6th Street Study Expands List of Considered Design Options
Eric Richardson
[Flickr]
This cable-stay replacement for the 6th street bridge was recommended by staff in February.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — After their suggested cable-stay design got a cold reception at a community meeting, the team working on the 6th Street Bridge project is preparing to present two new designs, one of which would recreate the historic span.
At the February meeting of the project's advisory group, critics of the cable-stay alternative were vocal in claiming that the project team had ignored community sentiment in choosing their preferred alternative.
The 1933 structure, one of a dozen historic bridges to cross the Los Angeles river as it passes through Downtown, suffers from a condition called Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR). Described as "cancer," ASR combines with moisture to crumble concrete from the inside.
As part of the current project, the City has commissioned a wide range of experts to assess whether the current bridge could be saved, but reports continue to say that retrofit options would only slow the damage and would destroy much of the look of the structure.
At a February meeting of the project's Community Advisory Committee (CAC), City Engineer Gary Moore told a full room that he felt the cable-stay design would have "wow factor." He defended the design against critics, saying that "We had to make a decision. I'm very excited about the decision."
It seems that outcry may have led the team to back down from that choice. In an invitation sent out last week to CAC members, Project Manager Jim Wu revealed that two new options were back on the table.
Your comment and concerns at the previous CAC meeting (CAC No. 8) were considered by the project development team (PDT). The PDT is adding two additional bridge concepts, Replication of the Existing Viaduct, and a 3-Dual Tower Cable supported Viaduct. ... These two bridge type concepts will be re-introduced for further study, as options for the replacement alternative.
Wu told blogdowntown that renderings of the new options were not yet available, but would be presented at the April 8 meeting.
Unlike a previously presented option that reproduced the historic bridge's dual arches while widening spans on either side of it, Wu said that the replication option would now attempt to recreate the same number of spans as the existing bridge. It's unclear whether that would include replicating columns currently situated between the railroad tracks, something engineer Steve Thoman said in February the railroad was opposed to.
Advances in modern technology would make much of a replicated design ornamental. The metal arches would no longer be needed to support what today is a very short span across the river.
In February, the project team had indicated that a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project was complete and would be published shortly. An Executive Summary was distributed at the meeting. That document has not yet been released, likely due to the need to introduce these additional alternatives.
The CAC meeting will take place on April 8 at 6pm at the Boyle Heights Senior Center, 2839 E. 3rd St.
Michael on March 31, 2009, at 04:02PM – #1
The notion that historic details always have to be reproduced is really backward thinking--and leads often to poor choices architecturally. There is a chance here to create something new and exciting, and all everyone seems to want is to preserve the design of the original. Admittedly the original is a wonderful design but since it needs to be replaced, why not replace it with a design that is new and different from the old design--and that moves architecture forward rather than backwards?
Tornadoes28 on March 31, 2009, at 04:09PM – #2
I agree 100% with Michael. Not everything needs to be preserved.
solomon on March 31, 2009, at 08:02PM – #3
Ditto Michael. LA deserves better.
John Crandell on March 31, 2009, at 09:52PM – #4
Yes, something to soar high above the rooftops, all the way from Boyle Heights west to 6th & Mateo! Eliminate that long viaduct. Let's make room to naturalize the riverbed while accommodating the rail lines. Replicating what now exists would prevent greening the river in this sector. THINK about it.
Bridges are only points of passage. This new one could very well symbolize the city's future, rather than it's industrial past.
MarkB on April 01, 2009, at 09:47AM – #5
Were the 6th Street bridge the only bridge, I'd agree with the other people commenting. However, 6th Street is one of several bridges in a short distance. All the other bridges share a design language, so I think the new bridge should be a good neighbor and adopt the same language, even if it be ornamental.
trixiegal on April 01, 2009, at 10:11AM – #6
I agree with MarkB. There's no reason why we can't have a bridge that continues the design of the existing bridges along the river, and that also provides room for the naturalization of the riverbed.
wac on April 01, 2009, at 06:03PM – #7
I agree with all the commenters above. In the end, this "recreation" has no authentic historic value and creates just another Disneyland fantasy. Ironically, since we won't be able to tell which bridges are truly historic and which are "recreated", it will leave no true meaning to any of them. In Europe, all new construction projects (bridges and buildings) are contemporary. Instead of destroying the character of a place (as is always claimed in the U.S.), they create exciting places that embrace the future but highlight and dignify the past.