If you plan on getting riled up by all of Thunder's comments it might be best to abandon this website.

LOL. True. Fool me twice, shame on me. I just thought this was a board for at least semi serious discussions. I will try to just ignore those kinds of comments as I should understand they aren't serious. My bad.

I went to take pictures of the new Robinson Ave pedestrian/emergency vehicle tunnel referenced in the transportation forum and took this picture off of the completed Robinson Avenue bridge deck over the new I-40 Crosstown facing due West.

I think that the large square hole filled with rebar in the middle of the highway is for part of the "bridge legs" foundation support structure. What do you guys think?

980

Probably right, but there should be two of these; the legs straddle the bridge on both sides.

Looking at a rendering on the Butzer Gardner website homepage, I think that it is the same concrete wall supporting both legs.

Probably right, but there should be two of these; the legs straddle the bridge on both sides.

The scale is a little hard to tell but it looks like that hole is at least 40 feet wide, so probably can accommodate both. Looking back on the drawing I agree it appears to be a few piers driven into the ground with a large deck over them under the road level, then the bridge supports built on that.

What ever happened to the search for images of the "new & improved" design? Are we getting the sleek sculptural form presented in all the renderings... or a value engineered, pigeon-perch version? If it's under construction, why can't we see what it looks like? (And by the way, since it was redesigned to accommodate vehicles, shouldn't it now be called the "pedestrian/vehicle" bridge?)

What ever happened to the search for images of the "new & improved" design? Are we getting the sleek sculptural form presented in all the renderings... or a value engineered, pigeon-perch version? If it's under construction, why can't we see what it looks like? (And by the way, since it was redesigned to accommodate vehicles, shouldn't it now be called the "pedestrian/vehicle" bridge?)

I may be incorrect here... but besides pedestrians, I believe the bridge is only for park maintenance and emergency vehicles.

Was pretty sure I read that it was supposed to be landscaped (continuing the park literally across the bridge), did that get tossed in the redesign?

What ever happened to the search for images of the "new & improved" design? Are we getting the sleek sculptural form presented in all the renderings... or a value engineered, pigeon-perch version? If it's under construction, why can't we see what it looks like? (And by the way, since it was redesigned to accommodate vehicles, shouldn't it now be called the "pedestrian/vehicle" bridge?)

+1

I may be incorrect here... but besides pedestrians, I believe the bridge is only for park maintenance and emergency vehicles.

I highly doubt it's going to be structurally sound for a fire engine truck to go across it. There are two main thoroughfares on either side of it. If anything, you're looking at some kind of golf cart that will go from one side of the future park to the other.

I highly doubt it's going to be structurally sound for a fire engine truck to go across it. There are two main thoroughfares on either side of it. If anything, you're looking at some kind of golf cart that will go from one side of the future park to the other.

It's just more convenient for them to use a golf cart or something of the sort anyways than to try and get a fire engine up there anyways. Definately could see them using a golf cart before getting a fire truck up there.

I concede I'm speculating, but I'll speculate ODOT's prior buttinski which required the bridge be altered to support emergency and maintenance vehicles contemplates far more weight than the random golf cart or three.

The original design could have simultaneously handled the load of a golf cart caravan and throngs of dancing pedestrians. The purity of the original design was shamefully bastardized because of the new design requirements that were ALLOWED a long time after the design was completed.

I agree with you on the knockdown of the design, but the night time visual impact may not be as impacted per se. Should look good all lit up !

So... I went by Union station today on a trip to Capitol Hill and saw this. It does indeed look like the foundation wall for the bridge is being "formed up" from the "pit pictures" posted earlier. That steel is going up fast.

I will try to get a better picture when the lighting is better. It really wasn't the best time of day to try to photograph it with a camera phone.

993

Nearly complete yesterday afternoon.

1002

Construction permit today for a $500,000 "bird sculpture" at 231 S.W. 10th, which is basically the location of the bridge. Work on the sculpture should start soon.

Construction permit today for a $500,000 "bird sculpture" at 231 S.W. 10th, which is basically the location of the bridge. Work on the sculpture should start soon.

Good news. Thanks.

Construction permit today for a $500,000 "bird sculpture" at 231 S.W. 10th, which is basically the location of the bridge. Work on the sculpture should start soon.

Is that the reduced total cost? Surely the bridge will cost more...

For the sculpture, that's probably right. The bridge is the costly part, I believe.

Had a guy come in to my store who works at W&W Steel and I was asking what their next biggest project is after Devon. He said they had the Skydance Bridge set up. I didn't figure they had a 185 foot clearance for their ceiling so I figured they had to have it in set pieces.

Had a guy come in to my store who works at W&W Steel and I was asking what their next biggest project is after Devon. He said they had the Skydance Bridge set up.

Should have asked him for a rendering and a spec sheet. ; )

Speaking of which, did we ever find out what the cladding is going to be or if it will even be cladded at all?

If it will still be a "cascading surface of stainless steel panels" as per http://okc.gov/skybridge/index.html, then it could be cool, but I am not sure if we have gotten that straight yet or not.

That description reminds me of Jay Pritzker Pavilion in Chicago:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/illinois/chicago/millennium/082milledet.jpg

According to the latest image, the smooth white skin has been replaced by slats & gaps that expose the superstructure... In my opinion, value-engineered from sleek sculpture, to excellent pigeon perch... Are they afraid to present the final image?

I'll see if I can pull the details from the building permit, as I'm requesting a bunch of others as well.

I got to listen to a lecture by Dr. Ramseyer a couple of days ago where he talked about all of the structural challenges that he had to deal with throughout the budget ordeals. He had a bunch of concept art too. The structure will look like a bunch of tubes with thousands of stainless steel "feathers" all over them, each one unique. Honestly, it didn't look nearly as iconic as the original concept, especially now that the walkway is mostly hidden behind a large truss system. It will be an interesting bridge at least, that's for sure, but maybe not the architectural marvel it could have been if the city hadn't been so cheap. Dr. Ramseyser mentioned nothing about the supposed ODOT requirements, he only said that the city suddenly decided they could not afford the increases in costs that came with the original design and went with the truss option to keep costs down.

Also got to see a bunch of photos of the sculpture under construction at W&W. Looks like its almost there, and the whole thing will be ready to open by Dec. 20.

Wow, that's pretty quick!

Well, whatever I guess. So much for iconic, it just sounds like a bunch of pipes running together.

Ran across this link and coúldn't find it posted yet.

Includes a picture of the "tail assembly" for Skydance Bridge.

http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/fears/structural_faculty/chris_ramseyer/skydance_bridge.html

1029

Version being built:

http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/fears/structural_faculty/chris_ramseyer/skydance_bridge/jcr%3acontent/main_content_par/image_3.img.jpg/1318370055777.jpg

Versus original design:

http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/fears/structural_faculty/chris_ramseyer/skydance_bridge/jcr%3acontent/main_content_par/image.img.jpg/1281916988743.jpg

Honestly it's hard to say which I like better... They're both very impressive IMHO.

both look good .. the new design is not that much of a change

Well, that's not bad at all if that is what we are getting. I do miss the cables though.

With the more open structure, there is more possibilities for cool LED lighting effects.

With the more open structure, there is more possibilities for cool LED lighting effects.

I forgot that they were gonna use LED lights on this. Now my imagination is running wild.

So much for dumbing down, I like the new one better.......plus I bet they can do better with the lights.

I like the clean open look of it. Frankly, I don't miss the cables either. Nice adaption.

So I guess all the panic and insults of city officials was a little pre-mature. Looks like they may have pulled it out...on budget and still nice.

I actually like the new version better. Doesn't look nearly as bad as imagined.

It's kind of funny. The new "form" is making a nod to the truss bridge design that they were forced to use against their wishes. So they have incorporated the truss as a structural/sculptural element and embraced it.

The old design seems more elegant to me while the new one is much more muscular.

They both have their appeal. Perhaps the new one is more in touch with today's design sensibilities.

It's kind of funny. The new "form" is making a nod to the truss bridge design that they were forced to use against their wishes. So they have incorporated the truss as a structural/sculptural element and embraced it.The old design seems more elegant to me while the new one is much more muscular.

They both have their appeal. Perhaps the new one is more in touch with today's design sensibilities.

That was one of the first things I noticed.

Strategically placed led lights woven in the structure could look like they are twinkling as your angle and approach changes and they go behind and in front of the tubes in the structure. With a little creativity it could be sensational.

I would hate for this to be spectacular to the point that it causes driving distractions and accidents.

I would hate for this to be spectacular to the point that it causes driving distractions and accidents.

Lol... That's what I'm HOPING for! :D

Glad the revisions look good. I always assumed that Butzer wouldn't have re-designed if it wasn't going to be a quality project.

Now, who was it that repeatedly said that it would be a "perch for pigeon poop?" Because they were incredibly annoying and I hope they recognize how ridiculous their incessant complaining looks now.

I would hate for this to be spectacular to the point that it causes driving distractions and accidents.

I love it. Now we can be critical and worry about being TOO GOOD. Can't win with this crowd. LOL

Version being built:

http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/fears/structural_faculty/chris_ramseyer/skydance_bridge/jcr%3acontent/main_content_par/image_3.img.jpg/1318370055777.jpg

Versus original design:

http://www.ou.edu/content/coe/fears/structural_faculty/chris_ramseyer/skydance_bridge/jcr%3acontent/main_content_par/image.img.jpg/1281916988743.jpg

Elegant versus Muscular. Same bridge form. Same bike form. Design of the times "post Matrix." lol We're a city being a little edgy now architecturally. I like it.

10311032

I like the rendering of the version being built better. It will be interesting what it looks like in person.

Glad the revisions look good. I always assumed that Butzer wouldn't have re-designed if it wasn't going to be a quality project.

Now, who was it that repeatedly said that it would be a "perch for pigeon poop?" Because they were incredibly annoying and I hope they recognize how ridiculous their incessant complaining looks now.

That's what I'm sayin. Whoever that was was REALLY annoying and apparently REALLY wrong. Opinions are fine but he was trying to make it seem as if the city had destroyed his one and only dream by changing the design when he hadn't even seen the changes. Sometimes things might stress people out but he was way more than stressed out over it. Lol

Glad the revisions look good. I always assumed that Butzer wouldn't have re-designed if it wasn't going to be a quality project.

Now, who was it that repeatedly said that it would be a "perch for pigeon poop?" Because they were incredibly annoying and I hope they recognize how ridiculous their incessant complaining looks now.

That would be me… The original design was much better than the current design. The purpose for the soaring spires disintegrated with the elimination of the cables, and the corresponding slender bridge structure. Now, instead of a graceful, purposeful structure, we have a THING with no purpose, posed upon a bridge with no character. I also said that drivers-by will be exclaiming: “What in the hell is THAT thing?!” That’s what caused me to call it a pigeon perch… which it will be.

I’m not saying it won’t be a beautiful pigeon perch. I'm not saying it's bad design. It will indeed be stunning. I will be proud to show it off to visitors… and disappointed to explain its lost heritage.

and disappointed to explain its lost heritage.

If that is how you feel, then it is a casualty to the increased load requirements by ODOT, lack of offset funding, lack of political will, and lack of the organized professional architectural community standing up for the old motto "Form meets function" in this public project.

I personally prefer a suspension bridge. We don't have any. The cables by nature create a sculptural "enclosure" in which a pedestrian bridge helps soften the experience of going over a major freeway.

However, the bright spots are that the public has embraced the "sculpture" in the bridge and rather than scrapping that out of disgust, the designers have embraced it and tried to extend the bridge form itself into something meaningful that the public has already fallen in love with.

The architectural community should defend its motto by "going to bat" for the basics. They didn't take ODOT or the city on in any meaningful way. What do you expect? At least the architects have made the most of it into something memorable.

Why explain the "downfall"? They most likely have no knowledge behind it, let them male up their own mind. Outside perspective is generally unbiased when it comes to personal preference. I see something I like, I don't need to know the design process. And I don't need anyone telling me that the object that I am looking at, is garbage compared to what it could have been. You do nothing but make the design negative when you associate it with negative things.

Look at it this way, the bird is no longer held down by cables and is free to fly. You can find positives in anything, and most of the time you don't even have to look.

Are you really that bothered by the loss of "purpose" without the cables? It's a piece of art either way. You don't need a scissor tail fly catcher to hold up a bridge. The "purpose" has always been artistic. No one will wonder what it is nore than any other city art. Do people say, "WHAT IS THAT THING?!?" about the St. Louis arch? What is it's purpose? I'm honestly asking. Please explain to me why the purpose is so important when the real purpose is simply aesthetic?

Cables ? They've got them in Boston, they've got them in Dallas, they've got them in Denver.....I'm sure they've got them in other places.

I'm not sure if they make much of a difference here. It might have been nice for it to be a true suspension bridge, but one thing about this bridge, it's very UNIQUE, not another one like it out there in the world.

Cables ? They've got them in Boston, they've got them in Dallas, they've got them in Denver.....I'm sure they've got them in other places.

I'm not sure if they make much of a difference here. It might have been nice for it to be a true suspension bridge, but one thing about this bridge, it's very UNIQUE, not another one like it out there in the world.

Honestly, I could care less about the cables, I agree though that it would make it like a true suspension bridge but like most everyone else it doesn't affect me in the least bit.

Elegant versus Muscular.

Hey, you're right. I like it too.

How about Beastly !

...but one thing about this bridge, it's very UNIQUE, not another one like it out there in the world.

Originally, "the bridge" was an integrated assembly with a very artistic structure. Now it's a very artistic sculpture, disintegrated, sitting atop a very COMMON bridge structure. I'm not saying it's ugly, or bad... I'm saying it's a damn shame there wasn't enough money to keep the original design.

dwells,

I see your point, it is a shame, but due to the situation we're in financially, it turned out about as good as we could have imagined, if not a little better. You being an architect will scrutinize this more than most, it's your nature due to your profession. Yes it is a common bridge structure, but for 99% that drive by, they'll never notice.

The new isn't horrible but the original had a much cleaner, sleeker appearance. the new one is clunkier and more "erector set"ish.

Someone mentioned it coming in budget...which budget would that be????

If you drive over the new Walker bridge you can look off to the EAST and see the first section of the new bridge is already erected over the new I40....looks pretty good so far!!

Honestly, I could care less about the cables, I agree though that it would make it like a true suspension bridge but like most everyone else it doesn't affect me in the least bit.

I don't know if this thing would be a true suspension bridge with the cables. There are be cables only on one side. What would hold up the other side?