Anyone have thoughts on Cornett's quote below? Does he mean literally put the city's name somewhere on the bridge?

Mayor Mick Cornett said he's happy with all the submittals but cautioned he would like to add Oklahoma City's name.

"The people who are going to see this bridge are those who have already decided not to stop in this city,” Cornett said. "And maybe after seeing this, the next time through they will stop.”

I think it's stupid. Who needs the name of the city on a bridge to know where they are??

Just wanted to be sure I was reading his quote in the correct context. I can't imagine the designer would go for that, but what choice would he/they have when it is Mayor Cornett's idea???

Well the part about the name is not a quote. That may be misleading. Maybe it was meant to say that Cornett wants people to really "think OKC" when they see it/remember it.

With Devon Center, let's tag these landmarks as downtown's Pencil and Scissor.

Florida is in the process of building several gateway overpasses on interstates as they enter major cities. The cities names are on the bridges. They look pretty cool. The first one is on I-4 on the southside of Orlando and the other one is on I-95 south of Jacksonville.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee282/shadowdaunseen/Florida/orlando.jpg
http://www.southeastroads.com/florida004/i-004_eb_exit_079_01.jpg
IMG_3147.JPG (http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=e7288838-bf62-4d52-aed1-e420a410217c)

Right, but he's a recent out of state transplant right? He was with his brother's firm, Fitzsimmons Architects, then switched to his own, and now is on the Butzer team, right? Has he done anything on his own here in Oklahoma?
Butzer's team is made up of several firms that joined under his name for the bridge. Stan and others on the team have their own firms for the bridge. I know Kenneth F. through sustainable OKC. He lived in Texas for a while but has his own firm.

Florida is in the process of building several gateway overpasses on interstates as they enter major cities. The cities names are on the bridges. They look pretty cool. The first one is on I-4 on the southside of Orlando and the other one is on I-95 south of Jacksonville.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee282/shadowdaunseen/Florida/orlando.jpg
http://www.southeastroads.com/florida004/i-004_eb_exit_079_01.jpg
IMG_3147.JPG (http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=e7288838-bf62-4d52-aed1-e420a410217c)

That does look cool. It's sorta like the Bricktown sign on the railroad bridge as you enter Bricktown from Downtown. Even though I know I'm entering Bricktown without needing the sign to tell me I think it gives this sense of grandeur and replicating this idea on the I-40 bridge should be considered.

The signs are a throw back to walled cities. You kind of get the impression you are going through the city gate. The pictures above don't do the signs justice. They are much better in person.

I think it would be great to use the bridge concept as a logo for OKC. Something we use for people to associate with the city.

Kinda like the Arch is for St. Louis, only smaller. We could continue the theme in other places as well, like an entry to the WR airport, etc.

We could name it Olympic Village Bridge.

That way the Olympians can get from the Olympic Village to the various venues on both sides of the river.

;)

Imagine if the St. Louis mayor insisted on putting "St. Louis" at the top of the Gateway Arch. It would ruin the art and be completely unnecessary.

If St. Louis paid for the Arch I don't think it would have been a big deal.

Wow, do you really think that arch would look good with a big ST. LOUIS at the top? It's not about who pays for it. We want this bridge to be a piece of art. We didn't tack OKLAHOMA CITY on the Chihuly tower and we aren't going to have a giant DEVON ENERGY sign on the new tower.

well, IMHO, the Orlando bridges are rather pedestian (no pun intended!!). The renderings of the Scissor-Tail/Sky Dance are absolutely "one-of a kind/no identification required. Think St Louis Arch. . .Golden Gate. . .et cet.

Anyone have thoughts on Cornett's quote below? Does he mean literally put the city's name somewhere on the bridge?

Mayor Mick Cornett said he's happy with all the submittals but cautioned he would like to add Oklahoma City's name.

"The people who are going to see this bridge are those who have already decided not to stop in this city,” Cornett said. "And maybe after seeing this, the next time through they will stop.”

I didn' hear what Mayor Mick said but most people who have driven I-40 and I-35 through OKC in the past haven't had much to associate with their image of OKC except for a bunch of salvage yards and oil field pipe yards. I used to hate driving I-35 through south OKC. It's still bad around I-40 between May and Western. If I didn't live here I wouldn't have stopped either.


well, IMHO, the Orlando bridges are rather pedestian (no pun intended!!). The renderings of the Scissor-Tail/Sky Dance are absolutely "one-of a kind/no identification required. Think St Louis Arch. . .Golden Gate. . .et cet.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/467661451_02e2ce85c2.jpg?v=0

When I see the Fountain Place building I associate it with Dallas, same with reunion tower. When I see the Gateway Arch I think of St. Louis. If a piece of art or architecture is "iconic" enough you don't need a cities name on it. The bridge looks great as designed.

Wow, do you really think that arch would look good with a big ST. LOUIS at the top? It's not about who pays for it. We want this bridge to be a piece of art. We didn't tack OKLAHOMA CITY on the Chihuly tower and we aren't going to have a giant DEVON ENERGY sign on the new tower.


I don't think we need to add Oklahoma City to the art work, I would be more in favor of adding to the bridge itself.

I was speaking of using the the art work as a symbol for the city.

We sure are a nitpicky bunch lately.

I don't think it is "nitpicky" to not want to screw up a beautiful sculpture. Surely travelers will know they are in OK City when they read the road signs through the town. How literal do we have to be?

It's a classic "BRANDING" strategy. No matter which side of this issue you stand, it is still proven to work based upon statistics.

Labeling the bridge with an Oklahoma City placard weakens the project. It reminds me of the sad bumpersticker campaign, I Believe in Oklahoma. (When did Oklahoma fail to exist? I believe in Santa Claus, anyone?) A sign weakens the bridge's visual impact, just as the I Believe in Oklahoma campaign weakened perceptions of Oklahoma. Would NYC or SF ever have had a promotional campaign suggesting similiar mantras? I Believe in Oklahoma is almost akin to Oklahoma is OK. It starts us out from a position of weakness.

And so, too, with the bridge: As I recall, nothing but a simple road sign indicating San Francisco Country and Marin County on the Golden Gate Bridge. The Verrazano Narrows? The George Washington? The Brooklyn Bridge? Hell, the entire Nike or Absolut Vodka campaign? They don't have to blather on and on about their brand to have a fabulously fantastic impact on the marketplace.

Oklahoma City deserves the confidence of its leaders. Let the bridge's design speak for itself.

Guys, I also do n't think we need to put a tacky Oklahoma City sign on the pedestrian bridge.

HOWEVER

As a compromise, we could put 'Oklahoma City' creatively on the side of the bridge. Say for instance, ODOT could imprint Oklahoma City on the approach to downtown or the bridge OR we could put up Oklahoma City Pedistles on the sides of the bridge (sort of like a light post, all in white floor-to-top glass, with Oklahoma City spelled vertical - think way-finder sign).

Either of those would be cool and let people know they are IN Oklahoma City without being tacky and detracting away from the icon-ness of the bridge itself.

We could put Oklahoma City ON the bridge where pedestrians will be walking - but we dont want Oklahoma City on the bridge where people driving would see it. I would even prefer Downtown on the bridge where people driving could see it rather than Oklahoma City.

I mean, OKC is redefining DOWNTOWN and could seriously become a model for other cities. So, my take - NO Oklahoma City on the bridge unless it is just for the pedestrian walk area OR we could do a creative gateway signs on the SIDES of the bridge or on the freeway itself.

I totally agree that the bridge as designed is near perfect and if large/tall enough WILL be like a mini-Gateway Arch statement for Oklahoma City! Who wouldn't remember that or that it was in OKC? The bridge, Devon Tower/CBD, Ford Center, Convention Center, Bricktown, and Core 2 Shore and all of the activity downtown should encourage plenty of people to get off the freeway and Im sure many more would be coming to OKC as a destination anyways (think flights)!

If you look up the definition for the word "icon" you will read descriptions like this: An enduring symbol that stands for and represents its object. In our case, the bridge is a physical representation of the spirit and forward movement of Oklahoma City. However, once you put the city's name on the bridge, it stops being an iconic representation and becomes merely an advertisement.

I would be fine with having a sky blue neon sign across the bridge saying Oklahoma City Thunder or Home of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Maybe a yellow flashing (lightning style motion) lightning bolt in between the City and Thunder.

^ you're kidding, right?

OK - you guys win. No Oklahoma City on the bridge. You make some good points. However, I would like to see some more elaborate signs on the interstates as you enter Oklahoma City city limits.

However, I would like to see some more elaborate signs on the interstates as you enter Oklahoma City city limits.

That I can support.

^ you're kidding, right?

No, I'm not kiddin. I want OKC to become more like Las Vegas. We need the night skyline to really light up.

Look at it this way, if I win the lottery, I would invest in this. Offer money to the city to have the sign that I want on the bridge.

I want OKC to become more like Las Vegas. We need the night skyline to really light up.

Look at it this way, if I win the lottery, I would invest in this. Offer money to the city to have the sign that I want on the bridge.

I'll join up with you and maybe we can buy signs from the sign graveyard in Las Vegas.

Las Vegas Sign Graveyard - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lostamerica/sets/72157594573630826/)

I was wondering about the translucent ETF lighting mentioned in the video @imaginativeamerica. Besides the design itself the lighting is one of my favorite aspects of the bridge. Can this type of lighting change colors? My inspiration... I really like the Element Fusion sign along Hefner Parkway and the way they change the lighting for different occasions. Red/Green at Christmas, Red/Orange for big football weekends, Green for St. Pats.... It would be really cool to see this bridge glowing Red white and blue on the fourth and memorial day. Any thoughts on this or do you think it would look to tacky?

I had not been following this topic and I just saw the art today in the Sentinel.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing the city needs, and needs more of. This thing is fantastic.

That being said, while this is a terrific project, it's still a pedestrian bridge. And it crosses an interstate, not the Mississippi River. It's not something that the rest of the world would consider 'iconic' in comparison to the Golden Gate Bridge, Tower Bridge or Hangzhou Bay Bridge.

As for Cornett, it might be worth remembering that back when he was Ward 1 Councilman he initially opposed selling naming rights to the MAPS sports arena and wanted it called the 'Oklahoma City Arena' or something similar.

Oklahoma City deserves the confidence of its leaders. Let the bridge's design speak for itself.

:congrats:

even tho i don't want the bridge to say OKC i do appreciate the mayor trying every possible way to market the city! thats great we need the marketing an i love that about cornett, i agree that the bridge will speak for itself tho

I would be fine with having a sky blue neon sign across the bridge saying Oklahoma City Thunder or Home of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Maybe a yellow flashing (lightning style motion) lightning bolt in between the City and Thunder.

. . . . and there should be a neon basket ball that bounces up and down . . . . and a jumbotron that simalcasts all of the games . . . . maybe two jumbotrons . . and some sort of electronic fireworks that shoot off after every game . . . and

nah, just have a neon bball running down and down one of the spikes, a thunderbolt on another and little dancing okc's all along the span over the roadway


that'll make an impression fer sure maynard. :)

. . . . and there should be a neon basket ball that bounces up and down . . . . and a jumbotron that simalcasts all of the games . . . . maybe two jumbotrons . . and some sort of electronic fireworks that shoot off after every game . . . and

wait. We keep forgetting about that giant oilwell fountain. We could light it up at night so even the water looks like it's coming out in colors. And for Holidays, we could light it to look like a giant Christmas tree.

There ya go....

I think this bridge is really cool. Maybe a little off-topic, but I was wondering if there are any limits on billboards on the new crosstown expressway. The view of the bridge could be compromised if there are a bunch of billboards lining the highway.

Yes, they banned them completely on the new Crosstown.

City Vue channel 20 on Cox Cable is now showing the presentation of the bridge

I think this bridge is really cool. Maybe a little off-topic, but I was wondering if there are any limits on billboards on the new crosstown expressway. The view of the bridge could be compromised if there are a bunch of billboards lining the highway.

Yes, I believe the city has already addressed the issue of banning billboards on the new I-40. I think this was voted on a year or two ago if memory serves right.

No, I'm not kiddin. I want OKC to become more like Las Vegas. We need the night skyline to really light up.

Look at it this way, if I win the lottery, I would invest in this. Offer money to the city to have the sign that I want on the bridge.

I hope Thunder doesn't ever win the lottery...j/k
I just think there are better ways to light up the skyline without making it gaudy like Vegas. Gaudy works well for Vegas, but we don't want that here. Maybe change some of the lights on existing downtown building or add lights to those that don't have any now.

I can't wait to see OKC in ten years!

heck, even in 5 years OKC is going to be totally different than it is today and it is totally different today than it was in 2000!

in 10 years? OMG ------

OKC is definitely on the move - UP!

Has anybody heard anything about this lately?? Is it still on track to start constuction this Spring?

Has anybody heard anything about this lately?? Is it still on track to start constuction this Spring?

I haven't heard anything new but I doubt that it's a high priority to start spending money for a bridge over an interstate that won't be finished for a couple of years to connect areas that won't be developed for several more years. The only reason to start that early would be if they think they will be saving substantial money in construction costs.

I think a bridge-walkway over an Interstate is kinda cool but, maybe a security guard would have to be on duty at all times for the sake of safety from dumb s**t which has happened before in other places. The signage if done well would be nice.

This wouldn't be the only walkover accessible in the whole city. It's not an orignal idea, merely just more aesthetically pleasing.

This wouldn't be the only walkover accessible in the whole city. It's not an orignal idea, merely just more aesthetically pleasing. Yeah!..I'am just saying. I think that the idea is "Great" but , just keep everything with some class.

I haven't heard anything new but I doubt that it's a high priority to start spending money for a bridge over an interstate that won't be finished for a couple of years to connect areas that won't be developed for several more years. The only reason to start that early would be if they think they will be saving substantial money in construction costs.

The money for this project has been set aside for some time now.

I haven't heard anything new but I doubt that it's a high priority to start spending money for a bridge over an interstate that won't be finished for a couple of years to connect areas that won't be developed for several more years. The only reason to start that early would be if they think they will be saving substantial money in construction costs.

Now is really the best time. Since as you mentioned, construction costs are cheaper. They want the Park to be open when the relocated I-40 opens and I am sure it would be much easier to build a bridge over I-40 before it is open to traffic.

I would agree, as long as the bridge doesn't interfere with construction. We certainly know where the road is going to be, and it would be great to have it all open at the same time.

It's been the plan since day one to build this pedestrian bridge during the construction of the new I-40.

Now is really the best time. Since as you mentioned, construction costs are cheaper. They want the Park to be open when the relocated I-40 opens and I am sure it would be much easier to build a bridge over I-40 before it is open to traffic.Not to be a stickler, but they actually want the park to open when the as-yet unfunded boulevard opens, which is scheduled for 2014. I-40 should be done in 2012.

This wouldn't be the only walkover accessible in the whole city. It's not an orignal idea, merely just more aesthetically pleasing.

I'm confused, didn't you just say the ONLY walkover accesible in the whole city. Not original? Sounds pretty dang original to me for it to be the first in the city possibly state.

I'm confused, didn't you just say the ONLY walkover accesible in the whole city. Not original? Sounds pretty dang original to me for it to be the first in the city possibly state.

This may be one of a few that are for pedestrians only, but there are several bridges that cross major highways throughout OK that have sidewalks for pedestrians.

The money for this project has been set aside for some time now.

I understand that but I was referring to the cost of construction not the funding.

Now is really the best time. Since as you mentioned, construction costs are cheaper. They want the Park to be open when the relocated I-40 opens and I am sure it would be much easier to build a bridge over I-40 before it is open to traffic.

The type of bridge that is proposed doesn't appear to be something that should take that long to complete. They could probably start it within six months of the opening of I40 and have it done it time.

The construction docuements are being drawn as we speak.

As the design of this bridge progresses from renderings to engineered drawings I'm sure the "look" of the bridge will change slightly for engineering reasons. What elements of this design would everyone be willing to compromise on as long as the overall feel of the structure was maintained?

Not to be a stickler, but they actually want the park to open when the as-yet unfunded boulevard opens, which is scheduled for 2014. I-40 should be done in 2012.

You are correct on the date of the Park/Boulevard. Obviously can't tear down the existing crosstown until traffic is re-routed to the new one. That gives them 2 years to tear down and complete the Boulevard. Funding for the tear down has been secured but the funding for the Boulevard is still in limbo (as you correctly pointed out). Plans still have to be finalized on the Park and Boulevard (supposedly one of the snags on the funding because no one knows the design).