tallbridgeguy

I am going to try and get past my disqualification from the Calgary Pedestrian
Competition and give a unbiased look at the current competitors.

(I need a good story about why I was DQed. Instead of being short on time and submitting a below average presentation, I can mention how I was trying to finish my proposal while saving kittens from a burning fire! Cute kittens!)

To give everyone some common guidelines for judging the submissions, I propose
a scorecard.  (Please suggest guidelines you think are important.)

For example, engineering questions, (yes or no)

1) Can it be built as shown?
2) Can it be built for $25 million Canadian dollars?
3) Does it take into account the high water/ice levels?
4) Has it taken into account access to the island?
5) Is it innovative engineering?
6) Is it practical to maintain?
7) Is it mobility accessible for all users?
Is it safe for users?
9) Does this design only work at this site or could it be used somewhere else in the world?

Rank the aesthetic design on a scale of 1 to 10,
with 1 being poor and 10 being “sick”! (that means cool in popular parlance)

1) Does it raise to landmark/signature status?
2) Is it one of a kind?
3) Does it take into account future development of the island?
4) Is it fun for pedestrians?
5) Are there places to rest, sit and enjoy the skyline?
7) Is it worth the money?

You can see my engineering side shining through in most of these questions. I do understand the position of “its beautiful no matter what the cost!” kind of thinking but CMLC must have some kind of rating system that will judge which entrants move along. How do you think they will judge them?

Here

Update: So am I allowed to critique the submissions or is that sour grapes on my part?

Okay I am not comparing my abilities to that of Calatrava but I do think the first Calgary bridge is a good goalpost for discussing mine and the other future potential pedestrian bridges.

Think about what you actually want for the new bridge, a signature sculpture or a usable link for pedestrians.

Take this as humor……

Simple

One of knocks against my design is the simplicity of it. Lets compare mine with the Peace bridge. Calatrava uses a straight path, hmmm I used a straight path. That can’t be right.

I think a bridge should be open to the sky, with platforms for resting and looking out on the river. Calatrava, well you can see the river through the superstructure and the sky through the plastic. Try fishing off his bridge….

Engineering

Calatrava’s bridge is  a marvel of engineering. I would agree with that but the design has been used before and really will not be a system that is used that often. My design would be a difficult engineering feat and actually protect the structure from floods. AND it has never been used in this way before.

Budget

Calatrava received a bunch of money up front to develop his concept. He has a full time staff and if he had to turn his sketches into photo-realistic images, I think Calgary would still be waiting for his design. I did mine at night and on the weekends for the fun of it.

Environment

While I agree my design is “simple” I don’t understand what is wrong with that. Calatrava developed a concept that could go anywhere. Absolutely anywhere.  Paint it yellow & black and it is the new Pittsburgh Steelers bridge. Paint is orange and send it to Denver.

My bridge is a one of a kind that only works at the St. Patricks site. It does not make sense anywhere else. It protects the island, the bridge and leaves open views of the river.

Whatever happened to a nice “simple” open structure? Why does everything have to have curves, millions of cables, elaborate structural details? Mine would cost less than $25 million and allow the extra money to be spent on improving the park, your local school, etc.

Green

Green structures used to mean something. Calatrava will be using steel imported from somewhere. (maybe china, the costs are low) Alberta has a thriving concrete industry, so a bridge out of concrete will help the local economy. (I can add color!) How much structure do you need for a bridge? Whatever happened to simple yet attractive?

Wrapup

Again take this post with a grain of salt. I worked fairly hard to get something into the competition and I am miffed AT MYSELF for not getting the final presentation right. I even like the criticism of my structure because it means the design is being taken somewhat seriously. ..

THis post is tongue in cheek but REALLY, take a look at Calatrava’s design and explain to me what the major advantages are of his design.

Use his design as a guide to judge the new bridges. Why pay $25 million for his bridge if the new designs are superior. I’m just saying….

Well I just received an email that I did not meet the required “documentation” for the competition. Oh well.

I have attached some images of my concept below.

Before I explain the rationale behind my concept, I have to say that it was a great experience entering the competition for the new Calgary pedestrian bridge, and my only regret (because of a lack of time) is not submitting a better final presentation.

I also have to say that my concept was a starting point for further design. It could be built as it stands for less than $25 million and the extra money could be used for pathways, lighting and landscaping.

The Flying Horseshoe Bridge

A signature bridge is often judged on how it looks on a magazine cover and not how enjoyable it is for the local population. I tried to design my concept for the people who would use it.

Goals

When I started my design I thought of curved bridges, cable stay bridges, ribbon bridges and even standard beam bridges. I started designing a bridge before thinking about the site. Essentially, I forgot about the context or reason for the bridge. So I took a step back and tried to envision what I thought was important about the location.

St. Patrick’s Island

I wanted a bridge concept that did not overwhelm the tip of St. Patrick Island. Looking at some of the other concepts I see a lot of structure placed on the island obscuring the natural beauty of the island. (Not to mention providing a great deal of mischief making places under all that structure.)

The front of the island could be covered in paths/columns/staircases and I felt that would destroy some of the natural shoreline. (best part of an island) In addition, standing on an island staring up at all that bridge superstructure could be disconcerting.

I also wanted a couple of large viewing areas that would allow pedestrians places to look out on the river and city skyline (bridges are for the users) .

My goal was to keep the natural beauty of the island intact.

Engineering

I wanted a simple looking but complex engineering bridge. By that I mean the bridge looks straightforward but I have added in the difficult design element of movement.

The twin arches can rotate and take the lightweight island path above flooding and ice levels. As an engineer, I don’t want to place millions of dollars of structure in a floodplain.

First

I am new to the competition world but I think my first effort has some positive aspects. The goal was to learn how to compete and actually develop a buildable bridge concept.

Images

Like everyone else who entered the Calgary bridge competition, I would like to win the job. (I said I would like to, not that I am likely to win or place or show….)

But what does winning the competition mean to the winner?

First, a great deal of publicity, because after all that is what the contest was meant to generate. Interest in Calgary, civic pride and maybe some more development in the area. At the two extremes, either a “novice” designer (amateur / small firm) or a mega-firm could win.

Lets look at what you might get in terms of money. Usually the winning design firm gets from 8-12% of the cost of the bridge, so around $2.5 million dollars. Plus they would probably secure the contract for all the surrounding landscaping, paths, lights, etc. (Additional $$ if that is not included in the bridge contract)

If you were an amateur with absolutely no design experience, you would have to hire an architectural firm, with engineering ties or a big engineering firm with architectural experience to actually design the bridge. If you are a small architectural or engineering firm, you may still need to hire outside help, but the “win” could propel you into a new tax bracket. It will most likely take up all your time for the next two years until it was finished.

On the other hand, if you are in a partnership of a strong architectural firm and a well know engineering company, it may just be another feather in the cap of a long list of feathers. Nice to have the work but no one person can be attributed the design.

I think the best scenario for Calgary is to have a big firm win. Then they could be assured that the design expertise was in place to design and construct the bridge. But typically this means the concept was a group effort and you will see a number of suits at the press conference.

The most fun outcome for a designer and the best press would be the Cinderella story. A lone designer submits a unique concept that beats all the big boys/girls. Out of nowhere a talented young underdog artist/architect/engineer/small child comes up with the winning proposal. It would most certainly be the start of a new career and be a big story around the world. (Think Susan Boyle.)

I would like to see a lone designer win, I think that would be the most fun and an inspiration to new designers everywhere.

Updated: Here is the video story (September 18). About 6:09, shows a bunch of the bridges. Mine was not on top or shown, not a good sign. Give me some feedback about what is shown in the video.

These are supposed to be some of the bridges entered in the Calgary Pedestrian competition. The pictures show some pretty exotic structures. Mine will look a little plain compared to these designs but I’m pretty sure mine can be built for the money.

The thread is suggesting that all the designs will be posted next week.

Quick Update: Looking at the bridges entered into the Chicago competition below, I see a number of designs that could be used on the Calgary St. Patricks bridge site. I wonder if old designs are recycled into new competitions?

Bridging the Drive was a competition in Chicago (2005) for four new pedestrian bridges near the lakefront. This summary page gives a good overview of the entrants and how they presented their ideas. I think it is interesting that sketches were used, while today I would imagine photo-realistic images would be dominant.

I also think it is interesting that the winners were not the best know architects/engineers.

Here is a link to a paper concerning recommendations for improving a civil engineer’s aesthetic designs.

Notable quote:

Since almost all the members had no experience in creating an entry for competitions, they drew one ordinary-looking bridge. In addition, they had a tendency to use a drawing to express the idea. On the other hand, those who had experienced competitions had a number of novel ideas and used a perspective drawing technique or three-dimensional (3D) computer graphics to express the idea.

I just received the book “101 Things I learned in Architecture School“, by Matthew Frederick. It is a small book with one design idea on every page. I think it is worth the 10 bucks I spent on it, but it would have been better as a gift!

A couple of concepts I liked,

• If you can’t explain your ideas to your grandmother in terms that she understands, you don’t know your subject well enough.
• A good designer isn’t afraid to throw away a good idea.

One I didn’t like (it may be true)

• An Architect knows something about everything. An engineer knows everything about one thing.

Send me a note if your have a good book recommendation.

Just some more random thoughts about entering a design competition.

First, I would like some instant feedback. Maybe an email saying thanks for submitting, we will let ya know how its going in a couple of weeks. (if you get an email, let me know, that could be a bad sign f or me) Maybe we should get a tweet!

I also wonder if my submittal was “complete” enough to be considered. I’m not sure in my rush to get my design in, whether it met all the criteria exactly. I would hate to get disqualified because I forget something.

I know the city representatives have broad leeway in what they can accept and I would imagine it is politically easier to take all entrants instead of disqualifying anyone. (I hope.)

I also would like to keep working on my design and I would like to meet with the public to explain my idea. I would like to meet with all the other entrants to discuss why/how our concepts came to be. (My design was about 50% finished when I submitted it. It has an overall sculptural/structural idea but I still need to smooth all the rough edges.)

Other things that need work are entrance/exit gateways, lighting, paving, and even landscaping. (Is this stuff included in the $25 million budget or is just the bridge?)

The last thing I would like, is to do more of these, with the provision that I get to actually design my concept!

After viewing this video showcasing the master building plan for Calagry, by CMLC, I want a do-over on my bridge design (ha). I still like my design but the video gives some great hints on what they envision for the area. I would have tried to incorporate some of them and highlight how my design would fit into their plan.

I wonder if this was local knowledge? It is one of the advantages of being there.

I should have read this too.