News   Nov 04, 2024
News Roundup for November 4, 2024
 271     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
Brick Works Brilliance
 587     0 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2.4K     16 

COMING SOON! Bridging the Design Gap - a UT design charette

^ that's exactly what I was thinking. The early idea I had (below) is just a more complicated version of the crescent shape you are talking about... using the ramps as part of the actual bridge.

In the example below...

1. A pylon/pier is embedded in the GO retaining wall location (existing pier location).

2. The main curved deck portions are built using cantilevered construction methods, with the deck sections supported by cable stays (all done above the rails/no interruption).

3. Both the Cityplace terminus and the Front Street terminus have 2 curved access ramps making access to the bridge from west and east even more user-friendly (Bathurst to Spadina is a huge block afterall).

The type of simpler single curve bridge you are alluding to could be built using the same A-frame pylon + cable-stays (cheaper too).

aerial-bridge-option2.jpg
 
^she's a beauty and though we'd need 2 pieces of a helix like this to span the corridor.... this sort of thing would be a spectacular solution (we may even try to get Broadway Maylan to chip in a version for the charette).
 
^^That's a good looking bridge

I love this city and I'm also highly competitive. The box truss proposal is an absolute disgrace compared to what other Canadian cities are managing to build or have built recently. Even conservative Calgary has sign a deal with Calatrava for a bridge over the Bow and will hold an open competition for a second. There is just too much waste in our municipal government and too much reliance on development contributions to make up the difference.
 
Last edited:
3Dementia said:
^she's a beauty and though we'd need 2 pieces of a helix like this to span the corridor.... this sort of thing would be a spectacular solution (we may even try to get Broadway Maylan to chip in a version for the charette).
Click to expand...

I love that bridge. It would be interesting to know the maximum span and if it could be scaled. The company has done some other nice bridges ( Link ). They also have a Toronto office if anyone wants to contact them.

Buro Happold Ltd
212 King Street West
3rd Floor
Toronto
Ontario M5H 1K5
Canada
 
Someone should design a bridge shaped like a condom: a translucent tube with a rim on the south end, and with the north end shaped like a small bulb from which visitors go through.

It would signify the extent to which we're being f cked by the inaction and complacency of City Hall.
 
Excellent presentation yesterday to the Pedestrian Advisory Committee! Good meeting you, PE.

Hopefully it will be possible to attend (or even submit correspondance to) the Design Review Panel.
 
/\ It was great meeting you as well Sean.

I'm glad the group was so immediately responsive to our 'plight.' Dylan and Bill both recommended that I make another presentation later down the line (after the charrette has been going for awhile) to present updates etc. - I'm looking forward to it!
 
I think it important that people get accurate information about the proposed railway lands pedestrian bridge. The bridge was never intended to be a simple 'box truss'. It was explained at a public meeting held in February, that the truss was developed by engineers only to understand the stringent requirements of the railways. The truss, as it was presented, was never intended as "the design".

In fact, at its meeting of April 1st, 2009. The public art commission at the City of Toronto endorsed the selection of artist Francisco Gazitua to team up with the architects and engineers working on the design of the bridge!

This is the artist that designed the Barca Volante at Harbourview. Im sure, having seen the work of this artist, that the actual bridge design will be far from a simple 'box truss'. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Mr. Gazitua comes up with.

The generation of design ideas is always a good thing, however it should be done with a full understanding of what the actual circumstances are.
 
Last edited:
Arch19E said:
I think it important that people get accurate information about the proposed railway lands pedestrian bridge. The bridge was never intended to be a simple 'box truss'. It was explained at a public meeting held in February, that the truss was developed by engineers only to understand the stringent requirements of the railways. The truss, as it was presented, was never intended as "the design".

In fact, at its meeting of April 1st, 2009. The public art commission at the City of Toronto endorsed the selection of artist Francisco Gazitua to team up with the architects and engineers working on the design of the bridge!
Click to expand...

In what capacity has Gazitua been brought to the project? How much involvement does he have with its structural design, not the frilly tensile steel frock which I am assuming he is creating for 'decoration.' If you can present substantive proof that Gazitua is designing a bridge (suspect as he has yet to do this...ever) or at least working on something more than a sculpture which will be tacked on to the aforementioned box truss, then it seems you have a case. As it stands however, the hiring of Gazitua represents exactly what Bridging the Design Gap is fighting against.

Arch19E said:
This is the artist that designed the Barca Volante at Harbourview. Im sure, having seen the work of this artist, that the actual bridge design will be far from a simple 'box truss'. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Mr. Gazitua comes up with.
Click to expand...

As am I, but the fundamental question still remains: will this be something more than a utilitarian structure in a Section 37 dress?

Arch19E said:
The generation of design ideas is always a good thing, however it should be done with a full understanding of what the actual circumstances are.
Click to expand...

When renders of the final product are presented (any time line on that?), that will be a perfectly appropriate request. As it stands Concorde has been so clandestine about the issue, it's difficult for anyone to 'understand the actual circumstances.' This charette was created because a developer submitted a massing study which was so underwhelming, a brilliant piece of structure couldn't possibly come out of it, no matter how many Chilean artists are hired.

At no point on our website or in our promotional material does it state that this will be the final design. Furthermore, in my presentation to the Pedestrian Committee I was careful to state that this was not an official competition and was in no way affiliated with either the City of Toronto or Concorde Adex itself. I fail to see how anyone is being misled or how we could have improved our material with the resources at hand.

So Arch19E, what are the 'actual circumstances?'
 
The actual circumstances are that Concord's staff and their consultants gave presentations and answered questions at lenght at two public meetings in February and April of this year.

At these meetings Concord described that the bridge will be a collaberative design with engineers, architects and artist(s). Certainly one did not get the impression that this will be a decorated box truss.

In a way, the bridge design process as described will not be that different from their park design where artist Douglas Coupland worked with Concord's landscape architects to create what will be, in my opinion, an amazing urban park. In that case, the artist was integrated throughout the design process as well.

My question to you ProjectEnd is why you would think otherwise? If you did not attend these public meetings then I would say you did not do your proper homework.
 
Arch19E

I did not attend the April meeting but did attend the February meeting.
Concord's rep was very clear in the message they were sending to the audience in their presentation:
- a box truss was being provided as the structural design (no question)
- the box truss was going to be fancied up with the assistance of an artist yet to be selected
- they showed precedent images of other box truss designs from around the world as examples of how this could be accomplished with a box truss
- stated use of geometric patterns, narrative and text, colour and light, and portals could be used and again showed precendent images from other bridges

So, PE is not dreaming and it appears Concord is right on track on delivering a lower cost box truss design, accessorized with some bling.

S'Bus
 
Arch19E said:
The actual circumstances are that Concord's staff and their consultants gave presentations and answered questions at lenght at two public meetings in February and April of this year.

At these meetings Concord described that the bridge will be a collaberative design with engineers, architects and artist(s). Certainly one did not get the impression that this will be a decorated box truss.
Click to expand...

Can I quote you on this? Do you have any involvement with the project proper? If so, I will take that statement as meaning: 'there is no box truss in the current working design at all.' If this is so, then you are somewhat correct in questioning the motive(s) of our charrette, but if not, I wonder why you would question my 'homework.'

Arch19E said:
In a way, the bridge design process as described will not be that different from their park design where artist Douglas Coupland worked with Concord's landscape architects to create what will be, in my opinion, an amazing urban park. In that case, the artist was integrated throughout the design process as well.
Click to expand...

You are right to note the success of the collaboration between Coupland and Concorde - that park will be a brilliant addition to our city. You will agree though that a park and a bridge are somewhat different pieces of the urban fabric and while a German CFB-born, post-modern novelist can design a beautiful space, I'm not sure if I'd trust his bridge. What's more, as I argued in my last post, Gazitua has never designed a bridge or any piece of functional structure for that matter, so you'll forgive my skepticism when you note his involvement.

Arch19E said:
My question to you ProjectEnd is why you would think otherwise? If you did not attend these public meetings then I would say you did not do your proper homework.
Click to expand...

Why would I think otherwise? I think that's pretty obvious given the rather blatant evidence contrary to your position. I did not attend the meetings because I was not aware of how dire the situation was/is. As for my 'homework,' I'd say that we at BTDG have done and continue to do as much work as we can handle, given our busy schedules. If however you can confirm that a box truss will not appear in any form, decorated or undecorated, we many have to reevaluate aspects of our stand.

Also, thanks to SpadinaBus for your support - I like the 'bling' description...very apt.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top