20 replies to this topic

[skirby]

The AHTD is working on plans to replace the Broadway Bridge between LR/NLR. Their plans are for the demolition to start sometime in 2013. The new bridge will consist of 4 lanes, bike lanes and 8 foot sidewalks. While they are in the design process they should include room for the River Rail in the future.

Edited by skirby, 20 January 2011 - 01:33 PM.

[thewizard16]

They're also talking about how they want it to be an important aesthetic/design feature between the two cities for the next century. Which sounds great, but I can't help but think in the end a lot of the extra niceties will be cut due to cost.

[Architect]

thewizard16, on 20 January 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

They're also talking about how they want it to be an important aesthetic/design feature between the two cities for the next century. Which sounds great, but I can't help but think in the end a lot of the extra niceties will be cut due to cost.

Thanks for adding this point which was an emphasis in the article about the intent of local civic leaders.  I totally support this goal...to make the design a point of public, civic pride.  While the tendency in the past has been to cut these types of things, on a project of this scale and cost (bridges are extremely expensive...this will cost about half what Verizon Arena cost in today's dollars), components to add some level of design aesthetic could be minimal.  Let's hope it integrates it much more successfully than the big dam bridge, which incorporates the clunkiest of design elements (most of my colleagues consider it a hugely missed opportunity).

[LRU1967]

skirby, on 20 January 2011 - 01:32 PM, said:

The AHTD is working on plans to replace the Broadway Bridge between LR/NLR. Their plans are for the demolition to start sometime in 2013. The new bridge will consist of 4 lanes, bike lanes and 8 foot sidewalks. While they are in the design process they should include room for the River Rail in the future.

We've already had experience with the Broadway Bridge being closed. The south span was removed and replaced to provide additional clearance for barge traffic.

[cmatthews40510]

A write-up on the preliminary steps in replacing the Broadway Bridge and AHTD's plans to include LR/NLR in the design process.

http://www.arkansaso...esign-20110411/

[skirby]

In last weeks Arkansas DEM-GAZ there was an article about the new bridge design. In the article there was a mention of an upcoming expansion of the Robinson Center, does anyone know about this?

[Architect]

skirby, on 28 July 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

In last weeks Arkansas DEM-GAZ there was an article about the new bridge design. In the article there was a mention of an upcoming expansion of the Robinson Center, does anyone know about this?

No, I have not heard about that at all.

[cmatthews40510]

Here is the PDF from the article showing some of the conceptual work...

http://media.arkansa...lders_final.pdf

[SangreRaVen]

I like the 3rd option, looks cool if they are going to replace this thing they need something unique looking not some copy of the original one.. and I am sorry but the concept drawings are funny.. guys in business suits are not going to be walking from one side of the river to the other across the bridge in a suit.. they will take a car or cab

-R

[Mith242]

Interesting options.  I think I actually prefer the first one on design.  Although I imagine many might find it the most 'plain looking'.  The second option seems to be a more modern take on the current structure.  Not long ago the third option would have been my favorite.  But I have seen that particular style used in a lot of other places.  Although I admit you don't find that particular style in Arkansas much so it would stand out.  But really all three options aren't bad.

[cmatthews40510]

I'd like to see a merging of the 1st and 3rd options....

[thewizard16]

I love the cable-stayed option, but the first one (which I'm sure is the cheapest) is actually pretty nice looking. Although I would prefer something more distinctive (like the third one), the first one would still be a huge aesthetic improvement over the current bridge and I wouldn't be disappointed if that is the route they take due to finances.

[Mith242]

thewizard16, on 31 July 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

I love the cable-stayed option, but the first one (which I'm sure is the cheapest) is actually pretty nice looking. Although I would prefer something more distinctive (like the third one), the first one would still be a huge aesthetic improvement over the current bridge and I wouldn't be disappointed if that is the route they take due to finances.

Yeah I think the minimalist in me likes that first one.  Over all the third option seems to be getting a lot of attention.  That particular style isn't something you see a lot in this area.  So I can't argue with that option.  

[skirby]

I prefer the first option because it looks like the only one with overlook areas. In fact I would like the overlook areas to be expanded with seating provided. The uprights on this example would make excellent bases for lighting features.

[Architect]

I think it definitely needs to be something more along the lines of Option 3.  Something inspirational and atypical.

[Architect]

I think it definitely needs to be something more along the lines of Option 3.  Something inspirational and atypical.

[thewizard16]

Architect, on 01 August 2011 - 09:06 PM, said:

I think it definitely needs to be something more along the lines of Option 3.  Something inspirational and atypical.

Option 3 might not be as expensive as I had mentioned. There has been talk in the committee of a decorative cable stayed design instead of an actual cable supported design and I think that is what they're showing there based off the similarities with the first design. The only difference (other than the missing overlooks, which I think you could find a way to add in) is the middle support continues up and sends off the cables, it looks like the bridge itself is still supported the same way since the supports underneath are identical between those two designs. I'm sure it would be a little more expensive than option 1 but I bet it's not by a lot. If the cables are spaced far enough apart, I don't see why you couldn't add the overlooks into the third design and have the best of both options.

[skirby]

thewizard16, on 02 August 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Option 3 might not be as expensive as I had mentioned. There has been talk in the committee of a decorative cable stayed design instead of an actual cable supported design and I think that is what they're showing there based off the similarities with the first design. The only difference (other than the missing overlooks, which I think you could find a way to add in) is the middle support continues up and sends off the cables, it looks like the bridge itself is still supported the same way since the supports underneath are identical between those two designs. I'm sure it would be a little more expensive than option 1 but I bet it's not by a lot. If the cables are spaced far enough apart, I don't see why you couldn't add the overlooks into the third design and have the best of both options.

I don't think a faux cable stayed bridge is a very good idea. Not only would the cost to build be more but maintenance cost would also be greater for no other purpose than a "look".

[Architect]

Like screwing plastic shutters one fourth the right width onto a house, "faux" cable stays would be an extremely, and dare I say typically Arkansan-like bad idea.

[thewizard16]

Architect, on 06 August 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

Like screwing plastic shutters one fourth the right width onto a house, "faux" cable stays would be an extremely, and dare I say typically Arkansan-like bad idea.

Hey now, Arkansas didn't invent the McMansion   (although we have built a lot of them here in the past decade or so). I really like the style of the cable stayed design, and will admit that the third option is a form over function design if it is what I think it is, but I do agree that it would be a little tacky since most people would know it is fake. If they can't afford to build a cable stayed bridge, I wouldn't mind the first design (although it is a bit bland compared to the cable design), but I think it would be interesting and add character to the riverfront parks and River Market is they lit it similarly to the Big Dam Bridge. With the attention paid to lighting on Junction Bridge and soon the Clinton bridge, I think any new road bridge should add some flair with lighting too. It doesn't have to be crazy, but lighting is a pretty affordable way to accent a bridge at night and make it more interesting.