Why dont they just throw the cables back into the new design...so what if they don't support anything, no one outside of this board or engineers would know the difference. Everyone goes home happy haha

Why dont they just throw the cables back into the new design...so what if they don't support anything, no one outside of this board or engineers would know the difference. Everyone goes home happy haha

Not everyone, the naysayers would just find something else to HATE about the bridge and/or OKC in general.

I'll take the bridge as is. Better, any day than that forgettable cage bridge. Whatever kind of bridge they put it, it's a bridge to nowhere for a long time to come.

Ah, I always feel so upbeat and positive after visiting this site. There is so much positive energy on here it is amazing.

Why dont they just throw the cables back into the new design...so what if they don't support anything, no one outside of this board or engineers would know the difference. Everyone goes home happy haha

Even when you were a little kid, before climbing a tree you intuitively knew if a tree branch could hold your weight... This is because we have an inherent sense of structure; we know if something is over, or under structured. Even you would know that something was screwy if cables connected to a bridge that could obviously support itself.

I think people may be jumping to conclusions here, especially until we see confirmation there will be no cladding on the steel grid.

I for one am not a naysayer, rather someone who is extremely proud of Oklahoma, and its Capitol city and all of the dramatic change that it has been willing itself to make. I am personally inspired by its sense of reawakening to its pioneering spirit that settled the place in the open windswept prairie! I am simply trying to help illustrate the difference between the original design and what has transpired in its modification and its impacts from a design perspective. Now you may say that most will not know the difference, however that is also an intuitive ability that even children have to be able to look at a design and formulate an opinion of it for good or bad. Now design is subjective but it is based on principles that are measurable. If the concept is clear and it works by balancing form and function, then it is more successful. I am not saying I want for nothing to take place or that I want the status quo with a caged pedestrian bridge to replace it or that, something of that nature is our only alternative. My driving and motivating point is that I want us to stop saying that something is better than nothing! Well is is OKC what do you expect? No.No.no...We are moving away from those days and we need to as citizens and leaders of the community to take the old stand that I was often told by my father. If you begin something you finish it and if it is worth doing it is worth doing right. I cannot think of a more important place to apply that than an element that the civic leaders had previously instructed the designers in the competition to make an iconic statement that will become synonymous with OKC. Do you really want the Iconic symbol of our city to have its design integrity compromised completely based on a constraint that was added much later and that could have been avoided by simply recognizing that this pedestrian bridge is for pedestrian and lightweight maintenance vehicles only and that any larger than the designed loads will have to take the next vehicular bridge a short distance away. That is what I am saying I am not brining negativity but just the opposite, encouragement to do the right thing. The right thing is not always the cheapest thing.

Additionally, I think that the original design would have most certainly been submitted and awarded many design excellence awards that would have further put the national spot light on OKC amongst a segment of the creative class that the city has expressed an interest in attracting. In its current form it will be subject to ridicule by the same community. You may think that several on here are just picky or wound too tightly, but I am very familiar with design principles and what is happening to this bridge is violating many design principles and I can see the negatives reviews already because they will write themselves. In its current form the sculptural element serves no purpose now, other than art. But because the original design is out there publicly and has been marketed already anyone who is reviewing it will compare it to the original and will immediately know that the structure now violates structural integrity and that the concept of the Scissor tailed flycatchers dance that was once as pure and beautiful in its original form is now forced and seemingly poorly executed.

Please do not misunderstand that a critical eye as being a condemnation and negativity rather a truthful appraisal of what it appears that this bridge may become. And that outcome is much further away from the intended and stated goals the city started with and was originally delivered.

And all I am saying is that none of us have seen a final design to make a real opinion on. Unless we picked a real schlock design firm, they may actually make correct modifications and still give us something we can be really proud of. Way too many on here are so quick to assume the final result on this (along with most other things going on in this city) will be screwed up that we start wailing and gnashing our teeth about how awful it is before we even have all the info. There may be some on here qualified as designers and/or artists who can adequately envision this thing in the scale and with the impact it will have that they can make a learned opinion. However, even they haven't seen an actual design and quality renderings. Why not give this a chance? Who knows, the actual impact may be greater than the previous..cables or no cables.

Thank you to the people who are standing up for the original form of this bridge! I don't post often, I normally just come here for news on projects going on in my hometown of OKC. I do visit almost daily though. This is a travesty and needs to be fixed before things are too late.

I would like to believe that new rendereings will be forthcoming but those cost money, and with the bid being let for the foundation portions, it suggests that they are quickly approaching the conclusion of the design phase. Remember this is a bridge and that most of it will be fabricated and the erected, so it will need to be finalized soon. I am hopeful and have a great deal of faith in the designers, but I also know that those incharge of the stream of dollars ultimately has the say in what is going to take place, and they are often times not qualified from a design perspective to make the decisions yet they disregard the very professional advice they have hired to help provide them with that information and do what they think is best, sometimes motivated by political, financial or other stimulus and neglect to think about the longterm consequences or are simply ignorant of them, and move forward with it as is... Seen this many times and not just in OKC...this happens everywhere and the cities that get the accolades are the ones who somehow manage to overcome it and preserve the design integrity and see it through till it is a reality.

I am actually an eternal optimist and so here is hoping like heck that that what I have seen is not what will be, but you don't release drawings that are not accurate to the latest level of the design. The design process just does not work that way, it goes from schematics (fluid oft changing concepts) to Design Development (Refinement of decided upon concept working out major details) Construction Drawings (final refinement into working drawings, that define all critical details, specifications etc) Those final CD's are then permitted and bid out. Any additional modifications or minor changes will then be done by ASI's (Architects Supplemental Information) or in response to RFI (Request for Information by the awarded contractor) Once the bid is awarded anything major is subject to change orders which is often like giving the contractor a blank check book and then grab your ankles....

Anybody here want to donate the money so we can have the original bridge back? That's what it's going to take, I think. I suspect our city fathers (and mother) know better than to ask for a tax to pay for it.

Anybody here want to donate the money so we can have the original bridge back? That's what it's going to take, I think. I suspect our city fathers (and mother) know better than to ask for a tax to pay for it.

No need for donations (although maybe Devon/Chesapeake/SandRidge types could purchase the "Naming Rights" to make up any budget shortfall (i.e., the Devon Skydance Bridge). They have done that with pedestrian bridges over the Canal. I don't think there is really a need to have to go to the public for another tax to do it as planned. The City has a "Rainy Day Fund" that amounts to a significant multi-million funding source. In today's paper they said for the fiscal year that just ended, sales tax collections were $364MM (up 12% from last year). Will let you do the math for the various ranges, but from an Oklahoman article in January of this year (which was approved):

For years, the city has maintained a fund balance between 6 and 10 percent of the city budget. City Manager Jim Couch and the budget department are recommending increasing the fund balance to between 8 and 16 percent.
There are undesignated funds in various bond issues that amount in the multi-millions. There is the MAPS 3 Use Tax that is at the full discretion of the Council in how it is used. The list goes on and on. There really isn't a shortage of funding options they have at their disposal. it is a matter if they want to spend it on this or something else.

Ah, but then we'll hear the tea partiers screaming about a "Bridge to Nowhere" and those who don't walk will say it's not fair that you can't drive over it. Someone will wonder why it's not the mistletoe bridge instead of the skydancer bridge. Someone will complain that we could hire more firefighters or policemen instead of wasting money on a bridge....yadayadayada. They probably don't think it's worth the effort. Again...pick your battles. They'd rather fight for a convention center hotel, I suspect, or moving the substation.

I thought the original was cheaper than the version after the additional weight requirements for maintenance vehicles were added.

It was. Original was $3MM currently at $12MM IIRC

Ah, but then we'll hear the tea partiers screaming about a "Bridge to Nowhere" and those who don't walk will say it's not fair that you can't drive over it. Someone will wonder why it's not the mistletoe bridge instead of the skydancer bridge. Someone will complain that we could hire more firefighters or policemen instead of wasting money on a bridge....yadayadayada. They probably don't think it's worth the effort. Again...pick your battles. They'd rather fight for a convention center hotel, I suspect, or moving the substation.
True. True. Have to make sure there is enough to cover the combined anticipated $80MM+ for that!

My attention was brought to this thread by an architect; I'm not going to read all 23 pages. I just want to know one thing: is any of this discussion based on renderings or drawings of the bridge as it's going to be built? Is there any factual information behind this discussion that isn't a year or more old? I've talked to the architects, and they say there were some very nice changes they were able to make despite the budget cut that they say will still result in this bridge becoming an iconic image in years to come.
As for a bridge to nowhere... Confused about that as well. All the funding remains in place for this to become a fairly stunning park. We're talking about nice open green space on the half north of the new highway being done in 2014. We're talking about substantial completion of the north and south segments a few years later - which should time nicely with downtown growing, organically, toward and into Core to Shore.
I've asked the architects to provide me with the renderings that show the bridge as it has been bid out to be built. Hopefully I'll get those next week, post them, and then sit back and see if the insertion of factual information changes this discussion at all.

It was. Original was $3MM currently at $12MM IIRC

Think you are wrong on that one Larry. 5 MM was set aside for the project. In the competition the design teams were tasked with bringing it in at 5MM or less. It turned out the winning design team did not bring it in at 5MM or less. The City then gave the winning design team something like $450,000 more to rework the design, thus the loss of the cables. If it is 12 MM now it includes the cost of the bridge which is paid for by the state. Please do not ask for a link as I will not try to find them.

you may be right, I can't locate the articles I had on it with the original amount, I was basing the $3MM on info near the beginning of the thread. The $12MM tag is too from memory (right now I can't recall the breakdown of the City/State cost but will try to find out so I don't mislead someone.

My attention was brought to this thread by an architect; I'm not going to read all 23 pages. I just want to know one thing: is any of this discussion based on renderings or drawings of the bridge as it's going to be built? Is there any factual information behind this discussion that isn't a year or more old? I've talked to the architects, and they say there were some very nice changes they were able to make despite the budget cut that they say will still result in this bridge becoming an iconic image in years to come.
As for a bridge to nowhere... Confused about that as well. All the funding remains in place for this to become a fairly stunning park. We're talking about nice open green space on the half north of the new highway being done in 2014. We're talking about substantial completion of the north and south segments a few years later - which should time nicely with downtown growing, organically, toward and into Core to Shore.
I've asked the architects to provide me with the renderings that show the bridge as it has been bid out to be built. Hopefully I'll get those next week, post them, and then sit back and see if the insertion of factual information changes this discussion at all.

Thank you for bringing some sense to this thread. I just don't get all the constant negative hysteria. Glad someone thinks straight.

My attention was brought to this thread by an architect; I'm not going to read all 23 pages. I just want to know one thing: is any of this discussion based on renderings or drawings of the bridge as it's going to be built? Is there any factual information behind this discussion that isn't a year or more old? I've talked to the architects, and they say there were some very nice changes they were able to make despite the budget cut that they say will still result in this bridge becoming an iconic image in years to come.
As for a bridge to nowhere... Confused about that as well. All the funding remains in place for this to become a fairly stunning park. We're talking about nice open green space on the half north of the new highway being done in 2014. We're talking about substantial completion of the north and south segments a few years later - which should time nicely with downtown growing, organically, toward and into Core to Shore.
I've asked the architects to provide me with the renderings that show the bridge as it has been bid out to be built. Hopefully I'll get those next week, post them, and then sit back and see if the insertion of factual information changes this discussion at all.

I look forward to seeing the renderings of what the actual bridge will look like. Am I understanding correctly that the changes we soley based on cost savings and not the increased design load requirements from ODOT? Becuase that would be information that I have not been privy to. Again I look forward to seeing the renderings, and I hope that I am pleasantly surprised. I really want this bridge to achieve what its design intent so clearly communicated, and I am well aware of the sting that can happen when value engineering comes into play and the designers have to swallow their pride and nod their head in contrition so that the design doesn't die altogether.

Good questions that I don't have answers to. Maybe we'll learn more next week

xxx

xxx

Steve,

To sort of answer your questions, we haven't seen the new and improved designs that you have been told exist. We have seen the ODoT version (posted somewhere on this thread, not too far back?) and the reporting in the media about the changes being that trusses were being added/cables would be kept but not serving a functional purpose/then (think it was the next day) the cables being eliminated...the cost increases for this reason or another...stuff like that.

Seems you had mentioned that you were told about the better design over in your blog(?) and think it was the next day or two in the paper had a story about it still using the original renderings.

I agree completely it would be extremely beneficial to all of us here if someone could post what the final design is going to be so we can make an informed opinion on it.

As far as the bridge to nowhere, think that was brought up in Council by Mr. White when they were debating the timelines and Convention Center location...that if they pushed the park back, there would be this bridge isolated in the middle of this COuncil declared "blight", with essentially nothing on the South side for several years and at best, some grass along the Harvey spine to the minimally landscaped Northern part along the Boulevard/Convention Center. Again, although the funding is theoretically there, if done in phases as is the approved plan at this point, that means several years. This also presumes that funding will still be there at the end of the process (that projects, esp the Convention Center, don't go over budget). This is in direct contrast the the concept that the Park/Boulevard was going to be completed by 2014. Granted that still left a bridge for those couple of years an a state of construction, but not nearly as long as with the adopted timeline. But part of the rational behind getting the Park/Boulevard completed as quickly as possible after the relocation of I-40 is those areas are the very ones that are going to be the gateways to DT. And it was everyone's desire to make a positive impression on those tourists and Convention antendees instead of the existing "blight" for more years than necessary. The Council seems to have lost sight of the big picture on that part. And I agree with the original rational.

Also, it is understandable that it is better to build the Bridge now before I-40 is open to traffic. Just as it made sense that on of the first construction projects for the relocation was the bridge over a then non existent Canal extension (still a few years away but supposedly funded thru the 2007 bond).

Anyway, that is what I remember strictly from memory so some of my details may be off here and there.

Thank you for bringing some sense to this thread. I just don't get all the constant negative hysteria. Glad someone thinks straight.

Straight how, it's a sculpture straddling a truss bridge. That's not what we ordered no matter what the sculpture looks like. (I use the word sculpture loosely, considering the history of this design.)

We ordered an elegant sports car. We are getting the hood ornament from a sports car mounted on a pickup.


Hysteria

That word works both ways. Some peoples' reactions remind me of rock star groupies.

My attention was brought to this thread by an architect; I'm not going to read all 23 pages. I just want to know one thing: is any of this discussion based on renderings or drawings of the bridge as it's going to be built? Is there any factual information behind this discussion that isn't a year or more old? I've talked to the architects, and they say there were some very nice changes they were able to make despite the budget cut that they say will still result in this bridge becoming an iconic image in years to come.
As for a bridge to nowhere... Confused about that as well. All the funding remains in place for this to become a fairly stunning park. We're talking about nice open green space on the half north of the new highway being done in 2014. We're talking about substantial completion of the north and south segments a few years later - which should time nicely with downtown growing, organically, toward and into Core to Shore.
I've asked the architects to provide me with the renderings that show the bridge as it has been bid out to be built. Hopefully I'll get those next week, post them, and then sit back and see if the insertion of factual information changes this discussion at all.


this is now a bridge paid for by ODOT and a sculpture on top of the bridge paid for by the city ...

is that statement incorrect? that is the issue some are raising here what was a very unique bridge is no longer.

If the present design was the original, and the City/ODOT changed it to the previous design (with cables), the same select few would be bitching and moaning about that change.

YOU CAN WIN THEM ALL, AND YOU CAN'T MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY.

this is now a bridge paid for by ODOT and a sculpture on top of the bridge paid for by the city ...

is that statement incorrect? that is the issue some are raising here what was a very unique bridge is no longer.

The bridge still seems unique to me. I have not seen any similar bridges around. Also, a lot of posters in this thread want to blame the city and the state. Seems to me the design team earned the largest portion of the blame for not consulting with ODOT on the type of bridge that the Feds required them to build. It is still a great design regardless. To think otherwise seems childish.

It is still a great design regardless.

An opinion, shared by some and not by others, obviously.


To think otherwise seems childish.

To think it is seems childish. Are you done with insulting those you don't agree with yet?

Guys, I wish I could share every bit of information that has come my way of late. I'm doing my best, and some things have to bide their time. But what I'm seeing behind the scenes is encouraging. According to many people I've talked to, the original scheme for Core to Shore pushed by Mayor Mick Cornett and others would have led to more mish-mash development of the urban core. By that, I mean development here, big empty lot there, dilapidated building here, and then park and convention center, more blight, highway, more park, blight, river. Not exactly the sort of organic growth that creates a solid, dense, walkable urban core.
With decisions made on the convention center site, park site, school site, etc., I'm seeing evidence of stronger confidence in where it's all going and a higher likelihood those gaps will now be filled in, with more development then to follow in a continuous manner in Core to Shore.
I'm saying as much as I can say now... but if you sit back, look at an aerial photo of it all, look at where the Union Station is, where the Skydance Bridge will be, and what's beyond... I think you'll get a different perspective of downtown Oklahoma City in 2025.
I know 2025 seems a long time off in the future. I remember being in my 20s, watching what seemed like a snail's pace for the original MAPS, and thinking it would take forever for downtown to come back to life. Looking back now, it all seems like a rapid blur...
I hope what I'm about to say doesn't come off as condescending. As some of you know, I took a months-long break from OKC Talk a while back, and only came back after a good chat with Pete.
As I've re-evaluated OKC Talk, the role it plays in our community, and tried to look at it differently than I have in the past, I realize the conversation is often dominated by two age groups - those in their 20s, who like me 20 years ago, are excited and impatient, unable to see the gray between the black and white. And then there are those who have seen it all, might be a bit too jaded, and might see too much gray and not enough "white." I think OKC Talk is blessed to have an owner like Pete who has a good color wheel and keeps it all in perspective.
So step back, look at the big picture, seek out as much factual information as you try to figure out where we are going...

Straight how, it's a sculpture straddling a truss bridge. That's not what we ordered no matter what the sculpture looks like. (I use the word sculpture loosely, considering the history of this design.)We ordered an elegant sports car. We are getting the hood ornament from a sports car mounted on a pickup.



That word works both ways. Some peoples' reactions remind me of rock star groupies.

We didn't order anything, in fact, the menu was still being looked at. The drawing/sketch released was a preliminary concept.

"PRELIMINARY" preceding and leading up to, the main design!!!

An opinion, shared by some and not by others, obviously.



To think it is seems childish. Are you done with insulting those you don't agree with yet?

It seems childish is my opinion. Did you not get to express your opinion? Unfortunate you felt it was an insult.

The project is bidding right now... plans are on the street. Can't SOMEBODY get a copy to post?

My attention was brought to this thread by an architect; I'm not going to read all 23 pages. I just want to know one thing: is any of this discussion based on renderings or drawings of the bridge as it's going to be built? Is there any factual information behind this discussion that isn't a year or more old? I've talked to the architects, and they say there were some very nice changes they were able to make despite the budget cut that they say will still result in this bridge becoming an iconic image in years to come.
As for a bridge to nowhere... Confused about that as well. All the funding remains in place for this to become a fairly stunning park. We're talking about nice open green space on the half north of the new highway being done in 2014. We're talking about substantial completion of the north and south segments a few years later - which should time nicely with downtown growing, organically, toward and into Core to Shore.
I've asked the architects to provide me with the renderings that show the bridge as it has been bid out to be built. Hopefully I'll get those next week, post them, and then sit back and see if the insertion of factual information changes this discussion at all.

Steve, unless I am mistaken the latest design image we are talking about is the following one, pulled from this ODOT pdf (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/contracts/a2011/plans1107/360_2107_ACOKCY-XTWN(073)_1742884/A%20FULL%20FILE.pdf). Do you know if the renderings that you may be able to provide are different?

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=932&d=1309525734

I don't think this drawing establishes the finished look, but rather the structure. If we could see final renderings it would show it with skin, if it has. This doesn't prove or disprove it. Maybe Steve knows more.

I don't think this drawing establishes the finished look, but rather the structure. If we could see final renderings it would show it with skin, if it has. This doesn't prove or disprove it. Maybe Steve knows more.

What I've been saying. :-D

Maybe Steve knows more.

...which is why I asked him. :tongue:

I'm still waiting on materials I've requested.

Why would published construction drawings show anything other than what was intended to be built? We're not seeing the substrate for an elegant white skin, we're seeing the finished product. Watch; they're going to explain it away as an 'improvement' that emulates bird feathers, or some such line of baloney. Steve is not going to receive any magic material that illustrates otherwise...

I really do hope I'm wrong.

At this point, just do as they do over at Divine Design...wait until the room is finished, take a photo, then do a rendering from the finished product. Magically it matches up almost exactly!

Lol

I have been informed by someone who should know (Dennis Clowers) that the upper structure will be clad in stainless steel panels that will appear to be feathers.

Does that mean it will be a solid or more open structure?

Why would published construction drawings show anything other than what was intended to be built? We're not seeing the substrate for an elegant white skin, we're seeing the finished product. Watch; they're going to explain it away as an 'improvement' that emulates bird feathers, or some such line of baloney. Steve is not going to receive any magic material that illustrates otherwise...

I really do hope I'm wrong.

The document posted states it is a "Clearance Diagram" illustrating the space requirements under the bridge. This set of documents deals with foundations, walls, etc. It does not appear to be a construction document for the bridge itself, which would be another set of documents in great detail. What you would need to see is all working drawing and attachments which would be given to all contractors to bid the job. This isn't for that purpose.

Does that mean it will be a solid or more open structure?

He didn't elaborate on that but I took it to mean that it would be more solid.

The document posted states it is a "Clearance Diagram" illustrating the space requirements under the bridge. This set of documents deals with foundations, walls, etc. It does not appear to be a construction document for the bridge itself, which would be another set of documents in great detail. What you would need to see is all working drawing and attachments which would be given to all contractors to bid the job. This isn't for that purpose.

Rover, It's clear that the drawings are not for the sculpture and bridge... But why would the drawings illustrate anything other than a dashed outline for the sculpture? Why would they show such a complicated substructure? The answer is: they wouldn't. Dennis Clowers is saying stainless steel FEATHERS! Feathers are not a smooth, elegant skin... they're a choppy, cheap, bastardization of the original design.

Bye bye iconic bridge. Hello pigeon perch... (I can't wait to hear how they rationalize this disaster.)

If you zoom in at 100% on the .pdf file of that picture posted above, the clad feathers look like something a knight would wear called chain mail. Don't know if that's how you spell it, but anyway...

I have been informed by someone who should know (Dennis Clowers) that the upper structure will be clad in stainless steel panels that will appear to be feathers.

Yes, this is correct. And it will be cool... and not a pigeon perch. lol

I think "feathers" is just a play on words referring to the Fly Catcher "influence" the architects continually referred to. It would be more appropriate to probably call them "scales" with enough dimension that they appear different in various light and angles. Not something so drastic that birds can sit up there or appear "butchered." Also, LED's are supposed to have a grand presence in the design.

I am going to take a break and go down there today and see if anything is going into place.

Rover, It's clear that the drawings are not for the sculpture and bridge... But why would the drawings illustrate anything other than a dashed outline for the sculpture? Why would they show such a complicated substructure? The answer is: they wouldn't. Dennis Clowers is saying stainless steel FEATHERS! Feathers are not a smooth, elegant skin... they're a choppy, cheap, bastardization of the original design.

Bye bye iconic bridge. Hello pigeon perch... (I can't wait to hear how they rationalize this disaster.)

So you have seen the renderings? Must have in order to know how awful it will be....or you are just going to hate it regardless.

And, they easily could have overlaid the structural drawings to illustrate the clearance. The depiction tells us nothing definitive about the appearance of the structure except shape and scale.

Rover,

How do you explain Dennis Clower's comment about "feathers?"

Sounds Gehryesk.

http://www.elisif.com/img/Elisif-D31-Gehry-Case-Western-Reserve.jpg

Rover,

How do you explain Dennis Clower's comment about "feathers?"

I seriously doubt if it was literal feathers he was speaking of. Multi-dimensioned cladding such as double edge shows is a reasonable interpretation. Why get so worked up over something when you don't even have a clear understanding of what it is you are complaining about. At least see what is actually being built and then start your bit&hing.

Rover,

How do you explain Dennis Clower's comment about "feathers?"

I explained it thoroughly above. More like "scales". IE: fish scales. It have seen it. It will be cool. Not pigeon stoops.

i explained it thoroughly above. More like "scales". Ie: Fish scales. It have seen it. It will be cool. Not pigeon stoops.

lol.

I seriously doubt if it was literal feathers he was speaking of. Multi-dimensioned cladding such as double edge shows is a reasonable interpretation. Why get so worked up over something when you don't even have a clear understanding of what it is you are complaining about. At least see what is actually being built and then start your bit&hing.

His comment to me was that it would appear to be feathers. He didn't say they would be actual feather designs.

Rover, It's clear that the drawings are not for the sculpture and bridge... But why would the drawings illustrate anything other than a dashed outline for the sculpture? Why would they show such a complicated substructure? The answer is: they wouldn't. Dennis Clowers is saying stainless steel FEATHERS! Feathers are not a smooth, elegant skin... they're a choppy, cheap, bastardization of the original design.

Bye bye iconic bridge. Hello pigeon perch... (I can't wait to hear how they rationalize this disaster.)



Rover,

How do you explain Dennis Clower's comment about "feathers?"

Dude, you need to chill... You act like this is the end of the world.

I think this new design is going to be great. And I'm very excited to hear about the LED features.

Sounds Gehryesk.

http://www.elisif.com/img/Elisif-D31-Gehry-Case-Western-Reserve.jpg

Looks great. Don't know why people are complaining. How about more pictures?

Looks great. Don't know why people are complaining. How about more pictures?

Thunder, that's not a photo of the bridge. That's a photo of the stainless steel skin on a building at Case Western Reserve in Ohio designed by Frank Gehry. The discussion was the cover on the pedestrian bridge sculpture might be stainless plates that give an effect or semblance of feathers and I posted that as an example of how I thought that might be similar.

I just went down there to look and see if there is any activity on putting the "center pier" in and could not see any semblance of such as of yet.