Maybe we can replace Delaware as the butt of everyone's "most boring area" jokes if we can just keep this kind of thinking alive.
I'm going to try to learn to just let this one go. It's not like I'll be using the damn thing. I'll hardly even see it.
It would be worth 400 million if were more structurally sound, which the arch design might well be.
It matches the I-205 bridge. A perfect set.
I don't really get what's so ugly about it. It's a bridge. It looks like a bridge. It's not part of the skyline, it's not really in anybody's immediate neighborhood, nobody's ever going to see the thing unless they're driving across it or on a boat nearby... Who cares? Anything's gonna look better that what's there now. I don't know why this has to be such a difficult process. It's a piece of functional infrastructure. We don't need a designer bridge, we don't need to wheel in Santiago Calatrava to build us something that looks like a spaceship. Just build a fuckin' bridge!

Y'know that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis a few years back? They replaced it with a new, presumably structurally sound bridge in under a year. Yes, this bridge is bigger, and the process involves a multiplicity of political entities, but honestly, do they want to a new bridge over the Columbia or not? Just build a fuckin' bridge!
I bet they could build the beautiful bridge and have money left if they would just close the existing bridge for about a year to build the new one. I think keeping bridges open during construction (we're talking Broadway) must cost a fortune.

Realistically. most of the cost is in the interchanges, not the bridge. The Oregon interchanges at Marine and Janzen cost a fortune so giant triple trucks can have sweeping curves. So in order to keep the spending even between Oregon and Washington, Vancouver is getting new interchanges that don't need replacing. Costly dirty little secret.
I'm in favor of the one that has the toll booth.
Pretty is good but structurally sound is cooler.
To answer the question at the bottom: no. Besides, "aesthetically beautiful" is opinion. I actually find the second one to be more appealing.
option 4: burn the bridges/stay in the city.
Ferries are very pretty and structurally sound.
The whole thing's been so astoundingly mismanaged that I'm amazed we're getting a bridge of any sort out of it at all.

FWIW, I like the cable-stayed bridge.
@tommy actually lots of people live quite close to the bridge, as witnessed by the fact that building it will involve destroying the only grocery store within miles. Most of those people don't want to see the island they live on overrun by a massive mega bridge. Also where is this 400 million dollar figure coming from, I heard this thing is costing an order of magnitude more than that. I mean for pete's sake they already spent 100 million planning the damn thing.
econoline, you were seeing the entire CRC project costs, which is more than just the bridge. Lots of new interchanges up and down I5.
Is an aesthetically beautiful design worth 60 million? Yes.

Instead we get a gateway to shitville, going both ways. To Vancouver I can understand (sorry vancouver) but to Portland? Ugh.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.