I emailed a couple of questions to the Four Mile Bridge Competition, but no response yet.
Reading the competition requirements more closely, the steps are.
Submit evidence you have the experience to design a bridge
We will be the judge of that…
Now three of you will get to submit bridge concepts and we will choose the winner.
Obviously this is not exactly the way they phrase it but essentially it is the process they have chosen. How is this a bridge competition, well they will pick from three designs….
My problem with this system is you only get the big players in the competition. I could probably meet the minimum qualifications for the first step but I doubt I could match portfolios for the second step. (How could I best all the work a company like Arup has constructed.)
So you will never see anything but three designs from the three finalists, who were picked based on previous projects and not on their concepts for this competition.
This does not seem like a way to pick a cool bridge. The system is obviously intended to produce a buildable bridge by a proven firm (or team).
I tried to send some questions to the Four mile Run Bridge competition but the question form would not allow enough text….so I figured no one has asked any questions yet. The competition seems a bit opaque to me.
To start with I would like to know:
Potential budget?
Do the power lines have to stay?
Other height restrictions?
Do you want a bridge concept with the submittal of qualifications?
Some time pressures today so just a quick post. Do you agree with these definitions?
What I get when I search the word “engineer” on google.
Engineers are concerned with developing economical and safe solutions to practical problems, by applying mathematics and scientific knowledge while considering technical constraints. The term is derived from the Latin root “ingenium,” meaning “cleverness”
And more to the point, how engineers are treated:
Searching architect:
An architect is trained and licensed in planning and designing buildings, and participates in supervising the construction of a building. Etymologically, architect derives from the Latin architectus, itself derived from the Greek arkhitekton (arkhi-, chief + tekton, builder), i.e. chief builder.
Right now I have about $10 million dollars worth of bridge designs on my desk and none of the bridges have any additional aesthetics. Just your typical utilitarian concrete highway bridges.
When I propose adding a little visual excitement (when the location demands it) I always here the lament, we don’t have the money right now. So my question is, are bridge aesthetics only allowed in the “good” times?
“It will never be the same again,” said Michael A. McCarthy, a partner in Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, one of the largest firms in New York and the nation. “Beginning work in this city in 1964, I’ve had the chance to see a lot of ups and downs. This one, to me, is without a doubt the worst.”
So is it a good time to promote bridges like the two new Calgary pedestrian bridges? Should bridge aesthetics be pursued in good times and bad?
Here is how one architect started drumming up business, by taking it to the streets. I actually wish engineers would speak to the public directly more often. Maybe we need a booth in Washington?
In an article on BLDGBLOG, a discussion about turning old bridges into parks, cultural centers and housing. Starting with the recently remodeled Bay bridge in California.
This has been discussed and discounted on other blogs but the idea seems to have some momentum.
Bay Area architects Ronald Rael and Virginia San Fratello have called for stabilizing the disused – and soon to be entirely dismantled – portion of the Bay Bridge. They would then turn it into a pedestrianized urban park and outdoor sports attraction.
