Honestly, how can there even be a discussion about spending more money to make a bridge more swoopy? When will these people realize that swoopy applies to our tango dress hemline, to the birds, to the cats chasing the birds, and not to bridge budgets?
For Christ's sake, you can clap your hands in an average rhythm and that will be the rate at which a child dies of malaria in Africa....
30 million plus to be swoopy. I've had a glass of wine, and wondered if maybe some related befuddlement was upon me, but no, I reread the post and indeed, it mentions 29 million to be swoopy.
Honestly, how can there even be a discussion about spending more money to make a bridge more swoopy? When will these people realize that swoopy applies to our tango dress hemline, to the birds, to the cats chasing the birds, and not to bridge budgets?
For Christ's sake, you can clap your hands in an average rhythm and that will be the rate at which a child dies of malaria in Africa....
30 million plus to be swoopy. I've had a glass of wine, and wondered if maybe some related befuddlement was upon me, but no, I reread the post and indeed, it mentions 29 million to be swoopy.
Sarah,
The architect's name is Donald MacDonald, not John MacDonald. You also may want to double-check your notes about what Thomas Hacker said. I think you may have mischaracterized his quote.
-Thomas
And also, this architect is concerned about lipstick when in fact a swooping cable is nothing but lipstick. Except more costly, and it becomes a part of the structure, so maybe it's more like a boob job. I like the lipstick. If cable-stayed is too manly, buy some pretty colored lights and gay it up like they did here:
I know it sounds crazy, but maybe we should just have a structure that gets people from one side of the river to the other without spending tens of millions of dollars on unnecessary bling during the worst economy many of us have ever seen.
and the masses turn on Brian Libby for making idiotic statements about architecture when it doesn't make sense...at all...boy...didn't see that one coming a mile away.
The economy will most likely recover by the end of the year according to most economists. Sometimes we have to take the more spartan idea than the fancy pants idea because it makes more sense. Put people to work now. In a year or two the economy will most likely recover and we can start pissing and moaning about design all we want then. Shovel ready projects folks.
BlackedOut: Huh? This project isn't shovel ready regardless of what the bridge looks like.
And if you look at most of the things built by the government during the Great Depression, you'll note that they weren't spartan, they were quite beautiful. If we are going to build ugly things to put people to work, I'd much rather pay those people to stay home.
99.9% of the people who see and use this bridge couldn't even tell the difference. I barely can, and I've been paying attention. The cable-stayed bridge is not ugly and to insinuate that lighting is "lipstick on a pig" shows just how out of touch people like Mr. Libby are with the real world. I bet a lot of Portlanders, you know, the people who will be paying the bill, have never seen a cable-stayed bridge. $30 million to satisfy the massive architect-ego of a few dozen ivory tower elitists? No thanks.
Keep in mind this is a light rail line, not just a bridge. $30 million might just allow us to extend the thing another mile or 2.
Several years ago they built a new bridge in Tacoma, just noth of I-5 and NE of the Dome. I believe it is a cable-stayed bridge, and I think it looks quite nice. I was trucking in and out od Tacoma at the time & got to watch them build it. Also, the new bridge by Hoover dam is also a cable-stayed design, I think. But, $29 million just to make it swoopy? I dunno.
Can't we just ADD bridge capacity and keep the one we already have? Its steel is rumored to be in an awesome state of repair and the bridge does at least 50% of the job the region needs. Why not simply add a new bridge over or next to it?
Why not TWO new bridges in addition to the old one?
(We need to spend 150,000,000 just on the DEMOLITIONING of our current workhorse bridge.......
wouldn't we have money for a THIRD bridge if we left the old one alone?)
I HATE teardowns of massive structures, deeply, forcefully, and forever. I, like Amy Ruiz, know nothing about planning or sustainability, except that tearing things out is a practice that is coming increasingly into question.
Build the cheaper option. Spend the 30 extra million to remodel Brian Libby's precious Memorial Colesium into a giant Applebees which the Blazers are planning on. Problem Solved.
Or we could never listen to Architects again when it comes to public policy.
Gentorio, you are talking about CRC (Columbia River Bridge). This is Milwaukie light rail (Willamette River Bridge). Apples to oranges comparison...or more accurately, apples to intercontinental ballistic missile comparison.
For Christ's sake, you can clap your hands in an average rhythm and that will be the rate at which a child dies of malaria in Africa....
30 million plus to be swoopy. I've had a glass of wine, and wondered if maybe some related befuddlement was upon me, but no, I reread the post and indeed, it mentions 29 million to be swoopy.
Which is making me feel like puking.
For Christ's sake, you can clap your hands in an average rhythm and that will be the rate at which a child dies of malaria in Africa....
30 million plus to be swoopy. I've had a glass of wine, and wondered if maybe some related befuddlement was upon me, but no, I reread the post and indeed, it mentions 29 million to be swoopy.
Which is making me feel like puking.
The architect's name is Donald MacDonald, not John MacDonald. You also may want to double-check your notes about what Thomas Hacker said. I think you may have mischaracterized his quote.
-Thomas
And also, this architect is concerned about lipstick when in fact a swooping cable is nothing but lipstick. Except more costly, and it becomes a part of the structure, so maybe it's more like a boob job. I like the lipstick. If cable-stayed is too manly, buy some pretty colored lights and gay it up like they did here:
http://webpages.charter.net/g.vassilakos/r…
That'd be very Portland. Anyway the hybrid is probably inefficient for this size span and loading.
The economy will most likely recover by the end of the year according to most economists. Sometimes we have to take the more spartan idea than the fancy pants idea because it makes more sense. Put people to work now. In a year or two the economy will most likely recover and we can start pissing and moaning about design all we want then. Shovel ready projects folks.
And if you look at most of the things built by the government during the Great Depression, you'll note that they weren't spartan, they were quite beautiful. If we are going to build ugly things to put people to work, I'd much rather pay those people to stay home.
Keep in mind this is a light rail line, not just a bridge. $30 million might just allow us to extend the thing another mile or 2.
Can't we just ADD bridge capacity and keep the one we already have? Its steel is rumored to be in an awesome state of repair and the bridge does at least 50% of the job the region needs. Why not simply add a new bridge over or next to it?
Why not TWO new bridges in addition to the old one?
(We need to spend 150,000,000 just on the DEMOLITIONING of our current workhorse bridge.......
wouldn't we have money for a THIRD bridge if we left the old one alone?)
I HATE teardowns of massive structures, deeply, forcefully, and forever. I, like Amy Ruiz, know nothing about planning or sustainability, except that tearing things out is a practice that is coming increasingly into question.
Or we could never listen to Architects again when it comes to public policy.