AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Having an incomplete look at the proposals through tweets, at least two of the design-build proposals looks like absolute junk. Not sure how many DBs there are, but they are quite disappointing so far.
AoD
AoD
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
There were three. You have exactly summarized my take-away from the meeting.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Well, it's a complete waste of time then. All that money for EAs after EAs after consultations after websites and designs - and the end product, post-value engineering, inflation, etc. is inferior. Surprised?
AoD
AoD
smuncky
Senior Member
All 3 proposals were very scaled back from the original. 2 were very simple single arch designs with fairly bland landscaping. Nothing exciting.
The third I thought at least tried to break out of the box with some sort of design. It uses trusses and steel to express some notions of the Bathurst Bridge to the north. I also liked what they did with the north and south termini. The north has an amphitheater type space overlooking a lawn, which is where an undulating metal mesh comes into play, while the south has 2 different ways to get down. One being stairs, which go under a cantilevered lookout deck and the other being a long ramp going through a dense amount of trees connecting to the pathway along Garrison Common.
Can't believe it was over 4 years ago that the city decided to put this project on pause. Could've had this thing built already.
The third I thought at least tried to break out of the box with some sort of design. It uses trusses and steel to express some notions of the Bathurst Bridge to the north. I also liked what they did with the north and south termini. The north has an amphitheater type space overlooking a lawn, which is where an undulating metal mesh comes into play, while the south has 2 different ways to get down. One being stairs, which go under a cantilevered lookout deck and the other being a long ramp going through a dense amount of trees connecting to the pathway along Garrison Common.
Can't believe it was over 4 years ago that the city decided to put this project on pause. Could've had this thing built already.
Last edited:
arch_on_
New Member
They were certainly scaled back, which shouldn't be any surpise at all considering the budget. I have to say my impression was the opposite of yours smuncky, with respect. The second "break out of the box" option presented something different for its landings, however the bridge itself was a half truss-half girder bridge. Seriously? It's plain, boring, and I could see all the engineers rolling their eyes at that. The dtah option was most interesting in my opinion: It will be finished in stainless steel, has criss-crossing cables and at least creates some kind of statement.
The landscaping should not be the main focus here: it can always change in the future (and it will - the north landing has yet to be designed).
The landscaping should not be the main focus here: it can always change in the future (and it will - the north landing has yet to be designed).
I agree re the middle option. I also thought it was boring.
Hated the landings, particularly on the south side of all three, that force people to go one way or the other. That is one of the biggest complaints about the bridge at City Place -- you have to walk half a block in the wrong direction to get on or off it.
Some of the presenters, particularly the last one, looked stunned at the concept that people might actually put function over form. I'm not sure he's ever actually used a pedestrian/cycling path.
Hated the landings, particularly on the south side of all three, that force people to go one way or the other. That is one of the biggest complaints about the bridge at City Place -- you have to walk half a block in the wrong direction to get on or off it.
Some of the presenters, particularly the last one, looked stunned at the concept that people might actually put function over form. I'm not sure he's ever actually used a pedestrian/cycling path.
I was only able to be there for about 45 minutes, and I saw some of the 'Landmark' proposal presentation and then spent the rest of the time photographing the proposals. I think there are things to recommend all of the proposals.
The 'Landmark' proposal's architecture is by Montgomery Sisam who were the designers of the wonderful Humber Bay bridge. I like their curved, alternating single arch design. Maybe others will be bored by it because they've seen it before, but I find the meandering design meant to mimic the path of the Garrison Creek to be pleasing. I think it was Robert Davies from Montgomery Sisam who answered that there were no stairs shown at one end because they wanted an aesthetic lightness to the design, but that the access could change, he supposed… so yeah, if you don't put the stairs in, people will walk the path up the berm they want anyway and the grass or other plants will get destroyed, and then where will the aesthetics fit in? D'oh!
Of the 'Dufferin' team, I like the Stainless Steel idea, especially for maintenance purposes, but otherwise I find this one to be anemic looking when compared with the 'Landmark' team design.
Of the 'Ellis Don' team, I like the box girder truss quite a bit. I didn't think I would want to see a truss bridge proposal, but the way they've taken cues from the adjacent Bathurst bridge gives them context and gives more context bucket Bathurst. The morphing of the box girder into an public art landscape element on the north side is very cool, and on the south side they have not only provided quick-access stairs, but they've made a design virtue of them. I'm not sure what the materials proposed for use are here, maybe someone heard, but it looks like Corten is coming into play, and I loooooove me some Corten. In the historical context of the Fort, for me, this modern interpretation of the classic railroad bridge seems to be the most respectful approach. Three cheers!
What I find annoying is that last night's meeting was the only time for public comment one the proposals. These are not going to be put on an official website, pdfs downloadable, etc., so, although there were imperfect conditions (you'll see my shadow below in some of the shots because the boards were placed in sunlight), despite having a flash and trying my best to be straight-on with each shot to minimize distortion, some of the following aren't exactly perfect… but at least you'll get to see the proposals despite not having made it to the meeting. I'll do one post per proposal to keep everything clear.
42
The 'Landmark' proposal's architecture is by Montgomery Sisam who were the designers of the wonderful Humber Bay bridge. I like their curved, alternating single arch design. Maybe others will be bored by it because they've seen it before, but I find the meandering design meant to mimic the path of the Garrison Creek to be pleasing. I think it was Robert Davies from Montgomery Sisam who answered that there were no stairs shown at one end because they wanted an aesthetic lightness to the design, but that the access could change, he supposed… so yeah, if you don't put the stairs in, people will walk the path up the berm they want anyway and the grass or other plants will get destroyed, and then where will the aesthetics fit in? D'oh!
Of the 'Dufferin' team, I like the Stainless Steel idea, especially for maintenance purposes, but otherwise I find this one to be anemic looking when compared with the 'Landmark' team design.
Of the 'Ellis Don' team, I like the box girder truss quite a bit. I didn't think I would want to see a truss bridge proposal, but the way they've taken cues from the adjacent Bathurst bridge gives them context and gives more context bucket Bathurst. The morphing of the box girder into an public art landscape element on the north side is very cool, and on the south side they have not only provided quick-access stairs, but they've made a design virtue of them. I'm not sure what the materials proposed for use are here, maybe someone heard, but it looks like Corten is coming into play, and I loooooove me some Corten. In the historical context of the Fort, for me, this modern interpretation of the classic railroad bridge seems to be the most respectful approach. Three cheers!
What I find annoying is that last night's meeting was the only time for public comment one the proposals. These are not going to be put on an official website, pdfs downloadable, etc., so, although there were imperfect conditions (you'll see my shadow below in some of the shots because the boards were placed in sunlight), despite having a flash and trying my best to be straight-on with each shot to minimize distortion, some of the following aren't exactly perfect… but at least you'll get to see the proposals despite not having made it to the meeting. I'll do one post per proposal to keep everything clear.
42
400WellingtonGuy
Active Member
Ellis Don gets my strong vote for doing something original as the other two are what you would expect and rather bland (they needed to step it up and they didn't, likely held back on budget). The Ellis Don proposal also provides the best context in their design approach and their inspiration of the Bathurst Bridge is great for those of us in the Wellington Place neighbourhood.
bilked
Senior Member
Wow, Ellis Don blows the others out of the water!
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Definite no to the ED proposal - looks fuzzy, over-designed with canopies that are utterly out of place - trying to reference both the Bathurst bridge and the materiality of the FYVC and not being awfully convincing at it. Weird abrupt turns in the Dufferin proposal is a big minus. I think Landmark is probably the cleanest looking and most functional of the bunch - one that doesn't have to rely on over-embellished renderings to get the point across.
AoD
AoD
Last edited:
Red October
Senior Member
I'm actually surprised at how much I like the Ellis Don proposal. Really goes with the Bathurst Bridge and I like what they're doing with the South Stanley Park side.
neuhaus
Senior Member
Ellis Don definitely has the best proposal by far.
It is very thoughtful and the design extends beyond the bridge elements, which the other two proposals lack -- it looked at the landings and its landscape and considered how these spaces could be best used and appreciated. It's nice how the two bridges each has their own unique features. I could easily envision various public events and performances (Nuit Blanche, Luminato, music concerts, etc.) happening on Stanley Park south near the foot of the bridge. The organic canopy is welcome feature that allows people to stay and animate the area though it looks expensive to build. Treating the surface of the bridge to better define pedestrian and cyclist traffic is also very smart.
It is very thoughtful and the design extends beyond the bridge elements, which the other two proposals lack -- it looked at the landings and its landscape and considered how these spaces could be best used and appreciated. It's nice how the two bridges each has their own unique features. I could easily envision various public events and performances (Nuit Blanche, Luminato, music concerts, etc.) happening on Stanley Park south near the foot of the bridge. The organic canopy is welcome feature that allows people to stay and animate the area though it looks expensive to build. Treating the surface of the bridge to better define pedestrian and cyclist traffic is also very smart.