed the repair option and we picked an expensive and bad new bridge.
Also, that is interesting about design-built. I think this would be a perfect implementation for it.
Well, I myself can't say whether they low-balled, of course. So, at any rate, sounds like we agree it's time to get another estimate/do another renovation study/or come up with a better replacement and not just tear her down to make room for said expensive and bad new bridge. Works for me. And I agree, this seems to meet the design-build criteria cited above... (What can we do to make this happen?)
Quote from: buffalodan on November 23, 2020, 11:55:38 AM
I'm not saying that it is wrong, just that I would much rather have a contractor give us an estimate on something that is fairly abnormal. We are now comparing a 5 year old preliminary study done using RS Means and ODOT historical pricing to an as-bid price. They aren't really the same thing. I think your argument is strong enough that the new bridge as designed isn't a good use of our money compared to other options (KKT Bridge?). But I don't buy for an instant that we could rehab the old bridge for half the price of a new bridge. I think HNTB lowballed the repair option and we picked an expensive and bad new bridge.
Also, that is interesting about design-built. I think this would be a perfect implementation for it.
Why would HNTB have lowballed the repair option and on what grounds do you come to that opinion? (It wasn't a bid to do the work; I'm just not seeing any motive for them to have lowballed.)
Quote from: Oil Capital on November 24, 2020, 09:22:44 AM
Why would HNTB have lowballed the repair option and on what grounds do you come to that opinion? (It wasn't a bid to do the work; I'm just not seeing any motive for them to have lowballed.)
Something somewhat similar to this was said to me between my last post and this one. (Besides which...just my impression...if they were low-balling, isn't the high estimate of almost 20 million a bit high?! Now since I'm not a professional engineer, I can't check this for myself, but from what I've heard...)
I think, bottom line, it does seem pretty clear:
There is good reason to have confidence in HNTB's ability and in their having provided a reasonably accurate estimate. Their figures would certainly be considered significant evidence in a court of law, over and above any run-of-the-mill opinion. It's our best evidence at the moment...
Another thought: Imagine if the public had been told HNTB's full recommendations five years ago...
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on November 24, 2020, 10:52:28 AM
Something somewhat similar to this was said to me between my last post and this one. (Besides which...just my impression...if they were low-balling, isn't the high estimate of almost 20 million a bit high?! Now since I'm not a professional engineer, I can't check this for myself, but from what I've heard...)
I think, bottom line, it does seem pretty clear:
There is good reason to have confidence in HNTB's ability and in their having provided a reasonably accurate estimate. Their figures would certainly be considered significant evidence in a court of law, over and above any run-of-the-mill opinion. It's our best evidence at the moment...
Another thought: Imagine if the public had been told HNTB's full recommendations five years ago...
EXACTLY, and why weren't we?
Quote from: Oil Capital on November 24, 2020, 09:22:44 AM
Why would HNTB have lowballed the repair option and on what grounds do you come to that opinion? (It wasn't a bid to do the work; I'm just not seeing any motive for them to have lowballed.)
So I'm not saying that they did, but there is a ton of research about how projects specifically like this tend to have a very long tail on the expensive end. HNTB is encouraged to come up with a $10mil cost estimate so that they can hopefully get the design. Then you can start throwing fun add-ins and doing more due diligence to get to $30mil. So comparing a scoping estimate of project A to an as-bid to project B doesn't have a ton of value. HNTB may not have realized that OTA was taking up tons of bridge contractors, or that USACE would have more intense scheduling requirements. I trust the low end, but after dealing with more of those type of project engineers do a really bad job of determining the high end of scope creep.
Again, it isn't so much that HNTB is bad, just that there is a lot of research that engineering firms tend to underestimate how expensive public facing /art projects can get. I also want to again state that I still think for $30mil we could have covered bridge with lights and everything, just that saying "HNTB said that the bridge could be saved for $10mil" doesn't hold much weight to me.
When is the planned demo of the old bridge?
My question is why does the old bridge need to be demoed? I think the new bridge is supposed to be built north of the old bridge, right and it isn't in the way of the new dam I believe - could be wrong though?
Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.
I do get that at some point the old bridge will be unstable and need to be closed but I feel like from what other people have said and what other engineers have said is that bridge isn't in critical fear of collapse. Why not keep it around for another few years, especially until we have the ability to raise money to add shade, etc. to the new bridge. Maybe down the road we can figure out a way to keep both.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 01, 2020, 03:28:28 PM
When is the planned demo of the old bridge?
My question is why does the old bridge need to be demoed? I think the new bridge is supposed to be built north of the old bridge, right and it isn't in the way of the new dam I believe - could be wrong though?
Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.
I do get that at some point the old bridge will be unstable and need to be closed but I feel like from what other people have said and what other engineers have said is that bridge isn't in critical fear of collapse. Why not keep it around for another few years, especially until we have the ability to raise money to add shade, etc. to the new bridge. Maybe down the road we can figure out a way to keep both.
I agree with this in theory, but likely doesn't match their vision from an aesthetic standpoint. The new bridge will be built north of the existing bridge. This shows it well:
(https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/beaa44b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/636x358+0+61/resize/1280x720!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediaassets.kjrh.com%2Fphoto%2F2018%2F09%2F10%2Fgathering5_1536613732875_97050119_ver1.0_640_480.jpg)
The future Jenks low water dam will have a pedestrian bridge, likely similar to the Big Dam Bridge in Little Rock:
(https://i0.wp.com/www.jenkstribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Low-Water-Dam-1.jpg?fit=2096%2C1196&ssl=1)
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 01, 2020, 03:28:28 PM
When is the planned demo of the old bridge?
My question is why does the old bridge need to be demoed? I think the new bridge is supposed to be built north of the old bridge, right and it isn't in the way of the new dam I believe - could be wrong though?
Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.
I do get that at some point the old bridge will be unstable and need to be closed but I feel like from what other people have said and what other engineers have said is that bridge isn't in critical fear of collapse. Why not keep it around for another few years, especially until we have the ability to raise money to add shade, etc. to the new bridge. Maybe down the road we can figure out a way to keep both.
The bridge IS in fear of collapse. The existing piers are dangerous and crumbling apart. The whole point of this whole ordeal is that the bridge isn't deemed to be safe in it's current condition.
The proposal to build new piers and move the bridge onto them is intriguing, but at this point it is a lost cause. I'm not happy about the bait and switch with the bridge design, or the fact that this option was kept hidden from the public.
I'm sure in 25 years there will be a new initiative to build a worthy, landmark quality pedestrian bridge somewhere along the river. ::)
Quote from: shavethewhales on December 01, 2020, 05:44:43 PM
The bridge IS in fear of collapse. The existing piers are dangerous and crumbling apart. The whole point of this whole ordeal is that the bridge isn't deemed to be safe in it's current condition.
I wonder if this is really true that it's in fear of collapse or it that's been a 'spin' put on it to push for the new bridge. No doubt there is deferred maintenance on the old bridge that needs to be fixed and I could be wrong, I haven't dug into the history of this much, but I was thinking the main obstacle to keeping the old bridge was that the piers would not support making it a double deck bridge and that modifications to the bridge to facilitate more capacity was far too expensive and we should just build new for that reason. I didn't think the bridge was ever in such poor condition it couldn't be kept in its current fashion for a while. The powers that be just wanted a bigger and nicer bridge that could have separated bike lanes and then an area for pedestrians.
Someone who has read through it could probably answer this, but did the HNTB report just talk about keeping the bridge the way it is and just transferring to new piers or did it go on to discuss that the new piers would allow for the bridge to be modified to a double deck situation that was wanted? Browsing through it this wasn't apparent to me at least.
Even if the piers needed major restoration for safety reasons - why not build a smaller new bridge just for bikes, runners, etc. and then fix the piers on the current bridge, add some new lighting to make it look better at night, etc. and then we solve several of the issues at hand. Seems like the money saved on slightly scaling down the new bridge could possibly pay for repairs to the old bridge to keep it acceptable for pedestrian use.
Seems like there is some solutions out there if the city and others wanted to make it happen, just not sure if they really do. Seems like the entire point of building new has completely evaporated with no shade, seating, and not really having proper spacing between pedestrians and bikes.
We're just getting a crappy version of a new bridge that will have worse functional utility than the old bridge just for vanity purposes to have a bridge designed by MVVA.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 01, 2020, 03:28:28 PM
When is the planned demo of the old bridge?
My question is why does the old bridge need to be demoed? I think the new bridge is supposed to be built north of the old bridge, right and it isn't in the way of the new dam I believe - could be wrong though?
Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.
As I understand it the hydraulic model does not provide for "zero rise" (which is one of the design conditions) at the 100 year flood level with the piers from two bridges that close to the LWD.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on December 02, 2020, 09:17:11 AM
As I understand it the hydraulic model does not provide for "zero rise" (which is one of the design conditions) at the 100 year flood level with the piers from two bridges that close to the LWD.
Gotcha, interesting and thanks for that info. Any idea on when the plan to demo the bridge?
I wonder if a solution could be to move the new bridge south or further north. If you move it further north then you'd have the benefit of a bridge for the northern part of the gathering place as well - like around where the stop light is... then you almost create a short loop and might encourage more people to walk around to both sides of the river. Might make the city property on the west bank more valuable that way too if they ever decide to vacate it and sell it off.
Benefit of moving it south of the new dam would be the river bank isn't as wide with the bump out that built near the skate park, so you'd gain some cost savings from a shorter bridge that could then go to fixing issues on the old bridge. Seems like most of the bikers/runners come from that direction and would allow for a bypass from the busier part of the trails around the park for people that use the trails for recreation purposes. Might help alleviate some pressure on the trail system through the Gathering Place.
I'm not part of the bridge team but can offer a bit of my observations. I would imagine that any significant obstruction (of which bridge piers are) placed in the narrowed section at the Southern bump out would result in an unacceptable rise condition. Additionally, at that location the West bank is owned by PSO who while very friendly to the projects, the reality is that their site is already congested with power plant infrastructure plus the levee easement which cannot easily be encroached upon without adverse impact. In my opinion utilizing the existing West bank bridge landing location was likely a critical constraint and was a good solution to a difficult siting.
“Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.”
Not a bad idea. This project needed more creative thinking like this...
“The bridge IS in fear of collapse. The existing piers are dangerous and crumbling apart. The whole point of this whole ordeal is that the bridge isn't deemed to be safe in it's current condition.”
Is that quite right? Did you look at page 3-1 of the report? Note the third and last sentence ("...do not appear to present an immediate hazard requiring closure..." and "...regular inspection...") in the following paragraph. The actual concern seems to be about what might happen, eventually, if nobody pays attention or intervenes IF the cracks grow... I quote:
“Numerous welds exhibit defects that could compromise the reliability of the structure over the long term. Several welds appear to have cracked, and pose a risk to the fracture critical lower chords, suggesting crack growth could precipitate collapse. The cracks do not appear to present an immediate hazard requiring closure of the bridge, however it is not clear whether the cracks will grow and become unstable. The effort to grind out these cracks and replace the connections would be quite extensive given the large number of welds (numbering in the thousands). One alternative may be regular inspection to monitor the growth of the cracks over time.”
“The proposal to build new piers and move the bridge onto them is intriguing, but at this point it is a lost cause. I'm not happy about the bait and switch with the bridge design, or the fact that this option was kept hidden from the public.”
INDEED. And had I not started the petition, I would not have gotten my hands on that report which makes such clear. Disappointing.
P.S. Unfortunately, they edited out the interview details about the HNTB report, which it really seems someone did not want us to see. This mess would never have gotten this far with more transparency by the City. They also edited out any reference to single-deck restoration *maybe* saving 50% or more. Well, never say I did not try! ha
https://ktul.com/news/local/petition-to-save-old-pedestrian-bridge
LandArchPoke, I love your thoughts and also two-bridge solution you mentioned (not quoted here). Your basic read on this situation is correct, seems to me. Please speak out more on this issue. Without an urgent push for reevaluation of options there is no chance.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 01, 2020, 07:40:23 PM
I wonder if this is really true that it's in fear of collapse or it that's been a 'spin' put on it to push for the new bridge. No doubt there is deferred maintenance on the old bridge that needs to be fixed and I could be wrong, I haven't dug into the history of this much, but I was thinking the main obstacle to keeping the old bridge was that the piers would not support making it a double deck bridge and that modifications to the bridge to facilitate more capacity was far too expensive and we should just build new for that reason. I didn't think the bridge was ever in such poor condition it couldn't be kept in its current fashion for a while. The powers that be just wanted a bigger and nicer bridge that could have separated bike lanes and then an area for pedestrians.
Someone who has read through it could probably answer this, but did the HNTB report just talk about keeping the bridge the way it is and just transferring to new piers or did it go on to discuss that the new piers would allow for the bridge to be modified to a double deck situation that was wanted? Browsing through it this wasn't apparent to me at least.
Even if the piers needed major restoration for safety reasons - why not build a smaller new bridge just for bikes, runners, etc. and then fix the piers on the current bridge, add some new lighting to make it look better at night, etc. and then we solve several of the issues at hand. Seems like the money saved on slightly scaling down the new bridge could possibly pay for repairs to the old bridge to keep it acceptable for pedestrian use.
Seems like there is some solutions out there if the city and others wanted to make it happen, just not sure if they really do. Seems like the entire point of building new has completely evaporated with no shade, seating, and not really having proper spacing between pedestrians and bikes.
We're just getting a crappy version of a new bridge that will have worse functional utility than the old bridge just for vanity purposes to have a bridge designed by MVVA.
From today's paper:
https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-dont-demolish-pedestrian-bridge/article_d441a2b4-31f1-11eb-89a6-c739b54bf1a4.html?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_Tulsa_World_Opinion&fbclid=IwAR0eUSn07zKweDHaGhhJYAgyKv0211AEHzhkl1qM8azC_dAI5PR6NhCL_7E
SXSW:
"I agree with this in theory....The new bridge will be built north of the existing bridge."
Two bridges… More people are saying this. It could work. And could be made to work thematically, too.
We could have the “Gateway” bridge and also the “Gateway to the Past” leading to the original bridge.
Sure, there would have to be some adjustments to the current plan. But such adjustments would not hurt anyone, and would be well worth it, in the long run. Our best and brightest can come up with the necessary adjustments, and then we could ALL have the benefits of the new plans as well as the benefits of the original bridge. This is one good solution to the new vs. original argument: Both!
Furthermore, from the financial point of view, private donors would surely step up to rehabilitate the original bridge for fully functional use (at a minimum, some new railing ;] It is just that beloved.
This would taking hoarding to a new level.
Quote from: BKDotCom on December 07, 2020, 02:10:04 PM
This would taking hoarding to a new level.
You won the internet for the month.
We would have a growing collection of structurally-deficient bridges for certain. Tulsa could become the "Obsolete Bridge Capital Of The World." it's another great tourism scheme.
If anyone read the entire article the estimate to repair the old bridge is $20 plus million. I have fond memories of the old bridge dating back to the early raft races, but maybe I'm just not sentimental enough about it. Wreck it.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2020, 06:59:56 PM
You won the internet for the month.
We would have a growing collection of structurally-deficient bridges for certain. Tulsa could become the "Obsolete Bridge Capital Of The World." it's another great tourism scheme.
If anyone read the entire article the estimate to repair the old bridge is $20 plus million. I have fond memories of the old bridge dating back to the early raft races, but maybe I'm just not sentimental enough about it. Wreck it.
Question is that $20 million figure to repair the bridge as is, or is that figure the 'repairs' needed to make it a double deck bridge. Two very different options.
Just my opinion on the situation but I'd far prefer us keep the old bridge as a non double deck option as a primarily pedestrian crossing given it has shade. If the new bridge was going to be built as promised I'd have far less of a problem and wouldn't think a revaluation was needed.
Given that's not how it's gone, I do hope that some at the city stop and ask the question of what other options might we have? Like something I mentioned to maybe scale down the new bridge further and move it further north where the northern stop light is and offers a middle crossing between the old bridge and 21st. It also preserves the ability for pedestrians to walk out on the river without being cooked. Have pedestrians only on the old bridge and a scaled down version of the new bridge further north for bikes/faster users only.
I have an issue with us spending so much money on a design that's more of a vanity project that's tax payer funded where we've had to cut out every amenity to the bridge (shade, benches, proper width, etc.)
Maybe we need to redesign it to a simpler bridge which doesn't look as pretty but has far better utility - which is supposed to be the sole purpose of the bridge anyways. I have a problem with us spending tax payer money on a design like this that isn't needed (coming from someone who has degrees in this field) and ignores the purpose of needing a new bridge in the first place (separated bikes/pedestrians, better shade, sitting areas, etc.).
The first priority should have always been how to do pay for the things needed, and if we couldn't afford the fancy design from MVVA then they should have raised money for that part... not the other way around. It's a complete bait and switch and feels like a kick back to the landscape architect via us. We shouldn't be in the situation where we're being told oh we'll fundraise for benches and shade at some point in the future... that just shouldn't be acceptable. This new bridge also does not appear to even provide better separation of bikes/pedestrians which was supposedly the biggest driver of why the old bridge couldn't be repaired. That the only option to provide that was this very costly double decking of that bridge which would require significantly different reconstruction of the piers and structural supports. Seems like BS to me honestly.
At the very least it should be vetted publicly further given we aren't getting what was promised to us in the first place, I feel the city leadership does have a duty to show this really is the best thing to do, instead of the vibe of 'just trust us, blah blah' that we've gotten from the city. There's very valid questions that can be asked and thought on that in the end will be better for everyone.
For analogy purposes this entire thing seems like we're getting a BOK Center exterior design (starchitect) with the old Ford Center interior... kind of backwards. Imagine if we had done that. The reason why the BOK Center was worth it is because we did it right and purposely designed to be a superior arena for concerts compared to other regional venues. We are not doing the pedestrian bridge right currently. I'd by far rather have a Ford Center exterior and a BOK interior... the thing that actually matters to people who are using it and not just a fancy exterior for an Instagram picture.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 09, 2020, 08:37:32 PM
Question is that $20 million figure to repair the bridge as is, or is that figure the 'repairs' needed to make it a double deck bridge. Two very different options.
Just my opinion on the situation but I'd far prefer us keep the old bridge as a non double deck option as a primarily pedestrian crossing given it has shade. If the new bridge was going to be built as promised I'd have far less of a problem and wouldn't think a revaluation was needed.
Given that's not how it's gone I do hope that some at the city stop and ask the question of what other options might we have? Like something I mentioned, maybe scale down the new bridge further and move it further north where the northern stop light is and offers a middle crossing between the old bridge and 21st. It also preserves the ability for pedestrians to walk out on the river without being cooked.
I have an issue with us spending so much money for a vanity project that's tax payer funded where we've had to cut out every amenity to the bridge (shade, benches, etc.)
Either that or our city leaders need to have a very serious discussion on the utility of the bridge and what's really important. Maybe we need to a simpler bridge which doesn't look as pretty but have far better utility in which is the sole purpose of the bridge. I have a problem with us spending tax payer money on a design like this that isn't needed (coming from someone who has degrees in this field) and ignores the purpose of needing a new bridge in the first place (separated bikes/pedestrians, better shade, sitting areas, etc.).
The first priority should have always been how to do pay for the things needed, if we couldn't afford the fancy design from MVVA then they should have raised money for that part... not the other way around. It's a complete bait and switch and feels like a kick back to the landscape architect via us. We shouldn't be in the situation were we're being told oh we'll fundraise for benches and shade at some point in the future... that just shouldn't be acceptable. This new bridge also does not appear to even provide better separation of bikes/pedestrians which was supposedly the biggest driver of why the old bridge couldn't be repair. Seems like BS to me.
At the very least it should be vetted publicly further given we aren't getting what was promised to us in the first place to be shown this really is the best thing, instead of the vibe of 'just trust us, blah blah' that we've gotten from the city. There's very valid questions that can be asked and thought on that in the end will be better for everyone.
I always respect and look forward to reading your development opinions and your contributions here.
A pedestrian bridge in this location is a vanity project whether it's a new bridge or pouring $20m into something nearly as old as the very city itself which has structural and liability issues. The pedestrian bridge is purely recreational with the exception of a small number of commuters using it, I did when I'd ride my bike to work in west Tulsa, but it's not like there was a huge throng of us commuting back and forth daily that we can say commerce really benefitted from it.
I get the idea of public input on a final product for the bridge, but is anyone really going to remember in 20 years that there was any controversy revolving around pedestrian bridges? Maybe I'm too far removed from the daily happenings in Tulsa and my thoughts are the citizens of Tulsa have been given a $350 million park and now people are sounding a bit ungrateful about a nice accoutrement to the park in the form of a bridge. I'm pretty sure any shortfalls out of V-2025 funding or whichever pot this came from will be underwritten by GKFF and some of his close associates.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 09, 2020, 08:37:32 PM
Question is that $20 million figure to repair the bridge as is, or is that figure the 'repairs' needed to make it a double deck bridge. Two very different options.
Just my opinion on the situation but I'd far prefer us keep the old bridge as a non double deck option as a primarily pedestrian crossing given it has shade. If the new bridge was going to be built as promised I'd have far less of a problem and wouldn't think a revaluation was needed.
Given that's not how it's gone I do hope that some at the city stop and ask the question of what other options might we have? Like something I mentioned, maybe scale down the new bridge further and move it further north where the northern stop light is and offers a middle crossing between the old bridge and 21st. It also preserves the ability for pedestrians to walk out on the river without being cooked.
I have an issue with us spending so much money for a vanity project that's tax payer funded where we've had to cut out every amenity to the bridge (shade, benches, etc.)
Either that or our city leaders need to have a very serious discussion on the utility of the bridge and what's really important. Maybe we need to a simpler bridge which doesn't look as pretty but have far better utility in which is the sole purpose of the bridge. I have a problem with us spending tax payer money on a design like this that isn't needed (coming from someone who has degrees in this field) and ignores the purpose of needing a new bridge in the first place (separated bikes/pedestrians, better shade, sitting areas, etc.).
The first priority should have always been how to do pay for the things needed, if we couldn't afford the fancy design from MVVA then they should have raised money for that part... not the other way around. It's a complete bait and switch and feels like a kick back to the landscape architect via us. We shouldn't be in the situation were we're being told oh we'll fundraise for benches and shade at some point in the future... that just shouldn't be acceptable. This new bridge also does not appear to even provide better separation of bikes/pedestrians which was supposedly the biggest driver of why the old bridge couldn't be repaired. That the only option was this very costly double decking of that bridge which would require significantly different reconstruction of the piers and structural supports. Seems like BS to me honestly.
At the very least it should be vetted publicly further given we aren't getting what was promised to us in the first place to be shown this really is the best thing, instead of the vibe of 'just trust us, blah blah' that we've gotten from the city. There's very valid questions that can be asked and thought on that in the end will be better for everyone.
For analogy purposes this entire thing seems like we're getting a BOK Center exterior design (starchitect) with the old Ford Center interior... kind of backwards. Imagine if we had done that. The reason why the BOK Center is worth it was because we did it right and was purposely designed to be a superior arena for concerts compared to other regional venues. We are not doing the pedestrian bridge right currently. I'd by far rather have a Ford Center exterior and a BOK interior... the thing that actually matters to people who are using it and not just an Instagram picture.
This is a great post in many ways. Conan, LandArch is right. The "20 million" (19.9) figure is indeed the HIGH estimate for the double-decker, as given in the 2015 HNTB report. The HNTB report gives a LOW double-deck rehabilitation estimate of approximately "17.5 Million." NO ONE in the media has yet reported about the single-deck versus double-deck rehabilitation distinction. I have told EVERYONE. Always edited out. It could save MANY MILLIONS according to what I've been told.
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on December 09, 2020, 10:22:56 PM
This is a great post in many ways. Conan, LandArch is right. The "20 million" (19.9) figure is indeed the HIGH estimate for the double-decker, as given in the 2015 HNTB report. The HNTB report gives a LOW double-deck rehabilitation estimate of approximately "17.5 Million." NO ONE in the media has yet reported about the single-deck versus double-deck rehabilitation distinction. I have told EVERYONE. Always edited out. It could save MANY MILLIONS according to what I've been told.
Paul Zachary has stated even double-decking the bridge, it's not going to have sufficient safe flow for the number of users (I'm paraphrasing but essentially based on today's standards, there's not enough room to safely or comfortably accommodate the anticipated demand. I personally never had issues riding at peak pedestrian times on the bridge and in those cases, cyclists need to dismount and push instead of track-standing between walkers, joggers, dogs, and errant toddlers.
The shade argument matters little to me as much of the trail system does not have more than a few hours shade per day and the bridges over 21st, 71st, & 96th street where there is no shade doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to people out for recreation.
With what peripheral knowledge I have of construction a figure of $20m seems suspect when you consider re-casting piers, etc. I don't think it's doable for that. That was another point Paul Zachary made in the article: there were literally thousands of gussets which would have to be replaced and you are still dealing with a steel structure for which the steel was made right around Oklahoma statehood.
To me anyhow, keeping the old bridge seems a bit extravagant and I don't find it to be any more compelling an architectural feature than any other train trestle or bridge I've seen. I understand the sentiment for it, I fail to see where it's still practical with the kind of traffic Gathering Place brings nowadays.
Thanks for your thoughts... Here are a few of mine...
To me, double-decking is definitely not the right move. Have you seen what I was told about single-deck savings? at www.pedbridge.com/blog/ Saving/studying the possibility of saving all that money by staying with single-deck makes total sense to me. Also, related to staying single-deck, I agree with you that "I personally never had issues riding at peak pedestrian times on the bridge and in those cases, cyclists need to dismount and push instead of track-standing between walkers, joggers, dogs, and errant toddlers." I have been on that bridge thousands of times. And to ME, being able to hang out at length in the shade, with great views of the river on a hot day, is a very good thing. And I see a lot of elderly or frail folks able to do the same thing. To throw that away unnecessarily...
About two bridges. The thing is, they seem DETERMINED to build the Gateway bridge. In my opinion, various options could be reevaluated. But if it is gonna be built, it's gonna be built. But that does not mean the old bridge should just be demolished...
PLEASE REMEMBER: The public was misinformed about its rehabilitative prospects—it was said as recently as July 2019, for example, that "The old bridge was structurally unsound and in danger of collapse. It would have ended up being closed anyway. Repairing the 100-year-old Pedestrian Bridge would have cost more than the new bridge. The choice wasn’t between the new bridge and the old bridge. The choice was between the new bridge and no bridge." Tulsa World July 17 2019
That story has been definitely refuted, now. Look at what Zachary is saying in the article from today's paper. He's talking about bike lane width at one point. Compare this to what the public was told years ago. It gets worse the more you dig into this, in some ways. EDIT: BUT THE KEY IS TO FIND A GOOD SOLUTION FOR TULSA NOW (no pun intended ;]
Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2020, 09:18:14 PM
I always respect and look forward to reading your development opinions and your contributions here.
A pedestrian bridge in this location is a vanity project whether it's a new bridge or pouring $20m into something nearly as old as the very city itself which has structural and liability issues. The pedestrian bridge is purely recreational with the exception of a small number of commuters using it, I did when I'd ride my bike to work in west Tulsa, but it's not like there was a huge throng of us commuting back and forth daily that we can say commerce really benefitted from it.
I get the idea of public input on a final product for the bridge, but is anyone really going to remember in 20 years that there was any controversy revolving around pedestrian bridges? Maybe I'm too far removed from the daily happenings in Tulsa and my thoughts are the citizens of Tulsa have been given a $350 million park and now people are sounding a bit ungrateful about a nice accoutrement to the park in the form of a bridge. I'm pretty sure any shortfalls out of V-2025 funding or whichever pot this came from will be underwritten by GKFF and some of his close associates.
I do worry that some in the city have that feeling that any questioning is deemed 'ungrateful' and my perspective on it is that not questioning things, especially that are funded by taxpayers, near such an amazing gift is not being proper stewards of the riverfront and that park.
That's why I try to offer up my thoughts, because having knowledge in this area could be of use, hopefully. Most Tulsans very do likely either don't care or have no idea what this even is over. Most of my friends if I talk about anything like this their eyes glaze over but as soon as we're in an environment where some issues might come up (why it's unpleasant to walk between districts downtown for example). People do care, they just don't realize it until they're actively in the situation.
The second anyone visits the park and wants to stroll on the bridge everyone will be wondering why is there no where to sit... why are all these bikes going by so fast and so close, why don't they have some separation, why isn't the bridge wider, etc. If you see an accident coming you should try to do something to help it not happen.
I fear we are compromising on a bridge that will have awful utility in an area that will have incredibly high pedestrian activity mixing with recreational users of the trail. If you've ever lived and walked across any bridge or major pedestrian trail in a major city you know how annoying tourists and people who don't use them everyday are... we've got to design the bridge to allow for all users if we are to get our moneys worth and something that is actual worthy of being built by the park.
If in order to do that, it might mean we can't have the fancy design. I do wonder why this isn't being discussed at alll I worry about the vanity project of this all from city leadership and we will have a very expensive bridge that gets little use because someone who bikes like you might very well start to avoid the bridge because it doesn't have proper biker separation and pedestrians will not properly utilize the bridge because there's no place to sit and enjoy the skyline view or shade and are being ran over by bikes if they want to stop and observe the scenery.
Which that brings me back to why I feel we should relook at the old bridge and see if there's some solution to solve all this with the budget we have while it is still there. Why not just take a pause and form a special panel to talk through various strategies and bring on some local engineering and planning firms as citizens and see what we can come up with. Discuss it at some council meetings and if the answer is still tear it down and fundraise later to add to the new bridge then so be it... I just feel like some at the city want to sweep it under the rug and are annoyed that any citizens might have a few questions now that we aren't getting the bridge that was actually promised.
You and Gator bring up an interesting point I hadn't remembered about the old pedestrian bridge: People stopping and hanging over the edges and enjoying views. That is somewhat of a difference for the other bridges as they are just throughways though you might get some people hanging out looking at downtown or south down the river.
I'm not overly aware of what they are calling for on the current design on the new bridge. If it's not much wider then what Paul Zachary was saying about insufficient width for the flow on the old bridge doesn't hold water...but that still doesn't ameliorate all the structural unknowns once you start in on a 116 year old steel bridge.
I still think a new bridge is a safer investment but points about it being able to accommodate people out for an easy stroll or dropping a line over the rail as well as people jogging or pedaling along is well taken.
Yeah Conan, the lingering (even with old or unfit folks having a good time in the shaded river breeze) is one of the great things I've enjoyed about the original bridge.
As for funding/"a safer investment," it needs to be considered that the bridge is old/historic enough and very well could receive non-profit funding for its rehabilitation and maintenance. I have been talking to someone who knows about this. I want to talk to the council about exploring options like this at a meeting, and try to get them in contact with her, but so far a particular policy has blocked my ability to do so (e.g., I had applied for comment on the bridge at the Dec 9 meeting). My application for the Dec 16 meeting is also in, and I talked to someone from the council who called me today...it looks possible I will also not be allowed to comment about the bridge at the Dec 16 meeting, but I don't know yet.
I also think, again, that private donors would step up for the original bridge if given the opportunity, once it is widely known that (as in the 2015 report) there are specific recommendations on how it could be rehabilitated. We still need to talk about this as a city, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others...
Quote from: Conan71 on December 10, 2020, 12:08:01 AM
You and Gator bring up an interesting point I hadn't remembered about the old pedestrian bridge: People stopping and hanging over the edges and enjoying views. That is somewhat of a difference for the other bridges as they are just throughways though you might get some people hanging out looking at downtown or south down the river.
I'm not overly aware of what they are calling for on the current design on the new bridge. If it's not much wider then what Paul Zachary was saying about insufficient width for the flow on the old bridge doesn't hold water...but that still doesn't ameliorate all the structural unknowns once you start in on a 116 year old steel bridge.
I still think a new bridge is a safer investment but points about it being able to accommodate people out for an easy stroll or dropping a line over the rail as well as people jogging or pedaling along is well taken.
This is really what makes me so frustrated by this all is they seem to be ignoring the biggest reason we were told a new bridge was needed and we're going to be building a bridge that completely ignores how visitors to the park would want to use the bridge which is more of a site seeing type thing versus what a resident/recreational user of the trail system will be using the bridge (like you). So frankly the cheaper build out of the bridge is really doing a disservice to the park and the gift given to Tulsa by doing so, and I think we should advocate for better. Otherwise we're spending a ton of money for a bridge that doesn't serve the greater purpose and is just a slightly bigger and newer bridge that doesn't have any better utility than the old bridge. But we can say MVVA designed this super special bridge for us ::) I'd far prefer a basic bridge design that was wider, had property segmentation of users, landscaping, shade, better seating areas... you know things that are actually important to people using the bridge.
If we can't afford something that offers space for people from the park to wonder and experience the river (that would include shade, benches, proper separation of users, etc.) we should look at alternatives like building the new bridge smaller and just for bikers/runners/etc. and then keep the old bridge as more of a tourist and passive user experience given you have been able to fish off that bridge and could easily add better seating, lighting, etc. and you'd have a much better user experience for everyone. Or looking into the option of moving the old bridge onto new piers like in the HNTB report and while doing so building on a cheaper expansion beside it on the same piers that is dedicated for bikes. There's options out there to evaluate.
If they don't want to look into doing anything different then we need to not build the new bridge until they've raised the private funds so we can facilitate a proper user experience for everyone who is an intended user of the bridge. There so be no bait and switch of we'll build it like this now and some 20 years down the road maybe QuikTrip will donate money for benches and so on. It should be done right from the beginning.
I guess I need to dig in further on what they have narrowed down to the current design (pun may or may not be intended). My interest piqued when I saw in the TW that a petition was being circulated to stop the demo of the old bridge and I figured I could count on a few of you here to fill me in on the controversy and I appreciate your responses. When I left Tulsa in 2017, I was under the impression that the old bridge was toast.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 10, 2020, 06:53:51 PM
I guess I need to dig in further on what they have narrowed down to the current design (pun may or may not be intended). My interest piqued when I saw in the TW that a petition was being circulated to stop the demo of the old bridge and I figured I could count on a few of you here to fill me in on the controversy and I appreciate your responses. When I left Tulsa in 2017, I was under the impression that the old bridge was toast.
I thought the same until I dug a little deeper on it as well and then when a few people started posting about it here I have learned even more.
Sounds like we weren't really lied to by the city but we were told 10% of the truth and they just omitted the rest (like that they studied other options in that HNTB report). The bridge is toast if you're talking about retrofitting it to be a double deck pedestrian bridge which would allow to break up the various uses (active users and passive users). However, it appears like it really would not be a monumental feat in order to save the bridge as is...
The city and others are being fairly misleading when they quote the cost to fix the old bridge is 'too much and should be new for that reason' in the figure they always point to is what it'd cost expand it with a second deck and refurbish it - not to keep it the same size and fix deferred maintenance issues, like moving it onto new piers.
You have to ask yourself why would we pay so much for a new bridge that might end up being twice as much to keep the old bridge as is without the double deck, to not really get any better function out of the new bridge. Yes, you'd still have the issues of bikes versus pedestrians on the old bridge and the city points back to that - but I don't see how the new bridge vastly improves that issue with the cut back that it's worth building new.
If we were getting the bridge promised to us, I'd have very different feelings about it. Instead, to preserve the vanity of the project, they're cutting the utility (the critical part) out of the new bridge - and that's completely backwards. It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks. We can raise money later for power windows though... It looks nice to take pictures for Instagram while standing outside it, just don't ask your friends to ride with you.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 10, 2020, 08:22:48 PM
It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks.
Maybe more like no air conditioning here in OK.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2020/12/midland-valley-pedestrian-bridge.html
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 10, 2020, 08:22:48 PM
I thought the same until I dug a little deeper on it as well and then when a few people started posting about it here I have learned even more.
Sounds like we weren't really lied to by the city but we were told 10% of the truth and they just omitted the rest (like that they studied other options in that HNTB report). The bridge is toast if you're talking about retrofitting it to be a double deck pedestrian bridge which would allow to break up the various uses (active users and passive users). However, it appears like it really would not be a monumental feat in order to save the bridge as is...
The city and others are being fairly misleading when they quote the cost to fix the old bridge is 'too much and should be new for that reason' in the figure they always point to is what it'd cost expand it with a second deck and refurbish it - not to keep it the same size and fix deferred maintenance issues, like moving it onto new piers.
You have to ask yourself why would we pay so much for a new bridge that might end up being twice as much to keep the old bridge as is without the double deck, to not really get any better function out of the new bridge. Yes, you'd still have the issues of bikes versus pedestrians on the old bridge and the city points back to that - but I don't see how the new bridge vastly improves that issue with the cut back that it's worth building new.
If we were getting the bridge promised to us, I'd have very different feelings about it. Instead, to preserve the vanity of the project, they're cutting the utility (the critical part) out of the new bridge - and that's completely backwards. It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks. We can raise money later for power windows though... It looks nice to take pictures for Instagram while standing outside it, just don't ask your friends to ride with you.
I agree with most everything. But as far as the TRUTH issue, we might look at it very closely. As recently as July 2019 the Tulsa World could credibly write: "Repairing the 100-year-old Pedestrian Bridge would have cost more than the new bridge. The choice wasn’t between the new bridge and the old bridge. The choice was between the new bridge and no bridge."
Link: https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/editorials/tulsa-world-editorial-the-pedestrian-bridge-on-the-arkansas-river-has-taken-a-long-time/article_98b852d8-3f58-57df-b9bc-f451f324097e.html
Similarly, in July 2018 the World could credibly write:
"The city of Tulsa and Gathering Place officials had initially believed the century-old pedestrian bridge could be rehabilitated to complement the park. But a 2014 engineering analysis found that the bridge was structurally unsound, leaving the city with no option but to build a new one."
Link: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/update-river-parks-authority-votes-to-take-over-pedestrian-bridge-project-near-gathering-place/article_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html
HMMM... If a person thinks about those statements in light of the actual report...and if one reads the December 9 Bridge Petition article carefully...what is one to make of it? Note especially in the Dec. 9 article where Mr. Zachary (to his credit) admits: "...what we had to realize was, if we did rebuild it being the way it was, we would still have a substandard trail width for the pedestrians and not necessarily the (required space) for bicyclists up on top.”
Link: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/petition-seeks-to-halt-demolition-of-pedestrian-bridge-over-arkansas-river/article_61671bfe-398d-11eb-8cd2-afcb2268c468.html
Look at what he says, there, compared to what the public was told before. This is important to consider. I agree with most everything you said, though, like I said.
Man...batesline really throwing me for a loop. I tend to use him and tulsa beacon endorsements as a good check of things I don't agree with.
I've let my council people know that I am disappointed in how this turned out. If all things were fair, I would vote for the KKT bridge, then the old bridge, then the MVA bridge. I would have loved to see this be a Design-Build type bidding. See if any construction crews or designers want to take on rehabbing the old bridge.
The lesson I learned from this is that KKT should have won that contract and not the idiots from NYC. I personally believe MVA spent their money on a bridge that will look neat for their portfolio later and not on making the bridge functionally good.
Michael Wallis supports saving the bridge. See his important statement in today's paper. Or you can see it online.
https://www.facebook.com/tulsaworldopinion/posts/1761774130648688
Bridge petition is currently over 1,300 signatures.
Hope you have been enjoying a great Christmas Season!
From the 10 o'clock news.
https://ktul.com/news/local/support-for-saving-pedestrian-bridge?fbclid=IwAR1FKhz1kPt7FzHYDbLpamQTwrZjV5_dkIq8HKOjXLKwvUvGxHWdftmv01I
Isn't work already started on the new bridge? It's hard to tell what construction is for the dam and for the bridge. I certainly don't want to see any delays, we have been waiting for this new bridge long enough as it is.
Would a happy medium resolution be to preserve the old bridge in pieces and potentially use it somewhere else? And if so where do you store the pieces?
Quote from: SXSW on January 02, 2021, 03:46:14 PM
Would a happy medium resolution be to preserve the old bridge in pieces and potentially use it somewhere else? And if so where do you store the pieces?
Like Zingo? ;-)
Seriously, there are a couple places in The Gathering Place where the old bridge could be repurposed and preserved.
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on December 27, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Michael Wallis supports saving the bridge. See his important statement in today's paper. Or you can see it online.
https://www.facebook.com/tulsaworldopinion/posts/1761774130648688
Bridge petition is currently over 1,300 signatures.
Hope you have been enjoying a great Christmas Season!
He used to post on here, but it's been a bunch of years.
Quote from: SXSW on January 02, 2021, 03:46:14 PM
Isn’t work already started on the new bridge? It’s hard to tell what construction is for the dam and for the bridge. I certainly don’t want to see any delays, we have been waiting for this new bridge long enough as it is.
Would a happy medium resolution be to preserve the old bridge in pieces and potentially use it somewhere else? And if so where do you store the pieces?
My thoughts…
It’s all dam, and it’s going to take a while regardless of what is done. That said:
Is it better to delay some months more, to get this right for Tulsa and generations to come, or to demolish—on an inadequate basis—and thereby royally screw things up, irreparably, for Tulsa and generations to come?
As for the idea of relocating the bridge…
Which makes more sense, moving a classic bridge that is already there (since circa 1905 is the current determination) or moving a bridge that still doesn’t actually exist?
I talked to a higher-level person recently. He mentioned the new bridge could still maybe be built “around” the existing bridge, or “always pushed up a little.” It would take some remodeling and adjustment…
I bet it won’t be until at least 2023, regardless… (Don’t forget about possibly inevitable construction delays.) It really should be done the right way or not at all.
***
If time is of the essence, the *quickest* fix would surely be: Rehabilitate the classic, keeping it a single-deck to avoid unnecessary complications. It’s already there. Check it over again, replacing what is necessary, beginning with the piers—but this time, for single-deck weight load. Bet we’d have a functioning bridge in half the expected time (unless the Gateway Bridge’s construction is going on in the same vicinity) and, it seems probable, for a heck of a lot less money.
So there are definitely reasons why some people are still seriously saying, save money and DON’T build the new bridge. Someone noted, recently, that the *double-decker* version actually discussed in the report would still save millions…that money could, indeed, be put to other uses…
But I think arguing to stop the new bridge is definitely a more problematic (probably unrealistic) position. It is not indefensible, especially in light of certain things from a few years back, but stakeholders already have interests, and canceling construction would surely upset more than a few people. Similarly, demolition plans are already upsetting more than a few people. The general idea of “compromise” makes most sense.
Seriously, a new bridge’s construction should not destroy the original bridge. The planned demolition is truly a cultural/architectural travesty in the making. If it happens, just wait and see. Give it some time to sink in, as hindsight and regret grow…
(Furthermore, the Tulsa public never formally agreed to the destruction or even relocation of the Midland Valley Bridge, regardless of what anyone may have assumed was implied by the 2016 election...)
The Midland Valley Bridge could still be made fully functional—it can still be one of the most pleasant walking bridges in the country, along with being “integral to Tulsa’s early history.”
Has anyone revisited 11th Street, taking the dedicated walkway underneath the bridges, which leads to the Cyrus Avery Bridge commemorative display? Look at those various bridges/structures, near one other. (The Cyrus Avery Bridge is the most beautiful there...) Mr. Wallis’ suggestion for the Midland Valley Bridge and Gateway Bridge would be more doable and elegant than that arrangement.
Keep the old, new, and Tulsa could have the benefits of both—and more functionality.
Happy New Year!
Speaking of the Cyrus Avery bridge, outgoing TAF director Amanda DeCort said not getting that rehabilitated was one of her biggest frustrations. I agree it's a travesty that it isn't open for pedestrians. Not sure why we spent money to build a pedestrian pathway on the 244 bridge that could've been used for the Avery bridge. I still have hope that someday soon it can be converted to pedestrian/bicycle use and can tie into the Route 66 Experience originally planned for that site, maybe as part of a large mixed-use development that could include apartments or condos overlooking Crybaby Hill.
Quoteer successor, DeCort says, will also have to carry on the foundation's advocacy for the 11th Street Bridge, where the original Route 66 crossed the Arkansas River. It's still standing but not used.
"It's frustrating that we still haven't found a way to repurpose it," she says, listing it as her "biggest disappointment." "It's the reason Tulsa has Route 66, and I see tourists there every day. Something needs to be done with it."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tulsaworld.com/news/local/amanda-decort-one-of-tulsas-most-vocal-advocates-for-historic-preservation-will-leave-behind-many/article_1a15559e-3fbf-11eb-861b-87ad0001617b.amp.html (https://www.google.com/amp/s/tulsaworld.com/news/local/amanda-decort-one-of-tulsas-most-vocal-advocates-for-historic-preservation-will-leave-behind-many/article_1a15559e-3fbf-11eb-861b-87ad0001617b.amp.html)
I read the report several years ago and as I recall the 11th Street Bridge is a structural mess due to chloride contamination which likely came from the river water used for mixing the concrete during construction. I love arched bridges, especially that one as my Grandfather took it from his home on North Denver to work in the oil fields but unfortunately the only way I see the Avery bridge re-opening would be to construct a new one in its place and I'm not sure that is even possible with registered historic structures.
Also note that the new pathway under the 244 bridge was Federally funded and the 11th street bridge does not qualify for such Federal Highway funds.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on January 04, 2021, 10:21:57 AM
I read the report several years ago and as I recall the 11th Street Bridge is a structural mess due to chloride contamination which likely came from the river water used for mixing the concrete during construction. I love arched bridges, especially that one as my Grandfather took it from his home on North Denver to work in the oil fields but unfortunately the only way I see the Avery bridge re-opening would be to construct a new one in its place and I'm not sure that is even possible with registered historic structures.
Also note that the new pathway under the 244 bridge was Federally funded and the 11th street bridge does not qualify for such Federal Highway funds.
If the bridge is completely structurally deficient would there be any way legally with its historic status to demolish it? I feel like I've seen similar historic bridges demolished for those reasons in the past. Would it ever be feasible to preserve the arches and other elements of the Avery Bridge and rebuild the current 11th St Bridge incorporating those elements but with structurally-sound piers/foundations? That may be a better use of funds and while it's not the "original" bridge location it is the bridge that takes Route 66 over the Arkansas River.
When I first started driving in 1979, the 11th St. bridge was open for all four lanes. Then a couple of years later the report came out that there were problems with the bridge and it was narrowed to two lanes, no vehicles over 10,000 lbs, and no pedestrian traffic, and then by '82 or '83 late 1980 it was closed and the new bridge was in place. Pedestrian traffic was close off in 2008.
I just remember everyone saying something to the effect of "The bridge is at a point of imminent collapse". I don't doubt that there where structural defects, it's just like how many other hundreds of bridges in the state that for decades was a case of deferred maintenance like the bridges on the BA from Yale to downtown.(specifically Yale to Utica)
The same seems to be true for the Midland bridge. I remember when it first opened it was only half way, but it had one or two observation decks on the top side, that were later removed since they were deemed unsafe because of structural issues with the bridge, and that was 40+ years ago.
I know there were question about it's structural condition after the floods in '84, '86, and I want to say that there was one or two more in the late 90's early 00's that there was long periods of high water flows in the river.
modified to reflect info according to Wiki
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 04, 2021, 11:18:08 AM
When I first started driving in 1979, the 11th St. bridge was open for all four lanes. Then a couple of years later the report came out that there were problems with the bridge and it was narrowed to two lanes, no vehicles over 10,000 lbs, and no pedestrian traffic, and then by '82 or '83 late 1980 it was closed and the new bridge was in place. Pedestrian traffic was close off in 2008.
I just remember everyone saying something to the effect of "The bridge is at a point of imminent collapse". I don't doubt that there where structural defects, it's just like how many other hundreds of bridges in the state that for decades was a case of deferred maintenance like the bridges on the BA from Yale to downtown.(specifically Yale to Utica)
The same seems to be true for the Midland bridge. I remember when it first opened it was only half way, but it had one or two observation decks on the top side, that were later removed since they were deemed unsafe because of structural issues with the bridge, and that was 40+ years ago.
I know there were question about it's structural condition after the floods in '84, '86, and I want to say that there was one or two more in the late 90's early 00's that there was long periods of high water flows in the river.
modified to reflect info according to Wiki
Yes, it's been through a lot, hasn't it? The only thing actually taking the Midland down anytime soon, probably, is deliberate demolition (ultimately based on untruths). It REALLY would make a WHOLE LOT of sense to say, forget the absurdly expensive plans and stick with history and shade; fix up the bridge, have cyclists dismount when it's too crowded (or ride to 21st, etc.), save millions upon millions, and pick a better (actually doable) new bridge design next time the public gets to "choose" a bridge, for elsewhere on the river.
Quote from: patric on January 02, 2021, 07:40:32 PM
Like Zingo? ;-)
Seriously, there are a couple places in The Gathering Place where the old bridge could be repurposed and preserved.
Let's hear it! Never know. Sure would be better than the current plan I've seen. Someone else has suggested a spot in Bixby, and someone else suggested another spot. Again, any of those would sure be better than the current plan I've seen. More on that plan later.
(*I raise the above despite maintaining my position that the original bridge should be left in place, and the new bridge adjusted to allow that, one way or another. I'd still like to hear your ideas considering the worst case scenario! hah*)
New content...
https://pedbridge.com/statements-of-support-for-keeping-the-midland-valley-bridge-standing/
https://pedbridge.com/history-and-historical-integrity-on-the-line/
https://www.facebook.com/TulsaPedestrianBridge/posts/169878848287444
Quote from: Arkansas Rio Gator on April 06, 2021, 03:14:56 PM
https://www.facebook.com/TulsaPedestrianBridge/posts/169878848287444
It's not available to people without a Facebook account.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 07, 2021, 01:19:11 PM
It's not available to people without a Facebook account.
Lol....gotta have Facebook! How else can the entire interwebz snoop into your life?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 11, 2021, 03:15:36 PM
Lol....gotta have Facebook! How else can the entire interwebz snoop into your life?
There seems to be plenty of other opportunities, although some of the info is incorrect.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 11, 2021, 03:31:56 PM
There seems to be plenty of other opportunities, although some of the info is incorrect.
Probably good!
I mean it's literally in the process of being dismantled right now. It can't be stopped. I wish there was another solution, but it's too late, and preservation has lost the fight. Disappointing, but not sure what is left other than complaining about another piece of history being lost. Calls, emails, none of it matters now.
Quote from: DowntownDan on May 26, 2021, 01:13:22 PM
I mean it's literally in the process of being dismantled right now. It can't be stopped. I wish there was another solution, but it's too late, and preservation has lost the fight. Disappointing, but not sure what is left other than complaining about another piece of history being lost. Calls, emails, none of it matters now.
I was curious if they were attempting to save any of the old bridge sections. Looking forward to seeing them make progress on the new bridge.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/demolition-of-pedestrian-bridge-over-arkansas-river-begins/article_41de3bce-b394-11eb-9ded-5fdd09de985e.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest
They did say that they were looking for a way to let people take home a section, which would be a neat piece of memorabilia to have.
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/cd/bcd34ba5-a887-5af0-8d2a-5e55448509e7/60c7a3c9bc0c2.image.jpg?resize=990%2C597)
(https://imgur.com/Qj9UTNQ.jpg)
Current status. It looks like they've been busy on the embankment areas on the Gathering Place side. Some of those ghost pathways will be removed soon, hopefully.
Would love to have a couple big truck loads of those timbers and lumber!
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/watch-now-new-arkansas-river-pedestrian-bridge-taking-shape-with-addition-of-massive-arches/article_a928814c-2d2c-11ec-b6df-271e69b98ff7.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest
First pieces are going up.
Note that the cross bracings are temporary.
Looking forward to watching more pieces get installed. I know this bridge has its detractors but I think it will look really cool especially lit up at night.
(https://static-12.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/2f18350a-ae46-4e1b-b938-75df89dc0b78-large16x9_GatewayBridgerendering1.jpg)
Quote from: SXSW on October 26, 2021, 10:09:48 PM
Looking forward to watching more pieces get installed. I know this bridge has its detractors but I think it will look really cool especially lit up at night.
(https://static-12.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/2f18350a-ae46-4e1b-b938-75df89dc0b78-large16x9_GatewayBridgerendering1.jpg)
Are we talking dancing LED lights or just white lights? A disco bridge would be kinda cool.
It's not going to look like that rendering though. It's been changed multiple times. The vertical pieces aren't slanted anymore, and the arches are far less sleek.
When it's all said and done, it will be nice to have a bridge again, but the design is forgettable and won't be noticed. This isn't going to be a bridge people will care about or take pictures of. The whitewater flume will be a far bigger deal, assuming it ever opens or works the way it is intended. Hope it doesn't turn into another "boathouse".
It looks pretty similar to the rendering - especially after the cross braces come off that are in place while moving the pieces. The TW article indicates they will finish the west side by February and then will start working on the east side to connect it with the expected opening in spring 2023
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/249048085_2029163357261022_8406983909351470827_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=i28jcXPpM9MAX9psh4x&tn=1n3eGh-esQMtKFKs&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=b8ebb56172cd4db2261513d04f0fac22&oe=619E11C0)
Newer rendering
(https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/NTFJSSRXOBFM7EBWCGCYLQ7OHI.bmp)
Quote from: SXSW on October 27, 2021, 11:57:26 AM
It looks pretty similar to the rendering - especially after the cross braces come off that are in place while moving the pieces. The TW article indicates they will finish the west side by February and then will start working on the east side to connect it with the expected opening in spring 2023
Might look like the newer rendering but looks nothing like what was sold to voters... big yikes. This is one project I'm so disappointed in. I'll try to reserve some hope to see what the actual decking is like when it's finished on what the width, etc. ends up being. I do like the copper type color, that type of material is so expensive though, still think the priorities of the design/materials is in the wrong place. They'd rather have an Instagram type picture of the copperish color against the water/skyline than spend the money on the function of the bridge for actual users.
Hopefully they have the budget to light the thing at night haha :-\
How wide is the bridge deck? Arched base looks super narrow (around 4') and it appears as though the vertical parts angle outward, but guessing the deck is perhaps 10' wide?
Newer rendering
(https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/NTFJSSRXOBFM7EBWCGCYLQ7OHI.bmp)
[/quote]
Ew.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 27, 2021, 01:49:18 PM
How wide is the bridge deck? Arched base looks super narrow (around 4') and it appears as though the vertical parts angle outward, but guessing the deck is perhaps 10' wide?
I would think it would match the width of the Midland Valley trail. The actual deck is wider than the steel deck on the arches.
Quote from: SXSW on October 27, 2021, 11:57:26 AM
It looks pretty similar to the rendering - especially after the cross braces come off that are in place while moving the pieces. The TW article indicates they will finish the west side by February and then will start working on the east side to connect it with the expected opening in spring 2023
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/249048085_2029163357261022_8406983909351470827_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=i28jcXPpM9MAX9psh4x&tn=1n3eGh-esQMtKFKs&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=b8ebb56172cd4db2261513d04f0fac22&oe=619E11C0)
Or maybe the diagonals stay after engineering analysis. They would go nicely with an Art-Deco city if the bolted joints were rivets instead.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 27, 2021, 04:08:50 PM
Or maybe the diagonals stay after engineering analysis. They would go nicely with an Art-Deco city if the bolted joints were rivets instead.
I don't mind them kind of wish they were staying to be honest. But if they were the steel would need to match
Quote from: SXSW on October 27, 2021, 06:10:48 PM
I don't mind them kind of wish they were staying to be honest. But if they were the steel would need to match
They just look a bit elaborate to temporary. I don't know enough about the grade(s) of steel that form protective rust to say whether that would work. Maybe the angles are not made in the steel that can rust for protection.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 27, 2021, 06:42:02 PM
They just look a bit elaborate to temporary. I don't know enough about the grade(s) of steel that form protective rust to say whether that would work. Maybe the angles are not made in the steel that can rust for protection.
I guess they could be permanent, they aren't in the latest rendering and don't match the finish of the rest of the steel is why I assumed they were temporary supports. I guess we'll find out over the next few months.
Quote from: SXSW on October 27, 2021, 11:17:24 PM
I guess they could be permanent, they aren't in the latest rendering and don't match the finish of the rest of the steel is why I assumed they were temporary supports. I guess we'll find out over the next few months.
I'm sure we will find out sooner or later. Steel arch bridges with some truss elements can be interesting.
https://bridgehunter.com/category/tag/steel-arch/
Quote from: SXSW on October 27, 2021, 11:17:24 PM
I guess they could be permanent, they aren't in the latest rendering and don't match the finish of the rest of the steel is why I assumed they were temporary supports. I guess we'll find out over the next few months.
No way are they permanent. It's just a bunch of scrap angle iron and some pieces of flat steel probably cut with a metal brake that are put in place for support during transport. I'm assuming they will remove the temp supports, fill holes, and coat the remaining elements when in place since unless they're shooting for rust streaks going down the foundations which is probably a little too steampunk for the masses.
Also - all grades of steel rust. You have to get into an allow like stainless steel to get any kind of corrosion resistance without some sort of coating being added (like a powdercoat). I seriously doubt they used weathering steel on this since the budget was already shot. Hopefully they'll budget some money to do a yearly repaint or at least touch-up of the bridge.
Quote from: tulsabug on October 28, 2021, 06:44:07 AM
No way are they permanent. It's just a bunch of scrap angle iron and some pieces of flat steel probably cut with a metal brake that are put in place for support during transport. I'm assuming they will remove the temp supports, fill holes, and coat the remaining elements when in place since unless they're shooting for rust streaks going down the foundations which is probably a little too steampunk for the masses.
Also - all grades of steel rust. You have to get into an allow like stainless steel to get any kind of corrosion resistance without some sort of coating being added (like a powdercoat). I seriously doubt they used weathering steel on this since the budget was already shot. Hopefully they'll budget some money to do a yearly repaint or at least touch-up of the bridge.
They used weathering steel. That's why there was no money left over for amenities.
Quote from: Tulsan on October 28, 2021, 07:36:51 AM
They used weathering steel. That's why there was no money left over for amenities.
Well then - I stand corrected. That is gonna streak the crap out of the support pillars.
Quote from: tulsabug on October 28, 2021, 07:51:59 AM
Well then - I stand corrected. That is gonna streak the crap out of the support pillars.
It shouldn't come off if it's coated correctly. It will require annual maintenance and periodic recoating though. Evidently the increased budget also includes the promised lighting and upgraded railings (not sure if that means aluminum or glass)
Quote from: SXSW on October 28, 2021, 08:18:03 AM
It shouldn't come off if it's coated correctly. It will require annual maintenance and periodic recoating though. Evidently the increased budget also includes the promised lighting and upgraded railings (not sure if that means aluminum or glass)
Weathering steel:
https://usbridge.com/what-is-weathering-steel/
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 28, 2021, 01:06:23 PM
Weathering steel:
https://usbridge.com/what-is-weathering-steel/
Weathering or corten is about 2x the cost of regular steel. Imagine what kind of bridge we could have had if they just used regular steel instead. Would have at least gave back $5 million or more I bet that could have gone to shade, wider bridge deck, seating, etc. that we were all told they couldn't afford.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on October 28, 2021, 01:38:08 PM
Weathering or corten is about 2x the cost of regular steel. Imagine what kind of bridge we could have had if they just used regular steel instead. Would have at least gave back $5 million or more I bet that could have gone to shade, wider bridge deck, seating, etc. that we were all told they couldn't afford.
While I agree with your thought here, I wonder if "we" could afford to maintain a bridge made of regular steel.
I kind of remember comments that weathering steel was used for the bridges at the 169/Creek interchange near 91st St. Anybody know for certain?
Interesting note about weathered steel - "Cor-ten can be challenging and even damaging to surrounding areas if used improperly. Rust bleeding or runoff from the steel surface can stain surrounding paint, stucco, stone or concrete. Avoid using this material where staining can be a problem. Also, this material is sensitive to humid climates and it is possible that in these areas the protective patina may not form properly, thus allowing the steel to continue to corrode." Seems like a great choice for a bridge above a river in a humid city that is less than stellar at regular infrastructure maintenance. Maybe we should have just built a SkyRide over the river?
Quote from: tulsabug on October 28, 2021, 05:17:01 PM
Maybe we should have just built a SkyRide over the river?
A zip line would be fun. It would take a tall tower though.
A tall tower on both ends would allow a return trip. ;D
There is a newer railroad bridge in over I-235 just south of I-44 in OKC that is also weathering steel. It's been there a couple years not sure if it has significantly changed in appearance since they first installed it.
Aerial of the coffer dam showing the construction of the bridge and dam
(https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D22AQEdb9BQ3pOSRQ/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1635528266570?e=1638403200&v=beta&t=UNEbTprKXV4jnrZSaugRUBCVIaOtVFVd_UU3UpqcrVY)
This will be a killer view once the dam, bridge and river bank improvements are finished along the east bank (and the chain link fence comes down!)
(https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D22AQE5DcpI5ktS7A/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1635528266864?e=1638403200&v=beta&t=0j4iCFAikY6qrn40wtB3cf1tgSN_ufgwdbkPHlAogK4)
Great shots
Just about anyone who wants to better understand what officials have done should read this.
https://pedbridge.com/essential-bridge-information-handout/
(By the way, this is not meant as an attack on the Gateway bridge itself. It is not that poor bridge's fault that it is being built upon such a dishonest foundation...)
Happy Thanksgiving!
Quote from: tulsabug on October 28, 2021, 06:44:07 AM
No way are they permanent. It's just a bunch of scrap angle iron and some pieces of flat steel probably cut with a metal brake that are put in place for support during transport. I'm assuming they will remove the temp supports, fill holes, and coat the remaining elements when in place since unless they're shooting for rust streaks going down the foundations which is probably a little too steampunk for the masses.
Also - all grades of steel rust. You have to get into an allow like stainless steel to get any kind of corrosion resistance without some sort of coating being added (like a powdercoat). I seriously doubt they used weathering steel on this since the budget was already shot. Hopefully they'll budget some money to do a yearly repaint or at least touch-up of the bridge.
Looks like CoreTen steel where the rust is. The angles are not or they would also be rusted by now - takes just a few weeks to get weathered. And the rust IS the finish! (Just like the 'Brown Bess' muskets from the Revolutionary War.) With CoreTen, it is not supposed to streak after some short time.
I am very much wanting to use that stuff on my barn roof, but it is SO gawd awful expensive! Looks great, though, along with the old barn wood siding! Now all I need is to get someone who can paint "Meramec Caverns" billboard signs on the side! And "See Rock City"! The Burma Shave signs I will take care of myself...I know people with Cricuts!
Edit; just saw your note about streaking steel... I kinda think that is a disclaimer "just in case". I had seen a couple of barns that had it on the roof and neither had any streaking. They got more from rusty nails and screws in the siding.
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/258815448_311411127651245_7150209052998892879_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=2CLxR9vTGjcAX8ctsXw&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=0ae966abf9edc7f02a8fade3665587a0&oe=61AC1D47)
Awesome shot, I think this will really be an iconic view of our city with the skyline, river and two arched bridges. Now just need a few more new residential highrises in Riverview ;D
It will look more and more slim as it is completed and the braces are removed, but it's hard to imagine this will stand out much.
I'm still curious how they'll keep the birds nests out of the nooks without making it look dumb with a bunch of those spiky things.
Having Zink Lake full year-round will be nice to have again as well once the new dam is completed.
While I'll admit to being skeptical still, now that it's going up I like this bridge more. It's taller and more elegant than I imagined from the renderings. Perhaps the rare thing that looks better in the metal than in the concept drawing.
(https://i.ibb.co/4TcQM9B/FB-IMG-1639889301332.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/PjF3BLS/FB-IMG-1639889304361.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/wsvBCkZ/FB-IMG-1639889307121.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/fpD1mQk/FB-IMG-1639889309783.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/3rYtRnq/FB-IMG-1639889312370.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/CJzrzpp/FB-IMG-1639889316343.jpg)
Quote from: brettakins on December 18, 2021, 10:54:07 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/PjF3BLS/FB-IMG-1639889304361.jpg)
Looks like the diagonal braces are being cut out.
It's increasingly more pleasant to look at, but I'm not exactly falling in love with it. I wonder if those big stubs where the vertical pieces connect to the arch are also being removed?
I think the flume/dam is still the most exciting thing here. Anyone know if there's been any updates to the flume design? I've been wondering how that will translate to reality.
Saw these posted on Damon's Droneography Facebook. My understanding is they will start building the east coffer dam later this month.
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/272968794_358521852940172_9527261890655027_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=R0jbDoG9R20AX9Yk98a&tn=tdLLiM553KR9v_IT&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AT8LG0qOX2SEB_1gkwdwM46sAGUCt34uCbDQtmRgjoeCZA&oe=62067B97)
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/273386134_358522092940148_6215931733859438693_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=XKXZyy019CIAX8bCqm9&tn=tdLLiM553KR9v_IT&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AT8r0zBZZKssTqXQe44yfhXJ91y_qEQ2b9JcjDvwzkz7IQ&oe=62069A41)
Finally got by today to see it. Ugly.
the crew is making the Coffer Dam jump to the East side this weekend.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on February 23, 2022, 08:53:33 AM
the crew is making the Coffer Dam jump to the East side this weekend.
I've noticed all of the rock they have been staging. That's exciting as they need that in place to start tearing down the remaining portion of the old bridge and then to build the east portion. Based on how long it took them to build the west portion, and assuming they don't have major weather/flooding issues, it should be complete by early summer 2023. Do you know if the dam is on a similar schedule?
I know the Gathering Place won't start working on their shoreline improvements until the dam and bridge are complete. Looking forward to seeing the fencing come down and that area looking "finished"
(https://imgur.com/CeFbH7f.jpg)
Yesterday was the first time I've been able to get down to the gathering place in a long time. Beautiful day and all of riverside was packed.
The bridge looks pretty good in person honestly. I've been down on it, and I'm still pissed about the old bridge, but this doesn't look bad so far. The height is what really sets it apart. It is much bigger in person than the renderings made me believe.
I'm also amazed at how much they've been digging out of the river. Guess they have to take out enough to make the new island fit in without changing the hydrology too much.
So this is the new coffer dam on the east side with water diverted to the west side?
The new lake is supposed to be 10' deep at the dam so while the bridge looks really high now it won't seem as high once water backs up behind the dam.
This will be a beautiful project once they finish--much like the old Pedestrian Fishing Bridge over the Arkansas River. Can't wait for them to
to finish. Nice $30 million development project to replace the older bridge--well worth it.
The old bridge is completely down now. Here's a shot from Sunday.
(https://i.ibb.co/Z2Jb7g5/IMG-3615.jpg) (https://ibb.co/41f03Sz)
I noticed that, definitely an end of an era. Excited to see progress on the new bridge, anyone know if they will start building on the east side or continue working from west to east?
First parts of the recreational flume are starting to take shape. Photo from 4/14
(https://i.ibb.co/x8dqMTQ/IMG-3805.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DgTf72n)
The civil engineering on this project is fascinating. Glad to see them using the sandstone instead of the white rocks they used along the Crow Creek inlet
So it looks like we're getting most of the bells and whistles after all... pretty proud of my company for putting up some of the cash for this. :)
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/private-donors-pitch-in-7-2-million-to-push-pedestrian-bridge-construction-forward/article_0accc620-bc42-11ec-b8e2-f7eb2760aaf8.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR26wvRN8J8sakbsmYQGneMl9jj9Y5Q6kqs5PMev88O7wyvTNvlXMk_F2sU
Quote from: Jeff P on April 29, 2022, 01:52:25 PM
So it looks like we're getting most of the bells and whistles after all... pretty proud of my company for putting up some of the cash for this. :)
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/private-donors-pitch-in-7-2-million-to-push-pedestrian-bridge-construction-forward/article_0accc620-bc42-11ec-b8e2-f7eb2760aaf8.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR26wvRN8J8sakbsmYQGneMl9jj9Y5Q6kqs5PMev88O7wyvTNvlXMk_F2sU
I figured they'd eventually find a donor, glad to see Williams step up as usual to help add some of the needed items. I'm still baffled why shade is not a bigger priority of the city to include. The seating will be useless most of the year without shade structures. At least a big step forward to making the utility of the bridge better.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on April 30, 2022, 03:09:11 PM
I figured they'd eventually find a donor, glad to see Williams step up as usual to help add some of the needed items. I'm still baffled why shade is not a bigger priority of the city to include. The seating will be useless most of the year without shade structures. At least a big step forward to making the utility of the bridge better.
Yeah it seems like they could have done the shade thing instead of like the LEDs? I mean the LEDs will be cool and all, but I'd rather have the shade structure. But it seems like they are just maybe working on more corporate donations for that part... I bet it will be added eventually.
Quote from: Jeff P on May 01, 2022, 01:56:39 PM
Yeah it seems like they could have done the shade thing instead of like the LEDs? I mean the LEDs will be cool and all, but I'd rather have the shade structure. But it seems like they are just maybe working on more corporate donations for that part... I bet it will be added eventually.
I don't get the fascination with the shade structure. You don't have shade structures over the rest of the trails why is it needed on the bridge?
Quote from: SXSW on May 01, 2022, 07:37:08 PM
I don't get the fascination with the shade structure. You don't have shade structures over the rest of the trails why is it needed on the bridge?
No trees
Quote from: SXSW on May 01, 2022, 07:37:08 PM
I don't get the fascination with the shade structure. You don't have shade structures over the rest of the trails why is it needed on the bridge?
Back in the 80's I believe, the old bridge was great for watching 4th of July fireworks when they were using the old 11th street bridge to fire from. You could get there early, have shade, and if there was a breeze across the river or Zink Lake it made it a bit cooler.
Quote from: SXSW on May 01, 2022, 07:37:08 PM
I don't get the fascination with the shade structure. You don't have shade structures over the rest of the trails why is it needed on the bridge?
It comes down to the uses/utility of the bridge. If you're going to put seating on the bridge, it needs shade. My irritations with the bridge originally was that if we want to tear down the old one for a "bigger, better" new bridge that it should at least have the same or more utility. Right now the bridge is really only going to be good for bike riders and probably joggers. We were sold on the idea that the bridge would have the ability to be utilized for more casual visitors as well. Especially for the Gathering Place users, there should be a significant amount of more casual users who are walking versus bike/running/exercise and those users would be spending more time on the structure. Without shade why would any casual user want to be on the bridge or gather on the bridge. The added amenities from Williams will help, but without shade the seating will be unusable most of the year.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on May 01, 2022, 09:32:32 PM
Without shade why would any casual user want to be on the bridge or gather on the bridge. The added amenities from Williams will help, but without shade the seating will be unusable most of the year.
I think really only from mid-May to mid-September. But yes, we were sold on year-round usability.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on May 01, 2022, 09:32:32 PM
It comes down to the uses/utility of the bridge. If you're going to put seating on the bridge, it needs shade. My irritations with the bridge originally was that if we want to tear down the old one for a "bigger, better" new bridge that it should at least have the same or more utility. Right now the bridge is really only going to be good for bike riders and probably joggers. We were sold on the idea that the bridge would have the ability to be utilized for more casual visitors as well. Especially for the Gathering Place users, there should be a significant amount of more casual users who are walking versus bike/running/exercise and those users would be spending more time on the structure. Without shade why would any casual user want to be on the bridge or gather on the bridge. The added amenities from Williams will help, but without shade the seating will be unusable most of the year.
I get your point, but "most of the year" seems a bit extreme. It's maybe June-August where having no shade would be untenable for the vast majority of the time, and even then there are times when it isn't quite as hot, it's cloudy, etc., and also people don't just use it in the heat of the day... tons of people walk on the trails in the morning and in the evening when it could be used in the summer.
Shade solution: Just provide bridge crossing umbrellas on each end.
Install the umbrella app on your phone to rent the umbrella.
Quote from: BKDotCom on May 02, 2022, 10:43:29 AM
Shade solution: Just provide bridge crossing umbrellas on each end.
Install the umbrella app on your phone to rent the umbrella.
NOT acceptable. Will the City of Tulsa pay for the cell phones (or iPads) required for the apps?
Quote from: Jeff P on May 02, 2022, 09:29:44 AM
I get your point, but "most of the year" seems a bit extreme. It's maybe June-August where having no shade would be untenable for the vast majority of the time, and even then there are times when it isn't quite as hot, it's cloudy, etc., and also people don't just use it in the heat of the day... tons of people walk on the trails in the morning and in the evening when it could be used in the summer.
If the Gathering Place was open later I do think the bridge would have more utility. I think the lighting is actually a good thing because in the summer it makes it safer to use at night/early morning.
The bridge will primarily be used March - probably October and a handful of nice days during the colder months. So if you can't really use it during the middle of the day from mid-June to early September then you're losing the bridge's utility for a huge portion of the year.
When they picked the architect and bridge design I didn't think they'd ever add shading structures anyways. It doesn't fit the design aesthetic so it was more so a bait and switch on that particular amenity to get the other bridge torn down. Even if they were able to get the money for it a highly doubt any shading structures will ever be installed for aesthetic reasons.
I still wish this bridge was located at the northern entrance of the Gathering Place and was dedicated to bikes/runners and then kept the old bridge for passive users and just refurbish the decking, etc. as needed.
I'm at least glad they are adding some seating, lights, etc. overall it is better to have all that then not. The bridge will still get plenty of use from active users anyways.
They should name it the Melanoma Bridge. ;D
After losing a few weeks due to the high water in the river they are making progress on the bridge support columns. They should be ready to start setting the rest of the trusses this fall.
(https://imgur.com/WPpR53j.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/brQNlBf.jpg)
Looks like part of the whitewater flume is under construction?
(https://i.ibb.co/dm38zY9/448535833-1014937597108540-5544717387263376157-n.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FD2xfcC/448595503-1014937647108535-2882580164666552383-n.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/tHFWFD5/448642019-1014937497108550-9160752446601811125-n.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/z7CB0sZ/448640212-1014937623775204-3591992433255471957-n.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/MCYYt1t/448644893-1014937490441884-3167066282156874193-n.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/8j4wppw/448644353-1014937580441875-1575322622795849086-n.jpg)
Hope they do different lighting around the holidays. I like the blue they have been tested the best.
Think Crossland will finish up their work along the east bank before Labor Day? 2.5 months out and there is still a lot of hardscape and landscaping work to be finished. It will be so nice having that chain link fence finally gone along the trail.
Quote from: SXSW on June 19, 2024, 12:56:20 PM
Hope they do different lighting around the holidays. I like the blue they have been tested the best.
Think Crossland will finish up their work along the east bank before Labor Day? 2.5 months out and there is still a lot of hardscape and landscaping work to be finished. It will be so nice having that chain link fence finally gone along the trail.
Its the same company that did the excellent lighting at the Gathering Place, so they have a clue as to environmentally-friendly lighting.
LED colors are striking, and the blue is vibrant, but the blues and greens are the colors they should use
very sparingly.
For ambience, nature better tolerates amber (sometimes referred to as "turtle-friendly" but easy on human eyes, too.
Its also the color the county
should have used to light the GOLDEN driller, but I digress....
With the green lights, it would certainly be a great location if they do another Matrix movie.
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/458183595_1054601259559692_6757814728041536650_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=neeFjLo39tgQ7kNvgEjV1lS&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AYD92na2I1dK09ohYauZOXTEJp4Notv6J3B6eQjoY-FmFw&oe=66DF97A8)
I think next summer the lake will have a lot more kayaks and SUP as people get used to being able to use the river for recreation. Also, the river bank construction will be complete and Daigoro will be open in the old Sandbar spot so you can kayak up to the beach there and get some Asian food.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5622AQEIEvNCQBqgJw/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1725916279899?e=1728518400&v=beta&t=8km0NdtRXKfhxD6c4MYOt4O8rgYZIdXJouaxgVGWoLU)
Quote from: SXSW on September 09, 2024, 04:33:05 PM
I think next summer the lake will have a lot more kayaks and SUP as people get used to being able to use the river for recreation. Also, the river bank construction will be complete and Daigoro will be open in the old Sandbar spot so you can kayak up to the beach there and get some Asian food.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5622AQEIEvNCQBqgJw/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1725916279899?e=1728518400&v=beta&t=8km0NdtRXKfhxD6c4MYOt4O8rgYZIdXJouaxgVGWoLU)
Likely not until they figure out a way for the water to be cleaner. It's better than it has been, but has some way to go (IMO).
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/d1473cd55d8d40e48c4b6e00712b156b/page/Water-Conditions/
Not really any different than the area lakes except after heavy rains when urban runoff into the lake will cause a spike. Austin has similar E Coli issues at Lady Bird Lake and it doesn't stop the kayakers and SUP there.
We live in a state that has let oil companies do whatever they want for 100 years. I don't get why people are mad at the city. They didn't cause that bs. They are monitoring and reporting levels. They said from the beginning its not for swimming but for boating and whatever you can do in the flume on top of something, not soaking in it for long periods of time. Take your complaints to OKC where they'll call you a bunch of political bad words.
I see the honeymoon is over for people about the water feature. According to a KTUL story people want lifeguards as well as the city and River Parks and the boat and kayak rental businesses to take on the liability for people who are injured or worse while there.
Quote"How many people are we going to have to kill here before they shut it down?"
The extremely blunt question is from Charles Pratt, who has been sounding the alarm over safety and liability from the inception of the project.
https://ktul.com/news/local/whos-on-the-hook-if-theres-a-drowning-at-zink-lake# (https://ktul.com/news/local/whos-on-the-hook-if-theres-a-drowning-at-zink-lake#)
KTUL has been nothing but negative about the whole Zink Lake project. I really don't understand why they insist on running endless stories criticizing it. First it was fears about water quality, then whitewater safety, and now about fish passage: https://ktul.com/news/local/is-tulsa-failing-to-enhance-fishing-tourism-with-zink-dam
Meanwhile I've been out there dozens of times since everything opened and it's been nothing short of amazing. It's brought tons of people outside and is seeing extremely heavy usage. Always lots of people on the bridge jogging, cycling, walking their dogs, or just sitting on the benches. People on the water surfing, paddle boarding, and kayaking.
Here are some pictures I've taken over the past few weeks:
(https://i.imgur.com/tD9bgai.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iOlmTRa.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/nTxMtQl.jpeg)
Quote from: dtownttown on September 27, 2024, 03:18:01 PM
KTUL has been nothing but negative about the whole Zink Lake project. I really don't understand why they insist on running endless stories criticizing it.
Might have something to do with KTUL being run from OKC. I only watch Wheel of Fortune and the National News on KTUL. Nothing else much interests me.
I took the KTUL story with a grain of salt, a rather large grain, and I probably should have worded my comment differently, but I found the comments about lifeguards and charging to use the area to pay the lifeguards interesting, and the how long before we kill someone a negative Nancy comment. Trying to hold the city, boat/kayak rental company liable is like holding a car/truck rental company liable for injury or death. It's not like a pool where it's a confined space.
Glad to see the pics of people enjoying and using the area, and that it has become a focal point for Tulsa, much more than in the past when The Great Raft Race and Fourth Of July were the main events. I can remember being told to leave the parking area by the old pedestrian bridge on Friday or Saturday nights by TPD in the early 80's when cruising Brookside was shut down.