The article today says the cables are gone altogether. Plus, this still negates the purpose of good architecture "Form meets Function."

It is simply sculptural. I was stalking to one of the architects. He told me that it is actually "harder" to turn it into a truss type bridge. But in his words is not "what the bridge wants to be."

That doesn't mean that the "truss" aspect doesn't cut the costs. It does in fact. But it isn't "what it wants to be."

Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't seen the last article, apparently in this morning's paper.

I think it could be considered iconic. It WILL be a symbol of Oklahoma City just because of the shear number of people that will drive under it... it absolutely will not be missed. People passing through may not see the Gold Dome or the Will Rogers Theater Sign or the Crystal Bridge but they couldn't possible miss Skydance Bridge. How can you forget driving under and 18 story sculpture?

I think it could be considered iconic. It WILL be a symbol of Oklahoma City just because of the shear number of people that will drive under it... it absolutely will not be missed. People passing through may not see the Gold Dome or the Will Rogers Theater Sign or the Crystal Bridge but they couldn't possible miss Skydance Bridge. How can you forget driving under and 18 story sculpture?

My thoughts exactly! This wouldn't have been simply just a bridge, it would've been an icon like the arch in St. Louis!

Rover, I understand what you're trying to say - but perhaps it WILL BECOME iconic for OKC once the city is in a few more movies and gets more exposure from our major league team. Already, Boston's new bridge is iconic for it's city so could ours - which unlike theirs ours will be PEDESTRIAN which in itself promotes the NEW DOWNTOWN LIFESTYLE - live,work,play.

Thanks to everyone who voiced their opinion - be it in favour or questioning the logic. I think that is the great thing about the forum, and as long as the conversations remain constructive I see value in everybody's opinion even if it differs from my own. On that note, I encourage everyone to contact the OKC leadership and express your opinion. I think most of us want this and the other issues to be resolved favourably for the city of OKC. Even those who are not in favour of the bridge, your voice could also provide prospective that might offer a workable solution for everyone.

We all know where I stand, please let your thoughts be known - that in itself IS the true Renaissance of the New Oklahoma City, citizens that care!

They might as well just remove the sculpture at this point. It could very well end up ridiculous looking.

I'm not so sure they should remove the sculpture. The difference is that we all know what the bridge might have looked like. The average individual will have no idea, and so will have nothing to compare it against. The sculpture is beautiful and striking, and unless you know something about engineering, the lack of cables and the presence of trusses will probably be completely unrecognized. I don't think the 20 versus 30 feet will be significant either, as a footbridge is usually quite narrow, and it might have looked odd wider.

What I'd like to know is, if we have to do this right away because of the highway, and I don't know if that's really true, where are we supposed to get the money to do it right? We can all say they should, but seriously, where can the city get the money that won't send a significant part of the population into the stratosphere with indignation? They certainly can't take the money out of the general fund....we'd have every policeman and firefighter in town up in arms. It's not a MAPS project, so all the anti-MAPS people would jump on it right away if they tried to use MAPS funds. Could we use boulevard funds? I don't know, as I'm not completely sure where that money is coming from. I think, if we're going to suggest the bridge be done right, we also have to have reasonable ideas as to how it can be funded. I don't have any, but I'd be interested in hearing from people who do.

To me, the only important part was the sculpture. The bridge makes no difference as to whether it is iconic or not. The bridge will not really be noticed. It takes someone that really wants to complain about anything possible to bring up the bridge. As to the cables, they would not even be noticed at night, however stringing some cable would probably not cost that much. The main thing is the sculpture and it staying the same size and height and is lit up at night. If that is done everyone should be happy.

Going from 30' wide to 20' wide is a big deal too.

Going from 30 ft. to 20 ft. is a big deal. That means that only two cars could go side by side across it at the same time or two cars could pass each other going in opposite directions. How could it ever work out as a pedestrian bridge at only 20 ft.?

I think if they are going to eliminate the cables, they may as well just scrap the original plan and come up with something new. Here are a few bridges that have already been mentioned in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hunt_Hill_Bridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_P._Zakim_Bunker_Hill_Memorial_Bridge

Now imagine them without the cables, and a giant, pointless tower just sticking up for no reason. Doesn't make sense.

Going from 30 ft. to 20 ft. is a big deal. That means that only two cars could go side by side across it at the same time or two cars could pass each other going in opposite directions. How could it ever work out as a pedestrian bridge at only 20 ft.?

There shouldn't be any cars on the bridge (other than the ODOT maint ones) as it is a pedestrian bridge. 20 ft wide should be plenty for people to walk on

Is it possible to merge this project with Project 180?

Popsy, the cables do show up at night. Assuming the Superstructure will be illuminated (which is a guarantee), then the cables will be visible.

Back to my original thought : why would ODOT need to have their cars on the bridge at all? I would think ONLY OKC City mtc vehicles (like lawn mower or street cleaning, park equipment) would be crossing that bridge.

What ODOT vehicle would ever use a pedestrian bridge? ???? I just dont understand this and I did voice my opinion to the City. Hopefully they can push back as to the original FUNCTION of this bridge.

I myself, am not too upset with the span redesign. But I do have a problem with it being redesigned (AFTER THE FACT) to handle vehicles. Again, this is an Iconic Pedestrian Span, not a Freeway Vehicle crossing as ODOT seems to think.

Is it possible for them to "back off...." and stop being a harbinger against OKC's development.

I thought the cables are staying, but will be cosmetic in nature, not structural. I believe that is what the articles are saying. The main sculpture and cables will still be there but the actual bridge is scaled down and now a heavier looking span vs the lighter looking suspended bridge. The bridge width is being reduced to 20 ft, which won't affect so much what it looks like driving past it on I-40. The "iconic" bird feature and cables will still be there, I believe.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Nope. they will be eliminated. Once they decided the cables weren't mission critical, they apparently decided cutting costs meant cut the cables too. Makes sense in a twisted who cares what it looks like, think what we'll save sort of mentality. Me, I would have gone the other direction, but I have a vote.

I am pretty sure that because it crosses an Interstate there are at least 3 governmental groups involved.

Not so long ago in Moore there was an overpass expansion on 19th that cost twice the engineer's estimate and took about 6 months longer. I think it had something to do with all the ODOT and Federal rules.

If this project is delayed until after the Interstate is open the cost will probably jump another 100%.

There shouldn't be any cars on the bridge (other than the ODOT maint ones) as it is a pedestrian bridge. 20 ft wide should be plenty for people to walk on

I was actually trying to use sarcasm here to point out that if two cars could pass each other within the 20 ft. width that it would be ample for a pedestrian bridge. Sarcasm seems to be tough to recognize in this forum.

Just saying...people need to get out and see the world before taking this all so seriously.

How do you know what parts of the world people have seen? I have lived in cities with some of the icons being mentioned here.

I think the failure of perspective is on your part in comparing this to some of those structures. This thing is not even near their scale nor should it be. Maybe when the city reaches the stature of those communities, a comparable project will be appropriate, but we're no where near that.

However, this is a chance for the city to have an icon in a real sense. There is nothing that says something has to have international recognition for it to qualify as as an icon, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that this bridge would achieve that even if built as originally approved. But, this will be the most visible structure on that part of I-40, which gets a lot of national traffic, and it will be the one thing just about every visitor to the city sees, whether they seek it out or not. That simple fact can't be ignored, and is the biggest reason that I think people are excited about it and want to see it done right.

It's basically like getting a nose job and saying "well, we can half ass it, because you won't be recognized by everyone anyway". Probably true, but it is still a very defining feature of your appearance that will be noticed by everyone that does see you. This bridge will not be missed no matter what it looks like. Therefore, it is a great opportunity to add an icon and enhance the city's overall appearance that I think people understandably don't want to see squandered.


As to the cables, they would not even be noticed at night, however stringing some cable would probably not cost that much.

I've never seen a cable stay structure where the cables are not visible at night, especially if they are illuminated.


they may as well just scrap the original plan and come up with something new.

This should at least be considered. If the original concept can not be respected, we can try something else. While I think the Skydance design is amazing, it's not the only one that could be impressive. Sometimes something more simple can be more elegant.

How much money was spent on the orginal design? Scrap that money for orginal design and spend more money for new design?

why doesn't ODOT contribute to the funding of this bridge then (if they already aren't). ...

there are other pedestrian bridges over interstates in OKC, why are they making such a big deal about this one just because it is downtown and such a fancy design. ..........

For your viewing pleasure - a pedestrian bridge in Winnipeg Canada. Many similarities to our bridge.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carladyck/4405762333/

I notice that you didn't say Senator Coburn. Good luck with getting the doctor to help with anything like that.

A plenty rich person who wants an iconic bridge named after him should step forward for the original plan. Oklahoma has had some iconic architects, like Bruce Goff. This bridge would help recognize Oklahoma's impact on architecture.

If the original concept can not be respected, we can try something else. While I think the Skydance design is amazing, it's not the only one that could be impressive. Sometimes something more simple can be more elegant.

BDP, I'm not sure what you mean by more simple. The bridge as originally designed was a very simple concept. I can't imagine that something more elegant would be less expensive. We could always match the design of the new automobile bridges over the new I40. They certainly will look nice compared to what we've had before but would hardly be more elegant than the Skydance Bridge.

I was actually trying to use sarcasm here to point out that if two cars could pass each other within the 20 ft. width that it would be ample for a pedestrian bridge. Sarcasm seems to be tough to recognize in this forum.

Sorry, I took it at face value...my bad...LOL

why doesn't ODOT contribute to the funding of this bridge then (if they already aren't). ...

there are other pedestrian bridges over interstates in OKC, why are they making such a big deal about this one just because it is downtown and such a fancy design. ..........

For your viewing pleasure - a pedestrian bridge in Winnipeg Canada. Many similarities to our bridge.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carladyck/4405762333/

Looks like another mission for OKC citizens to get off their butts and start acting. ODOT should not be involved and definitely should not have a say in this project. They are not funding the project, so get them the hell out.


A plenty rich person who wants an iconic bridge named after him should step forward for the original plan. Oklahoma has had some iconic architects, like Bruce Goff. This bridge would help recognize Oklahoma's impact on architecture.

Such as Devon. They should obviously step forward to stop this mess. They can also elect to help fund this bridge. Look at Project 180.... Is anyone going to plead to Devon to do something about the bridge? We'll see how smart the citizens of OKC really are.

BDP, I'm not sure what you mean by more simple. The bridge as originally designed was a very simple concept.

True.

ODOT should not be involved and definitely should not have a say in this project. They are not funding the project, so get them the hell out.

Except that it's on their land, and have the responsibility of inspecting it regularly.

How do you know what parts of the world people have seen? I have lived in cities with some of the icons being mentioned here.

I think the failure of perspective is on your part in comparing this to some of those structures. This thing is not even near their scale nor should it be. Maybe when the city reaches the stature of those communities, a comparable project will be appropriate, but we're no where near that.

However, this is a chance for the city to have an icon in a real sense. There is nothing that says something has to have international recognition for it to qualify as as an icon, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that this bridge would achieve that even if built as originally approved. But, this will be the most visible structure on that part of I-40, which gets a lot of national traffic, and it will be the one thing just about every visitor to the city sees, whether they seek it out or not. That simple fact can't be ignored, and is the biggest reason that I think people are excited about it and want to see it done right.

It's basically like getting a nose job and saying "well, we can half ass it, because you won't be recognized by everyone anyway". Probably true, but it is still a very defining feature of your appearance that will be noticed by everyone that does see you. This bridge will not be missed no matter what it looks like. Therefore, it is a great opportunity to add an icon and enhance the city's overall appearance that I think people understandably don't want to see squandered.



I've never seen a cable stay structure where the cables are not visible at night, especially if they are illuminated.



This should at least be considered. If the original concept can not be respected, we can try something else. While I think the Skydance design is amazing, it's not the only one that could be impressive. Sometimes something more simple can be more elegant.

Sure, I don't know what you have seen, and only know what I have seen and worked on. This isn't truly iconic. It is pretty darn cool, but in the scope of significance of art or achitecture not in the same ballpark. Locally iconic, maybe. Truly iconic, not nearly. I love OKC and promote it heavily. But perspective is needed. Calling something iconic or even thinking it doesn't make it so. Any advertising and promotion HAS to be believable.

By the time it's all said and done I am sure the bridge will amount to something like this picture. http://www.hucknet.com/media/img/images/4952_l_.jpg

By the time it's all said and done I am sure the bridge will amount to something like this picture. http://www.hucknet.com/media/img/images/4952_l_.jpg

Nah ... too many cables

http://www.okgazette.com/article/11-03-2010/The_Oklahoma_City_Council_is_amending_the_SkyDance _Bridge_design_after_cost_projections_doubled.aspx

In the article Couch stated that he didn't think most would even notice the difference as they passed by...maybe, but here is the real issue. This bridge in its now modified form will still command attention. Just simply due to the striking nature of the lines and the fact that it will be lit up externally as well as the internal lighting that is planned. This will cause folks to talk and draw even more attention to it and then the design community will take a look and they WILL notice the difference and likely it will be published and the critique will paint the City in a bad light. So yeah maybe many will never realize what could have been, but a quick search will reveal what was and what could have been and in comparison it will reflect poorly on the execution of the design. I verymuch appreciate the designer for actually standing up against using the cables as a aesthetic effect when it would no longer be a structural component necessary with the trussed design. Kudos to him for that. What a heartbreaking loss for good design...I hope as the City continues to grow that our bridges spanning the river will be given far more design attention as they now do more than span a ditch and we can use them as ways to create a unique identity for the city...but that would take some serious money to do so, and with the way the Skydance bridge turned out, I will not be holding my breath.

Those of us that contacted our City Council members, did anyone receive a reply?

In the past if I were to contact a council member with something, I usually receive a standard type of email reply. This time around I received nothing, and I emailed all council members including the mayor.

I receive no reply, no acknowledgment of receipt either.

In the article Couch stated that he didn't think most would even notice the difference as they passed by...maybe, but here is the real issue. This bridge in its now modified form will still command attention. Just simply due to the striking nature of the lines and the fact that it will be lit up externally as well as the internal lighting that is planned. This will cause folks to talk and draw even more attention to it and then the design community will take a look and they WILL notice the difference and likely it will be published and the critique will paint the City in a bad light. So yeah maybe many will never realize what could have been, but a quick search will reveal what was and what could have been and in comparison it will reflect poorly on the execution of the design. I verymuch appreciate the designer for actually standing up against using the cables as a aesthetic effect when it would no longer be a structural component necessary with the trussed design. Kudos to him for that. What a heartbreaking loss for good design...I hope as the City continues to grow that our bridges spanning the river will be given far more design attention as they now do more than span a ditch and we can use them as ways to create a unique identity for the city...but that would take some serious money to do so, and with the way the Skydance bridge turned out, I will not be holding my breath.

Agreed, but to clarify, Skydance Bridge does not span the river.

Agreed, but to clarify, Skydance Bridge does not span the river.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough in my last post. The last comment regarding the bridges that do span the river was a separate thought. I know that the bridge doesn't cross the river, I however was too quick in writing my thoughts as it related to the treatment of our bridges in and around the city that were major entry points and fairly visible themselves with rather much lacking as far as design is concerned. Without breaking the train of thought and setting it up as a new but related subject made it seem incorrectly as a continuation of the same one. Oh well. Its been a week of Mondays...

“It’s the same thing sans the cables,” Couch said.

Hmm, wonder if that logic could be used elsewhere. Maybe when I go home I'll tell my lovely giving me a big smooch is the same thing as smooching George Clooney sans the looks.

Going from 30' wide to 20' wide is a big deal too.

If the bridge were ever to be used as part of a marathon, fun walk, etc., a width of 30' would be much preferential to a width of 20'.

Sure, I don't know what you have seen, and only know what I have seen and worked on. This isn't truly iconic. It is pretty darn cool, but in the scope of significance of art or achitecture not in the same ballpark. Locally iconic, maybe. Truly iconic, not nearly. I love OKC and promote it heavily. But perspective is needed. Calling something iconic or even thinking it doesn't make it so. Any advertising and promotion HAS to be believable.

Did I say it was in the same ballpark? I guess I don't get your point. Basically, are you saying that since it won't be the Golden Gate Bridge, people shouldn't care if it gets half assed? Since it will only be an icon of Oklahoma City, which it most definately will be, then it doesn't matter if it's half assed?

The perspective is exactly what I'm trying to provide and I can't figure out why you keep suggesting something can't be iconic unless it's internationally known. Or why, if it won't be internationally known, then it's not worth worrying about? This WILL be what people see when they come to Oklahoma City whether anyone wants them to or not or whether they seek it out or not. That will make it an icon.

For example, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Thermometer in Baker California are BOTH icons of their communities. Are they of a different scale, scope, and national significance? Of course. But they are both seen by everyone who visits those communities. They are both serve as icons. Does recognizing them both as the icons they are mean that they are both icons of equal significance. Of course not, but that doesn't mean that they don't have iconic value and it doesn't mean that if it can't achieve Golden Gate type recognition, then it can never be an icon.

Basically, the fact that it won't be the Space Needle doesn't change the fact that it will be one of Oklahoma City's most visible structures and, therefore, one of its icons. If done right it can be one we can be proud of and become one that is associated with the city more than any other element. If done wrong, this may not be the only time it is talked about in the same context as a large thermometer in the desert.

I receive no reply, no acknowledgment of receipt either.

Time for a torchlight parade...not unlike the one at the end of the original Frankenstein movie...

In the article Couch stated that he didn't think most would even notice the difference as they passed by...maybe, but here is the real issue. This bridge in its now modified form will still command attention. Just simply due to the striking nature of the lines and the fact that it will be lit up externally as well as the internal lighting that is planned. ...
The cables were planned too. Who's to say that the lighting won't be the next thing to hit the budget chopping block (or even if installed operating budgets may prevent the lights being turned on)?


“It’s the same thing sans the cables,” Couch said.

Hmm, wonder if that logic could be used elsewhere. Maybe when I go home I'll tell my lovely giving me a big smooch is the same thing as smooching George Clooney sans the looks.
Gotta love it!


If the bridge were ever to be used as part of a marathon, fun walk, etc., a width of 30' would be much preferential to a width of 20'.
Interesting point.

Time for a torchlight parade...not unlike the one at the end of the original Frankenstein movie...

Hmmm, on another twist, maybe once the pedi poser is built, they can reroute the Ghouls Gone Wild parade over it. hundreds of torch bearing skellies standing over I-40, and no cables to obscure them from the passerbys. Yeah, that could be fun

Kinda like putting a Jaguar badge on a Kia

Kinda like putting a Jaguar badge on a Kia

With a Continental Kit and dual antennas in back....

good one jmark. and truves/spinners on the wheels.

good one jmark. and truves/spinners on the wheels.

Especially those cheap, clunky three-prong spinners from about 1958...sold at OTASCO...

haha

I used to LOVE Otasco. .... and TG&Y. Ahh, the days.

haha

I used to LOVE Otasco. .... and TG&Y. Ahh, the days.

Otasco was where I bought Bash-Kits for the fiberglas-epoxy-goo-crap that I used to make modifications for my custom-designs for AMT model cars in the late 50's-early 60's...the ones that failed were simply burned into car wreck and splattered with red paint blood...you know the routine...

Does anyone other than me really, really like the smell inside a big tire shop? Not sure what the chemicals in there are--but it is enticing...not unlike the pine smell of a new home under construction...especially after a rain...

Sorry^^^got a little off topic... :P

I remember Otasco had that sort of Tire/build something/Mechanic smell too. How and why did Otasco fail? They were ahead of their times, as they had everything Lowes/Home Depot had if I recall correctly, minus the lumber.

I remember Otasco had that sort of Tire/build something/Mechanic smell too. How and why did Otasco fail? They were ahead of their times, as they had everything Lowes/Home Depot had if I recall correctly, minus the lumber.

Most likely died from hardened arteries in upper management--the same old story.

there was also CR Anthony's. In fact, OKC has quite a long list of store/retail headquarters from the past.

I bet most current residents of OKC have NO IDEA how powerful this city was in the past.

Most likely died from hardened arteries in upper management--the same old story.

Regarding OTASCO: It was bought by Mishlam Ricklas (sp) during the deregulated times where corporate takeovers were easily financed by unregulated banks and then the cash was sucked out of it to repay subprime type commercial loans. Ultimately it had to be resold to a chain out of Kansas City and was absorbed, then closed.

Regarding TG&Y: The were bought by a financial company out of Chicago (Household Finance) who also bought it (and several chains like Ben Franklin, Coast-to-Coast, and others. They had no interest in operating them, just getting all the cash out that they could and then liquidate to someone...which they did. Ultimately was absorbed by a North Carolina company if I recall correctly.

Generally deregulated banking allowed for unqualified leveraged buyouts and predatory purchasing and high interest rates for sub-prime commercial loans which could not sustain the costs. Many small regional chains were wiped out. These same financial institutions financed many unstable energy companies in the 70-80s and we know how those turned out...bank failures, severe recession, endangered local businesses, real estate value collapse. Sound familiar?

them darn banks - yet 'people' dread banking/financial reform?

Has anyone seen the Dallas bridge yet? I will be in Dallas all next week, I did'nt even know about this bridge connecting the hood to the downtown....lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXZSM54NXco

interesting

yes, the bridge has been discussed on here several times, even earlier in this thread. It's impressive, but it's also a vehicle bridge and not pedestrian. Would LOVE to have Calatrava design a bridge in OKC. Talk about putting OKC on the map.

Yeah I am a fan of Calatrava's work, however I am underwhelmed by the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge by itself. For it to be impressive requires the full littany of his other proposed and yet unfunded bridges over the trinity to become real. (namely the I-30 bridge and the I-35 bridges that he has proposed) Combined it has a striking effect, and adds to the interest of the skyline.

However as it relates to the local tallent, Hans butzer hit the Skydance bridge outta the park and its original design should have been preserved. It is true and pure design, and should not have been messed with. It really is that good and I say that as a trained designer with a very critical eye. It will be one if not redone well will be a sore spot and potentially point of public ridicule. Regardless due to its position and prominance it is very public and will be noticed by all to travel underneath it. This is true if it suceeds as a design or fails. I would just assume to have a noteworthy and very visable project succeed rather than be a source of ridicule. We kinda have enough of those already and are working so hard on coming into our own that it would be a shame to see...more of the same.

So, just curious...what do you all like about the MG Hill bridge here in Dallas? Or Dont like?

I'm still waiting on any type of reply from at least one council member. I have called or emailed each one including the mayor in regards to the Skydance Bridge being redesigned, not one reply as of today. Normally I hear back from at least one of them usually through an email.

The Skydance Bridge is a work of art and there must be a way to find the funding for this project. This bridge will be seen by more people than all the other MAPS projects combined. I am holding out hope that something is in the works for the Skydance Bridge to be built as it was intended.

i also am waiting.