Which bridge design do you like?

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Tomorrow, a TriMet advisory committee will meet to discuss the design of a bridge proposed for the Milwaukie light rail project. The bridge would cross over the Willamette River, just south of downtown, near OMSI. The Oregonian has more details.

Here's the options. Tell us which one you prefer - and weigh in with a comment.

The arch design:
Large_portlandkph13througharch

The cable-stay design:
Large_portlandkph13cablestayed

The wave-frame design:
Large_portlandkph13wave

Note that the illustrations here were all created by architecture firm Rosales + Partners. There's a bunch more over at Randy Gragg's blog.

  • havasu yahoo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I prefer bridges that are safe the st johns bridge has a pit at the west end that is 6 feet deep and lined with concrete it would be impossible for a child or an animal to climb out of it and given it's location it would be days until some one discovered it.

  • (Show?)

    As a Bostonian ex-pat who missed out on the Zakim Bridge, I had to go with "B." But they all look pretty nice. You know what else would look nice? A stream of happy, healthy, fresh-air breathing bicyclists arriving on the west side for work every morning.

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Did you used to work for the Florida SOS? The pictures are in a different order from the list on the vote :-).

    Like the vote!

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ignore me; I'm old and addled and dyslexic.

  • (Show?)

    Couple things noted from Gragg's blog:

    • The view of a bike rider (or MAX rider) is pretty significant, too, besides these wide shots. How will it look as you cross the bridge? I think the cable stay view looks pretty darned cool from a bike rider's vantage.

    • The cable stay is by far the cheapest option. Surely counts for something, no?

  • Boze Noze (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I prefer bridges that carry cars and trucks, not oversubsidized, costly, criminal transportation systems...

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like the top picture best. It looks more like it would fit in with the visual character of that area. The second picture looks more like downtown Portland and the third just looks like it's rippling in the midst of an earthquake.

  • (Show?)

    The arch is nice looking, but I think it might be nice to have a design that isn't already found crossing the river.

    I can tell you from experience that the cable-stay one isn't all that cool looking when you're going across it. All you really see are the arches. It used to be pretty scary, actually, whenever there was heavy fog or wind and I had to go across the Houston Ship Channel's Fred Hartman cable-stay bridge. But that might not be as important since I'm assuming this bridge is only for the MAX?

  • Dan L. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any structure of this size and scale is hard to imagine without a proper sense of scale: e.g., the arch design looks terrible in this photo, but the Fremont Bridge is pretty spectacular when viewed in person. Anyone have a better photo of the proposed span site? (The drawings on Portland Spaces are a good start, but...)

    Also, since this is going to be a pedestrian bridge, scale and experience will be vital when standing on/in it, not just looking at it from afar. The St. Johns Bridge is one of the few in town that provides both points of view well, although that's partly a product of elevation. I wonder, actually, if the two points of view might be at odds with one-another. Anyone that's done the Bridge Pedal knows how amazing it feels to ride over the (very ugly) Marquam Bridge, whereas the more structurally-interesting Broadway is a yawn when you're actually on it. So I'm thinking that while perhaps the wave-frame really does offer a good sense of "connecting" the two river banks, the frame offers less by being more of an "enclosure" to ride in/alongside, rather than actually providing a beautiful architectural frame through which to view the city.

  • (Show?)

    I've always thought it would be interesting to have the downtown bridges be a rainbow; one color (in order) each for the Fremont, Broadway, Steel, Burnside, Morrison, Hawthorne, and Marquam. It would be both a nod to our fame for rain and a positive message about equal rights.

    Can someone at Rosales + Partners mock up what that would look like? I'm not sure I like the idea of a big orange bridge, despite being a Broncos fan. But a big purple bridge? That I like. I think.

  • wikiwiki (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like both (a) and (b), Kari. They both have a simple, yet elegant look to them.

    Sorry to stray off-topic, and without appearing to agree too much with Boze Noze, but what is, or would be, the preferred solution to replacing the Sellwood Bridge? Everyone seems to agree that it's falling apart, but no one appears to have come up with a sound idea for a replacement. The bridge will likely be condemned before too many more years pass, won't it?? Just curious.....

  • Jim H (unverified)
    (Show?)
    I like the top picture best. It looks more like it would fit in with the visual character of that area. The second picture looks more like downtown Portland and the third just looks like it's rippling in the midst of an earthquake.

    Ditto! Becky, you read my mind.

  • (Show?)

    I generally love the dramatic cable-stay look, but in this context, for a smallish bridge, I think it would just look silly. The towers would be so tall compared with the bridge itself and the surrounding architecture that it would stick out like a sore thumb. The wave-frame is much more elegant and provides a much better experience for peds and cyclists crossing the bridge (see additional pics on Gragg's blog).

  • (Show?)

    Not to rain on the parade, but I see this as being asked by a car salesman to pick out the color I like.

    Here's what I need to know:

    1) How much does each design cost 2) What are the associated maintenance costs? 3) Which would best withstand an earthquake (we've got a subduction zone off the coast)? 4) Which has the greatest capacity? 5) Which design would be best amenable to low cost capacity expansion in the future, should it become necessary? 6) Is there any appreciable difference in environmental impact between the designs, either from construction or materials? 7) How long would each take to complete?

    Tell me that, and maybe I can give you an opinion.

  • macmccown (unverified)
    (Show?)

    the arch design (picture A) gets my vote ... clean and elegant no doubt! it also sorta reminds me of the astoria bridge.

    as to the sellwood ... save it please ... it is a wonderful assest to our community. if need be ... dont allow truck usage ... and limiting bus usage might be reasonable once the max is up and operating.

  • Samuel John Klein (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Definitely the thorough-arch design. I'm addited to the look of the Fremont.

    Even though it looks similar to the Fremont the bridges it is immediately adjacent to (Hawthorne, Marquam, Ross Island) could not be more different, so there is visual variety there.

    Also, the arch design simply looks more substantial. Cable-stay bridges are beautiful but seem like a trick of the eye to me. And the wave-frame? Why not just have a suspension bridge, rather than one that just kind of looks like one?

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I worry that the arch design is too much like the Fremont, except miniaturized. Can the arch design work on as small a scale as we're talking about for this bridge? This bridge is going to look tiny compared to the Marquam. (It's also coming across the river at a radically different angle, which I think is going to look odd when completed, but presumably the design committee has already weighed that concern and rejected it.) The cable stay seems too po-mo for my tastes, and I don't like the big "A"s sticking out of the water. I guess that leaves the wave design.

    The bridge looks low to me. Since it's not a drawbridge, I assume it has the same clearance as the other non-draw bridge Willamette crossings, right? These pictures sure make it look a lot lower.

  • Chris Andersen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I absolutely hate the cable-stay (or A-frame as I call it) style of bridge. They have one in Boston and its appearance is absolutely jarring in contrast to the rest of the landscape. I honestly don't understand why anyone would like this design. It is UGLY!

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Looking at the pictures on Gragg's site, the bridge actually may cross at the same angle as the Marquam. That's good. But I'm perplexed why in the above photos it looks different? Maybe it's just a scale/perspective issue.

  • (Show?)

    Posted by: wikiwiki

    Sorry to stray off-topic, and without appearing to agree too much with Boze Noze, but what is, or would be, the preferred solution to replacing the Sellwood Bridge? Everyone seems to agree that it's falling apart, but no one appears to have come up with a sound idea for a replacement. The bridge will likely be condemned before too many more years pass, won't it?? Just curious.....

    Everything you ever wanted to know -- and then some -- about the Sellwood Bridge project is at sellwoodbridge.org

    Click on the link to "range of alternatives" for a fairly huge PDF with maps and drawings and circles and arrows on the back of each one explaining what each one is about.

    A consensus? Surely you jest.

  • peter c (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete,

    actually, according to the designer, the cost estimates are nowhere near final, especially for the wave:

    "Q: Unless you can bring the wave bridge’s cost down, it seems doomed.

    That estimate we have is not correct. There were too many mistakes. The quantities were all wrong."

    and yes, I voted wave. no contest. :)

  • (Show?)

    In case you haven't clicked on it, the link I included does show the view you see when going over the cable-stay bridge (looking ahead, not out to the side).

    In my opinion, having been around one, they're ugly.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, I like the pointy haired bridge (cable stay) myself.

    But that is beside the point.

    If it is in Portland, then the deciding factor is: "Which bridge will have the biggest cost overages, and cost the taxpayers the most money for the least bridge?"

    * The cable stay is by far the cheapest option. Surely counts for something, no? No. Absolutely nothing.

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have 3 criteria for public works projects. #1: how can I make the most money. #2: how can my client make the most money and gratefully reward me. #3: if the feds come in, how can I avoid liability.

  • (Show?)

    I just looked at the Portland Spaces piece, midway down is the view of the Wave bridge from a pedestrian's perspective. So open and spacious, compared to the Cable-stay bridge with it's imposing towers and cage-like cables, the Wave is much more attractive from any view (based on the artist renderings.)

    The Arch design is a none starter - been there, done that.

    If cost were not an issue, I would say it's a slam dunk - Do the Wave!

  • ws (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm generally inclined to prefer the arch-design over the two others depicted, but its execution lacks elegance; the supports and the arch itself look too thick. Actually, I like the design of the Ross Island Bridge with its underside arches. They make that bridge look great, even though it doesn't have a soaring superstructure.

    Why not just refine the arch-design and get rid of it's clumsiness?

    Spare us from the blight of the cable stay. I can understand that designer Miguel Rosales would probably like to build something different and 'unique' rather than another arch-design bridge, but I kind of dread for the city having to live with that wave-frame bridge for the next 100 years. Could we have some kind of nice, simple radius for its arches instead of those pointy want-to-be things? The wave-frame bridge's two arches just aren't sexy at all. It just looks like there's something wrong with it.

  • (Show?)

    Another thought:

    Randy Gragg's blog mentions that the cable stay bridge would be the tallest, the most visually striking of the designs. It says so in a way that suggests that's a bad thing: it looks like a gateway, when in actuality this is more of a cross-river connection.

    Well, on further reflection, I disagree. I'd look at it as a kind of a gateway to the future. If the most visually striking bridge in that part of the river is a light rail, pedestrian, and bicycle-only bridge, isn't that a pretty bold and forward-looking statement for our city to make? I would be pleased and proud, 20 years down the road, if visiting friends' first question was "what's THAT interesting looking bridge all about?" It would be an invitation to tell a good story: about how Portland acomplished a strong move in the right direction on sustainable transportation.

    @Jenni -- the photos you linked were of an auto bridge, which is wider, and on which vehicles move at a faster speed. The photo on Randy Gragg's blog makes it pretty obvious that the cables would be visible to bike traffic. Also, I'm sure this varies a bunch with lighting and time of day.

  • (Show?)

    Greg D.: I have 3 criteria for public works projects. #1: how can I make the most money. #2: how can my client make the most money and gratefully reward me. #3: if the feds come in, how can I avoid liability.

    Spoken like a true Republican.

  • verasoie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I just hope that they call it the "Portland Passerelle," a term for a pedestrian bridge (even though this will carry the MAX too).

  • (Show?)

    Portland is a conservative little town without much architectural vision. That's okay--we compensate in manifold, non-architectural ways. But until we do start to get a little verve, I think only (A) makes sense. It's like the Portland Building, now an albatros. Art must exist in a context, and Portland just doesn't offer a context of innovation. I think it's in our nature. Version (A) is attractive, sensible, traditional, and fits the feng shui of the city.

  • zull (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's really amazing how many off-topic, rambling comments there are here...yes, we need bridges, no, they have nothing at all to do with the prison system, and yes, it's really good to have the light rail go down into SE Portland. Ever try crossing the Sellwood Bridge at rush hour?

    I'd have to say B, but in reality, I'd really like to see something that looked a bit more traditional/downtown Portland style and less obnoxiously corporate. As an engineer, I realize that these designs are, at their core, meant to minimize the overall amount of material and effort while maximizing their safety, but in 20 years, they better have a lot of maintenance or else tourists might as well put their cameras away when getting near the river, because bridges like that become eyesores. Take a trip to the midwest and look at some of the bridges across the Mississippi and you'll see exactly what I mean.

  • Communard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The reason I like the cable design is that the bridge will look better longer. When there are a lot of steel pieces such as with the other two designs, the paint will start chipping and fading and the bridge will look like hell as some of our current bridges do.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm going with the cable-stayed bridge, since it's the only type of bridge Portland doesn't have, and I like the idea of Portland being a showcase of bridge design. Plus, the design works with SoWa, Portland's Tomorrowland.

    And it being cheapest helps.

  • Eric (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am partial to the arch design. It looks VERY similar to the Alsea Bay Bridge in Waldport, on Highway 101, and as one of the "newer" 101 bridges, I think it is rather elegant.

  • Ross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like the wave frame best. The arch is nice, I think cable stays are overdone, and the wave frame is, well, wavy. Portland needs waves.
    By the way, did anyone notice all the Butterfly bushes in the foreground? Its an invasive weed native to China. Those pretty flowers have a dark side!

  • (Show?)

    I just personally find the cable ones ugly. The Houston one was quite ugly. Even when sitting in traffic on the thing when you were barely moving, it was ugly. And it's basically an "off the shelf" bridge, definitely nothing that would stand out. It's like having a collection of hand-made crystal items and then throwing in a cheap piece from the flea market.

  • ws (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well I don't care what anyone else thinks...I think Graves Portland building looks great. I don't have to work inside of it, so that negative experience has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the outside.

    I'd like to see Portland have something architecturally new and exciting in a bridge design, but designers seem to tend not to come up with something that's aesthetically good. Reading the Gragg interview with Miguel Rosales, you can tell that Rosales wants to build the wave-frame pretty badly. I'm sure it would be fun for him, but for those of us that are going to have to live with it?

    I like traditional, but am open to good, exciting new design. Least that's the way it is with cars and bicycles. But that wave-frame bridge is just not so hot. If it's going to be cutting edge make it evoke the excitement of a Ferrari or a supermodel or something...instead of having it look like a skateboard ramp for beginners.

    When I think of some of the really beautiful bridges we have in Portland; The Burnside for example...it has beautiful detailing....The Hawthorne...it's brutal, but has a very masculine sexiness...The St. Johns, well, nothing more need be said. I think the present multi-arch spanned I-5 bridge is also beautiful. So I hope the people of this city decide very carefully to choose a design for this bridge that is also beautiful.

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any design as long as it's not like that incredibly ugly Fremont bridge.

  • Tom Beaver (ex) (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bridges are for trains and trucks, the other creatures that use it, like crapping pigeons, shouldn't be considered in the design!

    I moved to NH to escape this stuff where we were smart enough to elect a truly smart man as governor, if you want to see what a real republican looks like, not the "God Squad".

    I was a programmer for Tri-Met and I can tell you that they could build a ped bridge a year with what they waste in software development. I guess you can understand cables and such better, but it's really a drop in the bucket compared...

    How about reforming their union? 80% of the drivers are great people but 10% are out to pull every dirty trick they can get away with from sleeping on the job to playing mother supierior on the bus. If it's a holiday or some other time no one wants to work, that's 99%. Management salaries are an absolute sin. I gave up on the scene because all anyone want to do is split hairs on issues like this and never addresses the fact that Tri-Met is the most unresponsive civic body imaginable. OK, <a href="Bridges are for trains and trucks, the other creatures that use it, like crapping pigeons, shouldn't be considered in the design!

    I moved to NH to escape this stuff where we were smart enough to elect a truly smart man as governor, if you want to see what a real republican looks like, not the "God Squad".

    I was a programmer for Tri-Met and I can tell you that they could build a ped bridge a year with what they waste in software development. I guess you can understand cables and such better, but it's really a drop in the bucket compared...

    How about reforming their union? 80% of the drivers are great people but 10% are out to pull every dirty trick they can get away with from sleeping on the job to playing mother supierior on the bus. If it's a holiday or some other time no one wants to work, that's 99%. Management salaries are an absolute sin. I gave up on the scene because all anyone want to do is split hairs on issues like this and never addresses the fact that Tri-Met is the most unresponsive civic body imaginable. OK, SF Muni has them beat. Tri-Met doesn't deliberately kill people and then get a bye. SF Muni has them beat. Tri-Met doesn't deliberately kill people and then get a bye.

  • Marissa Madrigal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Aesthetically, I like option A. Practically, (and even as a regular MAX rider) I have a hard time cheering for a light-rail only bridge when the Sellwood is close to the end of its useful life. I know this bridge is funded with buckets of money that aren't necessarily available to the County, but it still just seems silly.

  • (Show?)

    I haven't had a chance to comment until now, so this is my third flight over these proposed bridges. I have had a different favorite every time. I'm curious to know if any of the early adopters above have had second thoughts as well.

    Here's what I like about each one:

    1. This bridge was my first #1. It just says "BRIDGE." It's no-nonsense. We've all seen bridges with this design last forever, so it's reassuring. (I know one that was built in 1928 and is coming down soon, not because of the design but because they hadn't fully figured out concrete in 1928.) It works like a bridge should work; it won't go out of style (but isn't exactly in style either. It's the plain suit you buy for all of the weddings you'll go to in the next 10 years.) It's practical.

    2. This was my second #1. It's different, looks modern, leaves the area above the center of the river free so the eye to see the sky; birds can fly through; energy can flow down the river along with the current. It's clean. And am I hearing this design is a bargain? I like bargains.

    3. This was my third (and current) top choice. Once my eye catches the wave, I need to see it through, and that creates a cool pause, a chance to breathe. It's sort of a hybrid of the two other designs -- it keeps the space above the river clear (like #2) by pushing the arch (#1) off to two sides. It looks natural and organic. And I'm all about hybrids, natural and organic.

    The tie-breakers for me are more practical: cost of building and maintenance, ability to expand in the future, etc. Earthquake safety should be a given.

  • Jim Howell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No bridge is needed. The Milwaukie MAX trains are planned to continue north as Interstate MAX trains (Yellow Line). All of these trains should remain on the eastside. Diverting them downtown will:

    Add running time to N-S trips, discouraging ridership

    Require all MAX trains to cross the Steel Bridge creating a bottleneck during peak hours

    Require out of direction trips for transferring eastside bus riders

    Not generate more ridership than an eastside connection (Metro's own analysis)

    Cost much more to build and operate

  • J Miller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The arch design nicely reflects the Freemont -- timeless.

    The wave looks like the Marquam (Portland's ugliest bridge by far) with speed bumps. Faddish.

    What about an inverted arch -- also known as the "smiley face" design?

  • Mongo cuts Wood (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like the Sellwood Bridge design better.

    And it's far more important to our urban transportation grid than a light rail bridge.

    Why is the City of Portland willing to build a light rail bridge, but won't contribute to the Sellwood Bridge replacement. They're both within city limits, they cross the same body of water, and they will serve the same population.

  • Byard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I voted for the cable stay...I like the symbolism of the gigantic "A"s, so appropriate for a commuter train, showing the passengers, day after day, that they're going only from point A to point A in their Sisyphian commutes.

  • DE (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Both serve the same population."

    I think the research shows that the majority of Sellwood bridge users are from Milwaukee and Clackamas County. If all Portlanders are required to pay for a bridge used by many outside Portland, it's not too much to ask to spread the cost to all of Multnomah County, which actually owns the bridge. Maybe Metro should own it and tax the whole metro area for it... Who will own the new LRT bridge? TriMet? Portland? the State? One way or the other, they are completely different projects with unique funding issues and should not be conflated.

  • J Miller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A bulky A-frame lacks grace.

    Maybe if they were designed like back-to-back swooshes? Phil?

    And what about convincing a company to put its brand name on the new bridge? "Vestas Bridge" Or "Iberdrola Renovables Bridge"

  • liz (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The two waves are reminiscent of the mountains in our area--that gets my vote. The A shape is too bulky and the first one looks like every other bridge.

  • J Miller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    More brand names: The Gap Bridge Menswear Bridge (as opposed to Bridge to Nowhere) Safewayt Bridge

  • Lenny Anderson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Be sure to evaluate this new bridge with the Marquam gone as Portland is sure to expand to the eastside someday and that ugly thing plus the concrete wasteland of the Eastbank Freeway will have to go.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have a bridge to sell you DP worshipers, mythologizers and triumphalists.

  • (Show?)

    I voted for the wave bridge since it tends to not interfere much with the skyline. My second choice was the arch bridge. There are several bridges like that here in South Korea (the one I'm thinking of is red-ish Orange color) which are not too bad in terms of how they look.

  • (Show?)

    J. Miller wrote:"What about an inverted arch -- also known as the "smiley face" design?" Like the pedestrian bridge over Hwy 26 at Subset transit center? Ugh: http://www.taphilo.com/misc/sunset-ped-bridge.jpg

  • Dave Lister (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like the design that fixes the Sellwood Bridge first.

  • Jason (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lets remember that, as we slide into an economic depression, we are talking about building a bridge for bikes and trains. This is great! Its time for the green economy to replace the oil economy. Why not build another one to Vancouver. There we will build a giant parking lot. Then folks from Vancouver can go to work in Portland by train.

    The wave drawing has flow and simplicity, it appears to bend like a train. It looks light like people and bikes. It sits low and unassuming. I would start with that option.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I too vote for the bridge that gives the best view of the Sellwood Bridge falling into the river.

    What a screwed city/county/state - Lets build new stuff and ignore the broken things.

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hear, hear, Steve. It seems to be a universal problem that attention is only given to the fun parts of a project, not the dirty upkeep.

    How about building a bridge based purely on seismic concerns? We live in an area that has rare, but reliably huge events that could easily compromise the existing bridges, not so much because they're going to fall into the water, but because of the load they could no longer carry. I always thought it would be interesting, that the 3/4 of Portland that rides the popularity of real Portland, i.e. SE, have to deal with being cut off from it.

    Perhaps a more positive idea would be that the pedestrian and bike bridge be able to withstand anything? Might allow for funding from alternative sources if that was tied into a local disaster relief plan. Purely seat of the pants thinking, correct me if I'm in error, but that would seem to favor the cable design.

  • j_luthergoober (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>What are the toll houses 'gonna look like? And can we have all the "toll keeper" uniforms designed by Nike to look like a maleficent McCall troll?</h2>

connect with blueoregon