The original design was elegant and purposeful. A beautiful statement with a function… When the cables were value-engineered away, and the slender, cable-supported span became a railroad trestle, the reason for the scissortail sculpture vaporized. Now it too has been reduced to a form without a purpose. Bastardized from a sleek, inspiring form, into a skeletal ruin with fish scales that will soon be covered with overlapping layers of pigeon droppings.

Now, instead of inspiring awe, this contraption will just cause people to say: “What in the hell is THAT?”

OKC should have bellied-up to build the original design, or had the cognizance to call it quits.

I don't think it was merely value engineered away. I think that further requirements were placed on the bridge by the transportation department, over whose road responsibility they govern. I think the engineering was to satisfy their requirements while still retaining the essence. I am sorry you are so disappointed, but I will wait to see what it looks like to pass judgement. Oh, and I doubt the pigeons really avoid "sleek inspiring forms" in favor of "skeletal ruins".

I think it is funny on here that on one hand everyone wants "the best", yet everyone also is ready to hang anyone involved with public project cost overruns. I guess we just want the best, but not to pay for it. Human nature at its most obvious.

Rover, you’re right. I forgot about the ‘further requirements’ required by DOT. So, instead of improving a great concept to accommodate the new requirements, they destroyed the concept! (The design team should have rejected these ‘further requirements,’ or abandoned the design and started from scratch.)

And you’re wrong, they did NOT retain the essence… they transmogrified a graceful, smooth form into a skeleton structure with tacked-on tiers of pigeon perches.

As a stand-alone sculpture, I think the scissortail form (even as redesigned) would be a wonderful thing. But it makes no sense tacked onto an unimaginative truss bridge.

Rover, you’re right. I forgot about the ‘further requirements’ required by DOT. So, instead of improving a great concept to accommodate the new requirements, they destroyed the concept! (The design team should have rejected these ‘further requirements,’ or abandoned the design and started from scratch.)

And you’re wrong, they did NOT retain the essence… they transmogrified a graceful, smooth form into a skeleton structure with tacked-on tiers of pigeon perches.

As a stand-alone sculpture, I think the scissortail form (even as redesigned) would be a wonderful thing. But it makes no sense tacked onto an unimaginative truss bridge.

Couldn't agree more! The truss' look absolutely horrible and I can't beleive they would allow this to be built! They want something iconic so why on earth would they put those on it?

I'm discusted!

Couldn't agree more! The truss' look absolutely horrible and I can't beleive they would allow this to be built! They want something iconic so why on earth would they put those on it?

I'm discusted!

I am reminded of the outrage in Paris over the construction of the Eiffel Tower. It was widely criticized in much of the same way:

William Watson's US Government Printing Office publication of 1892 Paris Universal Exposition: Civil Engineering, Public Works, and Architecture: "And during twenty years we shall see, stretching over the entire city, still thrilling with the genius of so many centuries, we shall see stretching out like a black blot the odious shadow of the odious column built up of riveted iron plates."

The public was outraged and the tower was to be dismantled after a relatively short life. And yet it stands today, more glorious than ever. It outlived its most vocal "expert" critics and a misunderstanding public.

I won't yet claim this piece to be anywhere in the same category as the magnificent Eiffel Tower, but I am also not yet ready to declare it just a pigeon perch. It may or may not stand a test of time, but it is too early to proclaim death before one is even born.

I am reminded of the outrage in Paris over the construction of the Eiffel Tower. It was widely criticized in much of the same way... I am also not yet ready to declare it just a pigeon perch. It may or may not stand a test of time, but it is too early to proclaim death before one is even born.

Give us a break. No one is condemning the idea of an iconic pedestrian bridge. We’re merely complaining about dumbing-down the design. You must admit, that compared with the original design, the current design is pretty weak… It’s a shame it had to be butchered.

I don't think it was merely value engineered away. I think that further requirements were placed on the bridge by the transportation department, over whose road responsibility they govern. I think the engineering was to satisfy their requirements while still retaining the essence. I am sorry you are so disappointed, but I will wait to see what it looks like to pass judgement. Oh, and I doubt the pigeons really avoid "sleek inspiring forms" in favor of "skeletal ruins".

I think it is funny on here that on one hand everyone wants "the best", yet everyone also is ready to hang anyone involved with public project cost overruns. I guess we just want the best, but not to pay for it. Human nature at its most obvious.

That is the crux of the issue. We are constantly told we are going to be getting "the best"/"state of the art"/"world class" and all within budget. Then we get neither and you wonder why people get upset?

That is the crux of the issue. We are constantly told we are going to be getting "the best"/"state of the art"/"world class" and all within budget. Then we get neither and you wonder why people get upset?

Please post examples to back up this statement!!

You are kidding, right? The examples are myriad from the original MAPS on. You should know by know I don't throw out these statements without having the documentation for it (unlike yourself, whom never seems to produce a single shred of evidence for your outrageous claims).

But I digress, the poster child is the OKC Arena (formerly Ford Center). Can probably include most if not all of the original MAPS projects, since most weren't built as promised (the Canal & Arena) and certainly not within budget (not a single MAPS project did).

Now we were told repeatedly the same line during the MAPS 3 campaign (but we will have to wait to see if history repeats itself). Although there have already been indications that it is already happening. Remember the $40MM "mistake" they made on the Trails? Then recently due to increased costs of oil/asphalt, the consultant is saying we aren't even going to get the 57 miles of Trails that were promised (12 miles less).

But back to the thread subject, this bridge could be another poster child. Checked at the beginning of the thread and the cost was to be $3.3MM. Now that has exceeded the $12MM mark. That is a near 400% increase. I am not alone in thinking that the design has taken a turn for the worse. Still might be "iconic" but not as much as the original renderings/models showed.

I loved the original design and applauded the City for getting it right. But someone managed to muck it up. Not saying it is entirely the City's fault as I know ODot had a lot to do with it.

Please post examples to back up this statement!!

It's not worth worrying about. State of the art is a concept so nebulous and fleeting that it should be ignored. When you've got a ten year series of projects the earliest built by definition cannot be "state of the art"regardless by the end. We get what we have voted to afford...nothing more but also nothing less.

I have a couple of questions Larry. Do you think that the free market would have built anything better? I mean honestly, we would be farther from having "world class" infrastructure/attractions without MAPS. What does it hurt that in the end you have paid an extra cent on sales tax and the city improved by leaps and bounds. Do you think we would have a higher reputation if only the MAPS projects were built as promised and within budget?

Oh, they wouldn't misappropriate federal money. The money for the last two miles is MAPS money. I'm simply saying if, with the addition of federal money, we are able to get six miles of streetcar, the money sitting in the MAPS bank for the last two miles will look tempting if the CC is over budget. The public might not notice if they get their six miles.
Fascinating. Based on your previous defending of all the various MAPS "shortcomings", I would have thought you would be the first to use the "We got the 6 miles promised". Good for you!

Oooops guess I was premature in my congratulations. Looks like you are reverting to your typical defense of any City shortcomings.

It's not worth worrying about. State of the art is a concept so nebulous and fleeting that it should be ignored. When you've got a ten year series of projects the earliest built by definition cannot be "state of the art"regardless by the end. We get what we have voted to afford...nothing more but also nothing less.

I don't consider it a shortcoming to spend the money you have. I consider it unrealistic to expect more than a finite amount of money can buy. And I realize that you cannot quantify concepts or expect them to remain constant over time.

I have a couple of questions Larry. Do you think that the free market would have built anything better? I mean honestly, we would be farther from having "world class" infrastructure/attractions without MAPS. What does it hurt that in the end you have paid an extra cent on sales tax and the city improved by leaps and bounds. Do you think we would have a higher reputation if only the MAPS projects were built as promised and within budget?

So as long as we sort-of-kind-of-get-what-they-said, that's ok? As long as it isn't completely crappy, we're happy? Maybe you are. I know Betts is (she has taken that position for several years now). Not me. I am tired of being lied to at every turn. To quote someone who makes something like 10 times more than the entire Supreme Court combined, "Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining".

Would you consider Denver's NBA arena to be better the the OKC one? Denver's was built with only 3% public financing. Ours is 100% public financed.

I think it would have increased our reputation immensely if they actually built them as promised and on budget. How could that be a bad thing? Instead, you have apologists for them and people constantly trying to spin things and sometimes going as far as to engage in revisionist history.

They say whatever they have to say to get the voters to approve. No different than the developers that present one thing to whatever design committee that has to approve the development, then for many of the same reasons given by some on these threads, they change the designs rather drastically from what was pitched. You may be thinking that supports your question, would the free market do it any better, and to a certain extent it does, As long as no one holds them accountable, they will continue to do what it.

What does it hurt you or Betts if the Mercy site developers don't quite deliver what was pitched? Unless you pre-bought one of their units based on the renderings, not much. As long as they build roughly the same number of units, that should be good enough and they should get approval on the next job.

Or what about the folks of the County Jail. Should they have been awarded any more County work after that fiasco? But that is on the County level and not the CIty. What about construction crews that use substandard materials when working on City streets? Should they be banned from any future City contracts? Or the folks that built the DT library and substituted different exterior panels than what was called for and approved? (The City lost that court case). Should they be allowed future City contracts?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that in every one of the above mentioned, they were awarded further work with the City. Just as voters keep approving MAPS when promises have been bent, stretched and broken repeatedly.

On edit: Betts just posted an article from the Oklahoman over in the Myriad Gardens Renovations thread. From the article:

"It was a public process with a public entity, so we feel like we did the best we could.”
Read more: http://newsok.com/selection-of-operator-for-myriad-gardens-restaurant-hits-snag/article/3583063#ixzz1RIi5ryOy
Ms. O'Conner went on to say essentially the "free market" (as you put it) will do a better job at it than the City was able to achieve.

I don't consider it a shortcoming to spend the money you have. I consider it unrealistic to expect more than a finite amount of money can buy. And I realize that you cannot quantify concepts or expect them to remain constant over time.

Would you agree that it is a shortcoming to spend more than you said you were going to spend? Would you agree that it is a shortcoming to promise something that you know you can't possibly deliver? How do you rectify that with your recent statement on the Streetcars? Sure seems like a disconnect.

So as long as we sort-of-kind-of-get-what-they-said, that's ok? As long as it isn't completely crappy, we're happy? Maybe you are.

I'm happy to have something rather than nothing and have no problem that local government kickstarted something that would have had little chance of being done privately in the subsequent 18 years since.


I think it would have increased our reputation immensely if they actually built them as promised and on budget. How could that be a bad thing? Instead, you have apologists for them and people constantly trying to spin things and sometimes going as far as to engage in revisionist history.

Of course it wouldn't have been a bad thing if they were done exactly as promised; it only would have enhanced the legacy of MAPS. I just don't think that any reputation change would have occurred without the program and can't let myself think what COULD have been. We're making a pretty unprecedented leap in status in a relatively small amount of time as is.


Or what about the folks of the County Jail. Should they have been awarded any more County work after that fiasco? But that is on the County level and not the CIty. What about construction crews that use substandard materials when working on City streets? Should they be banned from any future City contracts? Or the folks that built the DT library and substituted different exterior panels than what was called for and approved? (The City lost that court case). Should they be allowed future City contracts?


I see a fundamental difference in projects that are necessities, such as the jail and roads, being held to the highest degree of accountability versus quality of life enhancing projects, or for that matter, urban renewal projects (as much as I have an interest in their success within an urban environment context).

This is the same argument that Larry uses on EVERY project, on EVERY thread. Everyone is corrupt, biased or stupid, so we have cost overruns or he doesn't get what he expected. We have gotten amazing value for what we have spent. Was everything perfect...absolutely not. But when the dust settled, it is hard to see how the city could have gotten much more for the money it had to spend. Some people live in a theoretically world and some actually have to perform in it. It is easier to criticize than to construct.

Would you agree that it is a shortcoming to spend more than you said you were going to spend? Would you agree that it is a shortcoming to promise something that you know you can't possibly deliver? How do you rectify that with your recent statement on the Streetcars? Sure seems like a disconnect.

Larry, again, you want it both ways. You want exactly what was promised, but if there's not enough money to deliver what was promised, then you're unhappy. If they have to spend more money to deliver what was promised you're not happy either. We don't live in a utopia. Things aren't always perfect. Have you ever built anything, even a house? Try and stay on budget, even over 18 months. It's tough, I'm telling you, as I've built 3 houses and have tried really, really hard not to go over. I can't imagine a ten year project and trying to guesstimate what it would cost.

My recent statement on streetcars was concerning federal money. IF we get a grant and can build six miles of track with it and the first phase MAPS money, then my CONCERN is that if the convention center goes over budget they'll be eyeing our second phase money since the promised six miles of track already exists. I didn't say I think that will happen. It's just a niggling worry in the back of my mind. If it looks like that will happen, I'll be fighting to keep the money for the streetcar, I can guarantee you. But, at this point there are too many ifs to waste too much time worrying about it. I said it once so that it's in the back of other people's minds as well, which hopefully will make it less likely to happen. Now, you've made me say it twice and I'm done worrying about it until I know I have to.

I agree with betts. Everyone needs to calm down a little bit. I think we are just borrowing trouble. We want everything done now, on budget -- instant gratification. Bottom line is that is not going to happen. At the final page of the MAPS3 book, we'll see that all that was promised was built as close to how it was promised as it realistically could be. 10 years from now, we will have these projects COMPLETE. Downtown streetcar system, a new convention center, a new central park, several new senior centers, a river whitewater facility, more sidewalks and more trails, and last but not least, state fair renovations/addition (not sure exactly what that entails, haven't followed that as much as the other projects that will be built). For only 10 years, that is a lot of brand new items for our city.

Yes I want it both ways!

If they know they can't deliver on what they promised, then plain and simple DON'T PROMISE IT.

I have asked you this before about your experience with building your houses but you declined to answer so I will ask it again.

Did you learn anything from the experience?
When you went over budget on House #1, did you sit down and figure out why you went over budget?
Did you then adjust for that with House #2 (either by keeping those factors under your control in check, or by allowing for whatever dollar amount/percentage you went over to the starting point of your next budget)?

I never said doing this over a multi-year span is easy. But you seem to think that every time the City does this, they have errased the memory banks clear and are reinventing the wheel with every project in every bond issue or MAPS. They have an admitted track record of projects going 8% over budget. With the original MAPS, projects were an average of 47.75% over budget. Yet with MAPS 3, they have only allowed for 2.2% of the budget for cost over runs. At the bare minimum, there should have been the 8% average, but nope. Apparently they haven't learned a single thing.

As I have said before, I hope we get the equivalent of 8 Practice Facilities since it has reportedly turned out to be a first-class facility that according to the bids, has come in about 50% UNDER the money they had earmarked for it ($24MM). That would be freakin' fantastic and I would be shouting the City's praises all over the board if we have left level of success with MAPS 3. Because in that case they delivered what was promised AND they did it under budget. I understand that the Practice Facility is a unique example, but the point is, it CAN be done.

On a side note, it is too bad that because of the lock-out, that the facility may be sitting empty for a while. Maybe the Thunder can turn it over and use it for some City events like they said they were going to.

I agree with betts. Everyone needs to calm down a little bit. I think we are just borrowing trouble. We want everything done now, on budget -- instant gratification. Bottom line is that is not going to happen. At the final page of the MAPS3 book, we'll see that all that was promised was built as close to how it was promised as it realistically could be. 10 years from now, we will have these projects COMPLETE. Downtown streetcar system, a new convention center, a new central park, several new senior centers, a river whitewater facility, more sidewalks and more trails, and last but not least, state fair renovations/addition (not sure exactly what that entails, haven't followed that as much as the other projects that will be built). For only 10 years, that is a lot of brand new items for our city.

In other words, history will repeat itself. That is the crux of the problem, the "3 Amigos" (as Doug liked to call them) described it as a failure or disaster if projects aren't built on time and on budget. Then those Mayors engaged in revisionist history and claimed that the City does just that (builds things on time and on budget) when they KNOW they didn't do that (with few exceptions as noted in my post to Betts).

I agree that most likely all of the projects will get built (functional but hardly "complete' and certainly likely not as promised). Case in point: currently we KNOW we are getting 60 miles fewer Trails than what voters were told. And if oil/asphalt prices remain higher than they were when the budgets were made, we are going to get 12 miles fewer than that (72 miles short).

Sidewalks are relatively unaffected so far (but is only $10MM of the $777MM).

The rest of the projects we don't have enough info on yet but past history and current knowns are not good indicators.

Somebody needs to take a reality pill. Sounds too much like a spoiled two year old.

It's impossible to plan a budget that goes for 10 years, for a multitude of different type projects whose constructions are completely different from each other. We were not lied to, the estimations just didn't pan out. And they never do. If you are so great at estimations, lets go to Wall Street. I have some cash I need to invest. 10 years from now your stock predictions and my yield better be 100% dead-on-balls accurate to your estimations, if not you must have lied to me for my money.

Everything is easy for those that don't have to do it. Those that don't do, never make mistakes. That, and hindsight always make people pretty darn smart and pious.

To get back to the thread subject, this bridge has had a 400% cost increase from what was originally reported, and in the process, the design has suffered. Still iconic to a degree but I agree with many that have posted here, it is disappointing to put it mildly.

Rover & Skywest, again I will ask you the same question I asked Betts, if you KNOW projects go an average of 8% over, why do you only budget 2.2%?

I'm not responsible for budgeting. My job is not to forecast trends, so I'm not qualified to speak on that matter. I assume those that do that for a living know what they are doing and have a reason for budgeting it like that.

Some quick thoughts come to mind for the reasoning, either they don't know what they are doing (aren't even aware of the City's track record)
OR
They are fully aware and purposely low-balled the figure to keep the sales tax length within whatever they thought would still be acceptable to the voters (to get it passed).

Not the only reasons (and I hope they aren't) but neither option is encouraging. I have asked my former Councilman, the City Manager and the Mayor, and got no answer back on the subject. Would go to Council and ask, but from what I have witnessed, Council members aren't fond of answering questions when asked there either. They just politely sit there and thank the person for coming down.

Some quick thoughts come to mind for the reasoning, either they don't know what they are doing (aren't even aware of the City's track record)
OR
They are fully aware and purposely low-balled the figure to keep the sales tax length within whatever they thought would still be acceptable to the voters (to get it passed).

I'm confident that they knew the history of the budget issues with MAPS and I just don't see how 9 or 10 years of the tax as opposed to 7 1/2 years could have swayed people to not vote for MAPS3 after they've already been paying an extra penny for 18 years.

Speaking of I-40...

Somewhere near here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=210+Park+Ave+oklahoma+city&ll=35.462319,-97.500921&spn=0.000462,0.000784&sll=35.468518,-97.517352&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&layer=c&cbp=13,93.1,,0,1.15&cbll=35.462319,-97.500921&gl=us&t=h&z=21&panoid=Gz5MVre89jAu1HIoTcLOzA)... (I just passed it on the way home earlier but forget where it is exactly...)

You know the two new sections of highway that are slowly getting closer together? What do they plan on doing when they need to work right over the top of I-40?

What do they plan on doing when they need to work right over the top of I-40?

Total guess, but maybe close lanes and divert traffic to other side of freeway and work at night? It's gonna hurt for bit for sure, but once it's open and you can once again drive past OKC without tapping the breaks, people will forget.

Speaking of I-40...

Somewhere near here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=210+Park+Ave+oklahoma+city&ll=35.462319,-97.500921&spn=0.000462,0.000784&sll=35.468518,-97.517352&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&layer=c&cbp=13,93.1,,0,1.15&cbll=35.462319,-97.500921&gl=us&t=h&z=21&panoid=Gz5MVre89jAu1HIoTcLOzA)... (I just passed it on the way home earlier but forget where it is exactly...)

You know the two new sections of highway that are slowly getting closer together? What do they plan on doing when they need to work right over the top of I-40?

You mean the new Lincoln bridge?
They will have to divert traffic soon to build the last pier. The diversion lanes have already been built for a couple of weeks now so maybe their waiting for the bridge widening over I-235 to be completed before diverting traffic. As for the bridge itself, the steel will be delivered and put in place overnight. From there, they can just build the deck while traffic flows freely on the interstate.

I'm confident that they knew the history of the budget issues with MAPS and I just don't see how 9 or 10 years of the tax as opposed to 7 1/2 years could have swayed people to not vote for MAPS3 after they've already been paying an extra penny for 18 years.

Ok then why do you think they only included 2.2% for cost over runs instead of the City average of 8%?

It could be a factor because although we have been paying that extra penny for almost the entire time since 1993 (there was a gap of a few months between MAPS 1 & 2), it has always been sold as a temporary tax. At some point, there is a tipping point where it won't be looked at as temporary. !0 years may be that tipping point.

Some quick thoughts come to mind for the reasoning, either they don't know what they are doing (aren't even aware of the City's track record)
OR
They are fully aware and purposely low-balled the figure to keep the sales tax length within whatever they thought would still be acceptable to the voters (to get it passed).

Not the only reasons (and I hope they aren't) but neither option is encouraging. I have asked my former Councilman, the City Manager and the Mayor, and got no answer back on the subject. Would go to Council and ask, but from what I have witnessed, Council members aren't fond of answering questions when asked there either. They just politely sit there and thank the person for coming down.


Maybe it's because they have grown tired of listening to all the nay sayers spew their BS.

Has anyone seen high quality final renderings of this bridge?

Has anyone seen high quality final renderings of this bridge?

No... I'm sure they're too embarrassed to publish the dumbed-down version. (before = sleek & elegant... after = furry & clumsy

937

Its just a drawing.... Don't panic.

Its just a drawing.... Don't panic.

It will be constructed from just a drawing. There is no panic... just extreme disappointment. The original design was graceful. The dumbed-down design is a tinker-toy pigeon house, meaninglessly tacked on to a railroad trestle.

I-40 travelers will say: "What in the hell is THAT?"

Put down the gun, back away from the ledge, put away the sleeping pills, it's a bridge!!!!

Taking bet we'll have our first suicide jumper within the opening year.

There's no longer a point to the bird sculpture. They should scrap it.

Sid,

I appreciate your post but I respectfully disagree. In the mind of the public/voters estimates and budgets are two words for the same thing. If there is a big difference, the City needs to go out of its way and emphasize that at every turn (not buried at the end of a 22 page press release that few people will actually see). Every time a project is mentioned and the number comes up, that distinction needs to be noted. Loudly and clearly. Especially when they are attached to a campaign as part of the sales job to get it passed. Intentionally or not, more often than not, the perception is that they "low ball" the estimate/budget. There is some basis for this. With MAPS 1, they left out things that they KNEW were going to be needed in the project (environmental studies, cleanup, landscaping etc etc etc) from what the voters were told (for RC, this was documented by the media at the time, IIRC it came out by the then departing City Manager or may have been a departing MAPS project manager). Mayor Norick denied this of course and blamed it on the City using outside consultants for what voters were told pre-vote, the cost over runs and the even the media reporting itself. That is all part of the problem. Even with this round of MAPS, they aren't doing the due diligence to come up with actual, real world budgets until after the vote. If those don't fall in line with what voters were told pre-vote, then it becomes, "Oooops, we didn't know". What do they call that, "Deniable Plausibility"? I thought they did a good deal of due-diligence on the Park and was impressed by the report I read which got down to how many people would be needed to maintain it, the number of mowers needed etc etc. Now all of that is in flux on this side of the vote and they are still trying to figure out what is going in it (a year later)??

Reminds me of the Mayor and his insistence that he told the Council, anyone and everyone about the $30MM to move the OG&E substation pre-vote. No one on the Council remembers it. No one has produced an article where it was mentioned or a a transcript of a speech the Mayor supposedly gave (since he speaks at many events by necessity, will recycle existing speeches). Should be easy enough to produce yet it hasn't happened yet. The first wide media reporting of it was when hementioned it at the first MAPS 3 oversight committee meeting. During his presentation he brought it up and told them that they only had $250MM for the C.C. (not the $280MM that is STILL being reported).

Just out of curiosity (and this information may be posted in another thread), how many years was the penny sales tax for the original MAPS? How much did we go over budget with that one? We weren't coming out of an economic depression back then, yet we didn't have all the improvements then that we do now. With that in mind, we collect for MAPS3 for 7 years?? That's what I'm thinking, so...

Just saying, I think that with all the draw Oklahoma City proper gets now, more than ever, MAPS3 will be pockets full of cash on another level compared to MAPS. I'm sure all the big ticket items will cost more but that's gonna happen anyway.

I think it was five years, and then a six month extension. Then it went away, and then it came back for the schools project, then the arena update and now M3

Totally agree with dwellsokc and the naysayers. We need a giant expensive space dominating modernist sculpture by default only, about as much as we need another hole in our heads. I support the arts. I support public funding of the arts. I support(ed) mandatory public funding of public arts through the former art in public places program. This is not art and sure isn't architecture. It's left over detritus of a public works sausage made by committee. Unfortunately, some people will undoubtedly mistake it for art but others will recognize it for what it really is.

That's not a bridge and serves no purpose but it's big so it must be...art! Not.

What in the hell is everyone complaining/disappointed about?!?!? Does everyone on this forum constantly look for something to bitch about? So let me get this right... You would rather them not build this iconic bridge at all because the bridge couldn't be built the way it was originally designed?? In post #515, what is it exactly all you naysayers see different from the original "rendering" that turns you away from this project?

That's not a bridge and serves no purpose but it's big so it must be...art! Not.

I look at it as a functional pedestrian bridge first, as a piece of art second.

I look at it as a functional pedestrian bridge first, as a piece of art second.

If you haven't figured this out. The functional pedestrian bridge is a truss bridge. It does not need the flying steel above it. That's decoration only at this point.

Before, it was unified with the creative artistic part working as an integral functional part of the bridge and the total design informed by those requirements.

The current bridge structure no longer has any need for what sticks up in the air. It is now just a large steel object stuck onto a different, self-supporting bridge. The upper part has not been informed by this bridge. It was informed by the requirements of something that went the way of committee and too much or too little of something.

In it's current context, any art of that structure is almost meaningless. Might as well be an abandoned ship crane at an old dock, too expensive to tear down. But instead, we are going to build it on the guise it's has been informed as Art by something else. Okay, it's big, it's in a prominent place and it resembles a bird if someone tells you that or you have a good imagination. Or you can take it as form only.

Rules for making public art when you have no reason...Make it big. Paint it red. Conspicuous! That's what makes art.

<yawn>

But wait... this wasn't an art project to be attached to a bridge. This was a bridge project wasn't it?

If the plan was to use some creativity to build a bridge and the design didn't work, they should have scrapped it and tried again or just built the resulting required truss bridge and used the rest of the money on something else. Buy some art that was made to be art, not left over parts from a bridge that didn't get built.

Just out of curiosity (and this information may be posted in another thread), how many years was the penny sales tax for the original MAPS? How much did we go over budget with that one? We weren't coming out of an economic depression back then, yet we didn't have all the improvements then that we do now. With that in mind, we collect for MAPS3 for 7 years?? That's what I'm thinking, so...

Just saying, I think that with all the draw Oklahoma City proper gets now, more than ever, MAPS3 will be pockets full of cash on another level compared to MAPS. I'm sure all the big ticket items will cost more but that's gonna happen anyway.

To summarize the MAPS programs:

MAPS
5.5 years (w/6 month extension)
At the end it brought in $60MM/year
AVG: $56.18MM/yr
TOTAL: $309MM
Comparing what voters were told pre-vote and "final" number at the City's site, it was $114MM over budget (or 47.75%).

MAPS for Kids
7 years
AVG: $71.43MM/year
TOTAL: $500MM (mol)

Ford/NBA tax
15 months
TOTAL: Est $125MM
but collections were down significantly, can't find an exact figure but the latest one I had handy had it at $12MM short but IIRC, ended up being $20MM short (mol)

MAPS 3
7.75 years
AVG: $100MM/year (est).
TOTAL: $777MM (est)
Collections are up significantly over projections to date... don't know if that is over the original $100MM/year est or the revised recession ones...the last I recall, the City Manager stated that we weren't back to pre-recession levels yet...that may have changed since he said that a couple of months ago.

The City has a pretty good track record at projecting revenue over the long term. With MAPS for Kids, they came within $2MM of projections. That is excellent!

I did the math on it at one point and including the Ford/NBA tax shortfall as the starting point, factoring in the avg. increase, the final result worked out to be the estimated $100MM/year avg.

Guys, maybe the drawing is of the inside steel work? Wait for the final renderings to come out then we can see the designs covering the steel. Is that a deal or what?

Warning Long Post Follows!

I very well may be misunderstanding the more current design, and I hope that I am wrong, however I think the concern stems from the fact that the original design was gracefully and appropriately derived from the motion and design of the Scissor tailed fly catcher which is singularly unique in its grace and form and is awe inspiring in flight. Additionally it is quintessentially Oklahoman. It embodies the spirit of Oklahomans, the whole idea of flight and elevation, reaching for something greater, which is what this City has been striving to achieve. The very dance of the bird is skillfully majestic and simple with functional purpose, held aloft by unseen but real natural forces. It is my opinion that the design of the bridge in its original form somehow managed to tap into all of this with a simple elegance and clarity that was breath taking. The original design met the objective and addressed the constraints that were provided the teams in an exceptional manner.
Then the constraints were changed significantly, and the designers were tasked with huge structural load increases that were not previously a component of the program. There is no way to simply preserve such a solution when a major constraint such as this changes. The very nature of the change calls into question the forms relevance and appropriateness. The effects are drastic and so unfortunate and I would also exclaim so unnecessary!
The change to require full vehicular loads and ODOT's standards while trying to retain the design components in a forced manner is like the graceful state bird being shot with buck shot at close range and the skeletal remains being mounted on a very large taxidermist’s stand. This was a no win situation for the designers, as the new load requirements drove the structural considerations and the truss structure that previously gracefully underscored and supported the lightness of the structure while remaining structurally honest, has now like a cancer taken over the deck and now usurped itself as a much more heavy element that distracts the eye from its ascent to what is anchoring it. It is visually imbalanced. If the sculptural element is to be stripped of its cladding as the drawing seems to indicate (Which is a further tragedy if true) it will further muddy and confuse the design intent, taking away the contrasting and clear geometrical form of the sculpture and it will dissipate its impact which, I would argue needs to be even more solid and striking as a contrast to the tragedy of the deck.
This is a bigger issue than budgets...This would have been an image that would be singularly inseparable from the image of Oklahoma City and in one pass at 65 MPH communicated more to those along the interstate about what is going on here than they would have gotten in a forced 30 minute chamber promotional video. It was supposed to be a pedestrian bridge! One that was Iconic and communicated all that one could hope to have as a symbolic ambassador for the city. It did more than merely bridge two parks, it had the potential to bridge ideologies and opinions about this city in midst of “flyover country” that somehow had the audacity to thrive and become relevant to more than itself.
Truly the problem is that we have been shown what could have been and now shown vastly inferior version and that is like test driving the Ferraris and Audi R8's and then making you pay more for a Kia. It is like being presented with a artfully crafted and presented 5 star four course meal and then being force fed the leftovers after it has been made into a casserole and then getting it with cold spots in it.

I truly wish that everyone could take some steps back from this and re-evaluate what the purpose of the pedestrian bridge really was and still is, and then see if driving vehicles over it is still such a high priority in comparison as to what hung in the balance. This was one of those items that there should be no compromise on. Take the vehicular traffic off this bridge and down to the Harvey St. Bridge!!!! The original design would have supported the mowers and carts utilized by the maintenance crews etc.

What depiction are you looking at which indicates that the sculptural element is going to be stripped of it's cladding? I have yet to see that. Some of the construction drawings are not meant to look like the final finished product

Here is the presentation made by Dennis Clowers, Public Works Director, at yesterday's city council meeting. A short animation showing what to expect, at least generally, is at the end.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgFqIai2Yjg&feature=player_profilepage

If these screen captures during that video portray the bridge accurately, these are eastbound images of the bridge, approaching Harvey ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/skydance_2011_1.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/skydance_2011_2.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/skydance_2011_3.jpg

No cables, but the sculpture appears to be affixed to and embedded in the ground.

This post by Mr. Loudenback should allay all doubts that there will be cladding on the structure. This was at the June 21st council meeting, just over 2 weeks ago; it's the current, final design.

Note: Actually watch the video, it's not the image where the design team is standing in front of the original model.

This post by Mr. Loudenback should allay all doubts that there will be cladding on the structure. This was at the June 21st council meeting, just over 2 weeks ago; it's the current, final design.

Note: Actually watch the video, it's not the image where the design team is standing in front of the original model.

You're wrong... the video shows the original design, not the dumbed-down design. The construction docs indicate an open, trussed skeleton, partially clad with slats (scales... feathers?), and a railroad-style, trussed bridge trestle. The subject video is from the original roll-out of the design, showing a contemporary bridge span, and elegant icon. The current design was not shown to the City Council at that meeting...

...at that Council meeting, Dennis Clowers only presented the project genesis and current schedule. The re-design was not mentioned...

On a positive note, at least it's not a giant cross!

I wonder if they designed for snow and ice not falling off this thing onto traffic? ETA: They must have thought about that, they mentioned in the video upthread it was engineered for ice loads at least.

You're wrong... the video shows the original design, not the dumbed-down design. The construction docs indicate an open, trussed skeleton, partially clad with slats (scales... feathers?), and a railroad-style, trussed bridge trestle. The subject video is from the original roll-out of the design, showing a contemporary bridge span, and elegant icon. The current design was not shown to the City Council at that meeting...

^^This^^ At least from the drawings that have been submittted for the Bid, which represents the latest design, it is most certainly a fairly large steel truss structure that then slopes downward to a more slender version that carries itself under the sculptural element. (SEE POST #515 and click on the image for a larger view) From the drawing at the level of detail available it is not very clear as to if there is intended cladding on the sculptural element. It is becuase no one has been showing the real design in recent presentations that has everyone still thinking this is fine and the only differece is the lack of cables. NOT SO...Not even close! the entire structure has changed and the only thing that resembles the original is the frame of the sculptural feature which is no longer necessary from a structural standpoint. If the cladding has been removed or if they are using slats of some sort, it was probably to try to get the thing to read a little more consistently, however as mentioned in an earlier post, this would in my opinion be a huge mistake as it will lessen the visual impact of the sculptural element and diffuse what otherwise was a great design. That coupled with the much more massive truss structure for the bridge deck and you have my description posted previously. The design is NOT what was presented in the most recent Council meeting and it is NOT what was shown on the animated fly by's on the designers website. Typically there is only so much the client is willing to pay for such animations and they are for the express purpose of generating approvals, marketing and or securing financing. Since the changes that caused this tragedy to have to mutate, were not presented to the Design team until much later, the attempt to address those issues cost a great deal more in design fees and the result is vastly inferior to the original and there is no way the city is going to pay them to do a new animation at yet another high expense. So you will not likely see an updated animation.

I understand the argument for the 400% increase in cost of the bridge, but let's make it plain and simple...

Would you rather have this:
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r170/OkStateBBall78/Mobile%20Uploads/snap2011070895100038.jpg

Or the new bridge shown in previous posts, without cables, looking barren as crap like a railroad trestle?

But I bet that is cheap and would come in on budget. That fits the criteria of a great number of our posters. LOL

If the new skydance bridge is like the sketch posted earlier, I'll take the google pic bridge. At least it is forgettable. It sucks, too, but at least you don't notice it.

After looking through the drawings, it appears that the bid package linked in the previous post is only for the foundation portion of the bridge. The actual bridge design bid package has not been released as near as I can tell.