Dion on September 13, 2012, at 05:46PM – #1

All three are very solid, however my favorite is the HNTB proposal. There is a better, close up rendering out there, you should post that

John G on September 13, 2012, at 08:41PM – #2

HNTB - As Dion points out, there is a very nice rendering of the HNTB bridge design. The rendering I saw has arches that fan out high up in the air from street level views (especially from the 5 fwy). Pretty impressive. Only downside perhaps IMO is that the multiple arches cluster one's viewpoint from a distance.

AECOM - Nice solid structure with the golden sculpture accents along the centerline. The pedestrian and bike bridge with the skyline view makes this one my choice.

PARSONS - LA.STREETS.BLOG.ORG has a nice model of this design. Also very nice and I like how it engages the LA River.

No matter which architecture gets chosen, my only concern is how will the Los Angeles City Council promote sustainable development of this place? What I mean by sustainable is how will this bridge be utilized for its best use without following the footsteps of degradation like its former predecessor.

Dreaming big is nice, but when we are talking about $400 million for this new bridge, there better be a VISION for this well. I would like to see what other ground areas this bridge can engage to, like Parson's bridge access to the LA River. Is there any possible future development for residential, commercial, or retail near the periphery of this bridge? I ask this because if we expect people to walk and bike along this bridge, there better be a need for it. Traversing along the entire bridge just for fun or excercise will have its followers, but for any future bridge to become alive, there needs to be a "push" or "pull" to have people enter and exit this bridge.

The way I see it, a new bridge itself is only one side of the equation. How the design (or future planning) engages the bridge's surrounding environment is the other side of the equation. It's like a shiny new sword, its only as good as the person using it. Let's hope this new bridge will be the catalyst for further development that will offer the best functional and recreational use of this transit corridor.

zeMinimalist (@zeMinimalist) on September 13, 2012, at 08:51PM – #3

I haven't seen any other photos. So based on the above 3 photos, it's hard to tell since all are of a different angle engaging different emotions, regardless of the actual design of the bridge. But despite the worst photo of the 3 (view from the birds, not humans), I'd have to agree with the others and say I like HNTB.

Jim Shafer on September 13, 2012, at 10:01PM – #4

Why isn't Santiago Calatrava part of this competition, especially since the HNTB and Parsons entries seem to be so inspired by his work? With regards to the AECOM entry, please don't build it!

SgB on September 14, 2012, at 07:00AM – #5

Ugg, none of them, I'd like a bridge over the LA River to look like a bridge over the LA river. The existing style of turn of the century architecture is awesome. These new ones look like every other chrome and steel soulless design created by big cities everywhere. Keep LA LA.

IMHO

pauly (@yehster) on September 14, 2012, at 10:25AM – #6

+HNTB for "in-depth" plan for space beneath the bridge. Grove of oak trees? YES, PLEASE.

AECOM- immediate "no, thanks" for using gold pillars. Where are we, ancient Rome?

Parsons... ok... but no shade for pedestrians walking on the bridge. Also, very similar to HNTB's design anyway.

Sean MacGowan on September 16, 2012, at 01:43AM – #7

AECOM's design is the least attractive. Parson's-Brinckerhoff's has a fatal design flaw. HNTB is by far the most memorable. It offers numerous vantage opportunities for pedestrians (shown in another render); they walk up through and over its arches. It would be fun to explore on foot, checking out the high and low points in a quite literal sense. On the other hand, the Parsons' design doesn't pass pedestrian scrutiny. Who want's to walk down the middle of the street? With cars zooming past in both directions, the experience would rival Metro's light rail stations in freeway medians, noisy and confining. Also, it pulls people away from the best views along the bridge's edges. The walkway is little more than a very long ramp to a suspended viewing platform. So much for savoring a stroll along the bridge. It's more like hurry up and get to a retreat.

walter on September 17, 2012, at 10:16AM – #8

Having live in New York I take issue with Sean McGowans analysis of the Parsons Brinkerhoff pedestrian design.

The pedestrian walk in the center of the bridge works fantastically on the Brooklyn bridge and it would in LA as well. It brings foot traffic together instead of splitting them apart on two sides of the bridge. Consider this in the context of the area and its security issues and you may begin to appreciate the the way the 'community' of pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to look out for one another and interact. This is a community connection first and a sightseeing path last, I think the architect knew this and made the right choice.

In the renderings the Parsons bridge also shows connections from the Viaduct portion of the pedestrian path to the areas below via elevators and stairs. This is a huge benefit and another plus with respect to pedestrians and in encouraging development along that strip below.

A Brookly Bridge type pedestrian boulevard is a Fatal design flaw? Only if you are after a tourist attraction that ignores the role this bridge plays in the Boyle Heights community.

John G on September 17, 2012, at 01:04PM – #9

@walter,

You make really good points about connecting the people first instead of splitting off the walk/bike lanes to the sides. Having said that however, the Brooklyn Bridge is much different than the 6th Street Bridge when it comes to their environmental surroundings. In New York, the Brooklyn Bridge spans the East River, a deeper wider river with a steady current; far different than the shallow concrete flood control channel that we call the L.A. River. The destination points are at both ends of this bridge (Brooklyn). The 6th Street Bridge is mainly on land, crossing over two freeways (US 101 & I-5) and several rail tracks. In between these are various locations ripe for potential development. Destination points for this bridge are not exclusively at the ends.

By having walkways and bike lanes at the sides, perhaps this would be more ideal in engaging areas below the 6th Street Bridge along its span. The suface areas below are themselves destinations that people can connect to instead of merely crossing over the bridge just to travel directly to/from L.A. and Boyle Heights.

Again, I do like the idea of a center pedestrian walk, but having it caged in between moving vehicular traffic (based on the Parsons rendering) doesn't promote the engagement of the ground areas below. The key point I feel is important is to utilize the bridge not only as a transit corridor, but a platform to fill the urban void caused by the man-made barriers we created from the freeways, rail tracks, and flood control channel. By doing so, this new bridge will have much more functional use, bring forth more people on this bridge, and become a stronger social/economic link to the surrounding communities.

If I was on the L.A. City Council or Planning Commission, this would be the vision I would push for.

Sean MacGowan on September 17, 2012, at 10:18PM – #10

You captured my sentiment, John G. The greatest opportunity here is to connect to the ground at several points. I went to the meeting at SCI-Arc tonight (It was packed); the presentations provided way more detail. I'm even more convinced that HNTB best integrates the disparate areas. The AECOM concept's lower pedestrian/ bicycle bridge is a tight shared used space with u-turns. Cyclists and u-turns have irreconcilable differences. I don't want to take out some little old lady with my Bianchi on a hairpin. The AECOM architect kept talking about how the bridge is something tourists would send home on postcards. That's kind of underwhelming contextual analysis for me. The Parsons bridge relies on elevators at two points, like AECOM, to reach the industrial area grade. At that point it gets the typical under the bridge treatment, namely concretization. Instead of the space attracting activity in of itself, Parsons is counting on future development and "clean-tech" industry infill to program the space. HNTB is the only design to offer numerous connections between the ground and viaduct deck level. The last question to the panel tonight was, "How does your design address security." AECOM said they could add security cameras. Parsons said their elevators had clear glass. Michael Maltzan with HNTB said they key is a successful bridge, highly used by people along its entire length. Their heads were in the right place.

Ron Yee on September 23, 2012, at 02:20AM – #11

Further to Sean MacGowans several comments, I would like to point out a few inaccuracies regarding the AECOM scheme. The lower suspended walkway is primarily intended as a direct connection between the communities of the warehouse district and the arts district (immediately either side of the railway; & river) and currently not served by the existing bridge. It is not intended as a high speed cyclepath there is provision for one on the main deck. Despite comments to the contrary, the lower walkway is of sufficient width for shared use and does not have pinch points of only 6 feet. Europe has a long tradition of shared use pathways and it requires users to be courteous of others, cyclists are required to decrease their speed and pedestrians are expected not to block the path. The dead turns on the lower walkway are intentional and are designed to encourage cyclists to reduce their speed so that pedestrians are not deterred from using this link. Michael Maltzan is quite right in saying that the best way for a bridge to be successful is for more people to use it. To Encourage this the AECOM scheme has tried to design out any risk that might prevent people from doing so, the bridge is fully accessible and does not have stairs to fall down or elevators to break down! The walkways are well lit and have no blind corners or concealed areas for people to hide - not something that can be said of the other designs. The comment on cameras has been taken out of context and was a response on added measures that the city could take and not something that the design relies on. When commissioning the finalist in July the City set out a number of design objectives in its public presentation, we believe that the AECOM design is the only one that meets all the stated goals.
It's also the only scheme that embraces the fact that that Los Angeles is the City of Angels by abstractly incorporating the theme into the design of the towers. Furthermore by using proven "state of the art" technology just as the existing 6th Bridge was state of the art for its time, the cable supported design will add to the heritage for bridge the LA River.

Accessory Loft on September 23, 2012, at 10:55PM – #12

More highline. Less bi-line.

Jane Mumps on September 26, 2012, at 12:45PM – #13

My concern is that HNTB is extravagant and costly. I believe they won a prior competition in LA but their design was so over the top and way out of budget that a design firm in San Diego was asked to rework the project. Isn't there a lesson here? In addition, I'm not sure what public amenities they are concretely planning - it is very easy to be seduced by the glitz of great-looking boards when there is very little content underneath.

TODOSSOMOSPUTOS (@TODOSSOMOSPUTOS) on September 26, 2012, at 02:30PM – #14

Yes to asking Calatrava!

Los Angeles deserves his caliber of design.

Sarah Hy on October 02, 2012, at 03:34PM – #15

HNTB is the best because of the kid's park. We need more spaces for kids in DTLA.