...and/or is it too late to really make any difference even if they do...? I hope not.

Are they ignoring "the community", or just ignoring the mayor? (And given the design constraints involved in the location--is the mayor's desire for more vertical elements even reasonable)?

If I thought Sam were more clever than I think he is, I'd suspect he doesn't want the thing built at all, and is trying to gum up the works. But I don't think Sam's that clever.

I'm sorry, but those salmon pictures are just downright silly.

I enjoy being able to cross rivers on bridges, however, don't insult everyone's intelligence into thinking that that the bridge is paying homage to something that is harming fish more than helping them.

It is what it is (a bridge), it is not helping fish any bit -- so don't put that tacky crap on there in the first place.

Maybe if these salmon "sculptures" were more abstract and it brought attention to salmon and connected people with the river's natural environment, but this is apparently not the case or process taken to develop that concept.

It's like Bonneville decorating its dam with Sea Lion sculptures.

The bridge is also very tacky. There's nothing wrong with simple design that is efficient and cost effective, however, those concrete forms are so brutalist and blocky.

It is all in the eye of the beholder. The primary purpose of the I-5 Columbia River Crossing is to be functional. That requires a wide flat bridge for freeway traffic. In addition to the excessively sized bicycle infrastructure on the CRC and by comparison - if anything should be balked at - it should be the overly expensive less than attractive supposedly artsy cable strayed political monument and streetcar bridge between SoWhat and OMSI, which in reality resembles the usual bad taste of much of the highly touted plop art that litters the streets in Portland.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

i'll say. i think the new trimet bridge proposed is the most attractive bridge to be built anywhere in decades.

i balk at building an unneeded, massively expensive freeway bridge replacing two adequate, structurally sufficient freeway bridges and will do nothing to improve traffic in the corridor.

$4.2 billion vs. $100 million
The CRC project is 42 times the cost of the TriMet Bridge project.

Wah wah wah we're getting an ugly bridge. Wah wah wah.

Glad to see the important issues are being discussed here.

$4.2 billion vs. $100 million
The CRC project is 42 times the cost of the TriMet Bridge project.

Wow. A very valid comparison.

A bridge designed to handle two rail tracks and some pedestrian and bike traffic.

And another bridge that is a key connector on the key west coast transportation corridor, and handles freight, automobile, bus, light rail, pedestrian, and bike traffic.

Gosh. You're right. That is really apples to apples.

Gosh. You're right. That is really apples to apples.

In fairness, it wasn't Jon (to whom you were responding) who brought up the TriMet bridge in the first place, it was Terry.

The CRC design looks like a concrete centipede.

To be fair, this is an improvement from the beached aircraft carrier they designed last time.

Beyond that, there's not a lot of good things to say about it. Peds and bikes are put in a crime-attracting tube with the deafening roar of cars and trucks thundering overhead; the salmon motif is depressingly ironic; drivers will see an ordinary bridge from the top, and the only architectural elements being considered are fake ones?

I am sorry, but for what these consultants are being paid, this is inadequate.

Unit wrote: this is an improvement from the beached aircraft carrier they designed last time.

That's actually a really good idea.

Take a giant hunk of military metal and RECYCLE it for a productive peacetime use.

That is the ultimate in being "green".

http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/ship_disposal_program/Ship_Disposal_Program.htm