Pedestrian Bridge

[Townsend]

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.

[Tulsasaurus Rex]

I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.

[swake]

I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.

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

[SXSW]

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?  

[heironymouspasparagus]

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

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

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

[rebound]

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

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.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[johrasephoenix]

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. 

[PonderInc]

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?

[AngieB]

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.

[Weatherdemon]

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

Or a big dam upstream. wait...

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

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.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

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).

[heironymouspasparagus]

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....