Toronto CityPlace Puente de Luz Bridge | ?m | ?s | Concord Adex | Francisco Gazitua

Great photo update!

So any engineers on this forum? I watched the 3 workers last night on the central column and they seemed to spend hours just crawling in and out of the top of the form, not pouring any concrete that I could tell, just staring down into it and going in and out of the top. And in the morning it looked exactly the same as it had 12 hours earlier. Any guesses what they were doing? How long does the concrete take to set? When do we think those covers will come off?

GM318.jpg
 
I spoke to one of the crew members on the Front St. side. This could all be completed within 6 weeks.

I was on foot. I took my pictures around 1 to 1:30 pm.
 
Last edited:
Dumb question, is the final bridge going to be yellow, or is that primer waiting to be painted. Any new photos of the final design? I don't think anyone knows exactly what it's going to look like.

IMG_2751.jpg
[/QUOTE]
 
That's my take as well. It's meant to be some sort of horse motif design/art.
 
hawc said:
So any engineers on this forum? I watched the 3 workers last night on the central column and they seemed to spend hours just crawling in and out of the top of the form, not pouring any concrete that I could tell, just staring down into it and going in and out of the top. And in the morning it looked exactly the same as it had 12 hours earlier. Any guesses what they were doing? How long does the concrete take to set? When do we think those covers will come off?
Click to expand...

With regards to the curing process, technically concrete keeps on curing forever. Most reach about 90% of their strength within 3-4 weeks. It really depends on the mixture and additives which vary greatly between projects. Fast curing concretes exist but they probably wouldn't use them for a project like this. If the column has reached the final height, they probably won't touch it for a while. That being said the covers may come off in a couple days, as long as the concrete has cured enough to hold it's shape with a margin of safety. Hopefully that makes sense.
 
Aaerelon said:
I was thinking the exact same thing. In fact why didn't the build it over the rail in the first place? It will be great to finally free up some of that near waterfront land for development.
Click to expand...

If you re-buitl the Gardiner above the railway lands you'd still be creating a mega-barrier between downtown and the lake. The only smart thing to do is bury it.

You can't bury the tracks but at least the tunnels going under it are relatively clean and well lit.

Wasn't there discussion to just pull it down altogether and force everyone on the lakeshore making it a disincentive to drive from the burbs into downtown?
 
hawc said:
If you re-buitl the Gardiner above the railway lands you'd still be creating a mega-barrier between downtown and the lake. The only smart thing to do is bury it.

You can't bury the tracks but at least the tunnels going under it are relatively clean and well lit.

Wasn't there discussion to just pull it down altogether and force everyone on the lakeshore making it a disincentive to drive from the burbs into downtown?
Click to expand...

i kind of like this idea... http://www.toviaduct.com/skyPATH.htm
 
toronto3 said:
i kind of like this idea... http://www.toviaduct.com/skyPATH.htm
Click to expand...
Interesting. I love the integration of all modes of transit. Unfortunately I expect within a short time cars would clog up this viaduct as well. Traffic always expands to fill the space it's given.


hawc said:
You can't bury the tracks but at least the tunnels going under it are relatively clean and well lit.

Wasn't there discussion to just pull it down altogether and force everyone on the lakeshore making it a disincentive to drive from the burbs into downtown?
Click to expand...

Ideally, I'd agree and say just get rid of it for the disincentive.

Otherwise, why can't they bury the tracks? What if they built a roof over the track level, roadway on top, covered that up with parks, and structures? Probably cheaper than burrowing underground. It would be a bit higher base level than the surrounding area, but you could provide elevators/escalators, steps and slope up for parks over the roof. Just a thought. It shouldn't be too steep to run city streets right over in some wider areas.
 
Last edited:
Aaerelon said:
Interesting. I love the integration of all modes of transit. Unfortunately I expect within a short time cars would clog up this viaduct as well. Traffic always expands to fill the space it's given.




Ideally, I'd agree and say just get rid of it for the disincentive.

Otherwise, why can't they bury the tracks? What if they built a roof over the track level, roadway on top, covered that up with parks, and structures? Probably cheaper than burrowing underground. It would be a bit higher base level than the surrounding area, but you could provide elevators/escalators, steps and slope up for parks over the roof. Just a thought. It shouldn't be too steep to run city streets right over in some wider areas.
Click to expand...

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...=1t:429,r:9,s:0&tx=135&ty=34&biw=1463&bih=651 ----> maybe the promenade could be low and the park be where the road is..... i actually really, really, really like this idea
 
toronto3 said:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...=1t:429,r:9,s:0&tx=135&ty=34&biw=1463&bih=651 ----> maybe the promenade could be low and the park be where the road is..... i actually really, really, really like this idea
Click to expand...

Ha, I've totally driven on that street and stayed in a hotel next to the legislator building in the background! I think I'll look into this idea more. I'm not sure how practical it is. Of course it depends on the air rights of the rail, but ideally that will be sorted out. Maybe some extra incentive could be provided to encourage Go Transit to give up the air rights. I'll have to research further.
 
Aaerelon said:
Traffic always expands to fill the space it's given.
Click to expand...

I've heard this time and time again and I think I believe it's true, but I'd just like a little more explanation of this. Why does this happen? Does it ALWAYS happen? I can think of a couple new roads that have been built that are still pretty empty. Heck I remember for the first few years the 407 was pretty empty. I know it's full during peak times now. But what's the science/human behaviour behind this?
 
We tend to favour convenience when travelling which makes sense. When roads are widened/expanded they make driving more enjoyable and the preferred mode of transit. If driving is the more pleasurable/convenient (whether true or illusionary) option, that's the one people tend to use. Why take go transit if you can remain in your own little personalize luxury pod on wheels? That's a horribly simplified explanation. North Americans also tend towards a much more individualistic view for transportation. They don't understand the cost everyone driving everywhere has on society. I suggest you read "Transportation for Livable Cities" or "Walking Home".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top