Pedestrian Bridge

[swake]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[DowntownDan]

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.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

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.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Link to page asking for comments with link for providing comments:
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/vision

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

[rebound]

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.

[SXSW]

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.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

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.

[LeGenDz]

Wish we would have been able to see all of the submissions..

Here is one of my buddies:

[AngieB]

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.

[swake]

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.

[sgrizzle]

#4 or bust, I think is where we ended up.

[Weatherdemon]

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.

[SXSW]

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? 

[rebound]

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.