Columbia River Crossing – Aesthetics in the News


Metroblogging Portland pointed out an article in today’s Oregonian about the constraints a new bridge design will face when it comes to elevation and appearance:

Limits offer ‘no poetry’ for I-5 bridge

Vertical constraints for a new Columbia span could mean a simple, flat design

Some of the region’s political leaders have said yes. They want a new Interstate 5 span not only to cross the Columbia River, connecting Portland and Vancouver, but also to be worthy of a postcard, showcasing a world-famous river at the border of two states bent on sustainability. Perhaps it could soar like Portland’s Fremont Bridge or even San Francisco’s Golden Gate.

But under the first round of plans, the new bridge will be a flat concrete slab.

The article goes into detail about the reasons why the bridge must be constrained to a narrow 75′ band of airspace. But one thing not given significant mention is an issue of cost: Would removal of those constraints result in a less expensive structure? Would alternative span designs with more visual impact cost more or less than current plans?

Of course, no matter what kind of bridge they build, it couldn’t possibly be as plain and ordinary as the transition along I-5 between Oregon and California. :-)


36 responses to “Columbia River Crossing – Aesthetics in the News”

  1. Why must the bridge “look purdy” instead of simply being functional?

    What is the benefit to transportation needs for a bridge that “looks purdy”?

    Pearson Field isn’t going anywhere (I thought preservation of historical sites was also a regional priority) and commercial barge shipping on the Columbia isn’t going anywhere (I thought environmentally-friendly freight shipping was a regional priority) so the bridge is going to be flat.

    And there’s nothing wrong with it. If Commissioner Sam wants a “purdy bridge” he is welcome to hold a fundraiser to pay for the difference. Looking at the Sellwood Bridge website, the “purdy bridge” designs all cost more, and offer little if any benefit.

  2. Al though I am not an engineer by profession I have had a certain amount of experience with busting up concrete. I wonder how much inertial resistance to up and down notion those large sections of concrete will have in a Richter 8-9 earthquake?

  3. I don’t know what a purdy bridge is, in fact my spell checker doesn’t recognize it either, so I looked it up. Apparently it is: “a non-alacholic drink made with spices and herbs.” Yes, I agree, if anyone wants a purdy bridge, they should have to pay extra for it…

    But back to the topic, I don’t want an ugly bridge because it would be ugly. When things are ugly people tend dislike them, and that has both short and long term consequences. Getting funding for an ugly bridge is a lot harder than a attractive one in the first place, (Okay, I do want an ugly bridge, cause I don’t like the project at all, but that is a different problem.) Likewise when something looks nice, people make an effort to preserve it, where as when it looks ugly and 40 years from now it is starting to show it’s age, everyone is going to be in favor of tearing it down and building something new. In the very long term, ugly bridges are probably more expensive than attractive ones because people want to tear them down instead of maintain them. However, there is a much simpler reason to make it attractive: a lot of tourists will see the bridge on their way into town, (either by car, or out of the plane window as they are landing,) and if it is ugly bridge, they will think that Portland is an ugly city, and they won’t bother to visit again. If it is attractive, maybe they’ll come visit again, or tell their friends to visit, and all those dollars will probably pay for the difference in prices between the attractive and unattractive options…

    But it is all kind of premature: the article doesn’t mention the price differences anyways. If it is an extra couple million to make it attractive vs unattractive, that is very different than an extra couple billion.

  4. I’d like to see the new road bridge span built with the light rail span on hold.
    Of course a public vote would be best to make the decision.

  5. Well, you see, the people who can afford flying as a hobby have something you and I ain’t got- money.

    But, gimme a break- an airfield as a part of the Fort Vancouver historical site? Did I just sleep through the part where Lewis and Clark arrived in an airplane? And as for the part about the airfield having been there since 1905, that’s some pioneering airfield, considering the Wright Brothers made their first 300-foot flight in about 1901.

    All part of the careful and considered process by which public decisions are made, and private airplane owners always get their subsidized airfields and navigational aids.

  6. Er, just because the bridge wont have a high suspension span doesn’t mean it cant be attractive. Perhaps we can put an innovative architect on the job and they will come up with something appealing and within project constraints. To say it has to look one way or the other to be pretty is small thinking.

  7. serial catowner: (From http://www.pearsonairmuseum.org/history.html)

    Vancouver’s Pearson Field is one of the nation’s oldest operating airfields. Aviation first came to Vancouver in 1905, when Lincoln Beachey flew from Portland in a lighter than air craft and landed on the polo field at the Vancouver Army Barracks. Continuous fixed wing aviation made its debut in 1911, and the facility, dedicated as Pearson Field in 1925, played host to a number of aviation milestones over the years.

    The fact they’ve seen continuous fixed wing aviation for 97 years I think qualifies it as historic.

  8. If it is an extra couple million to make it attractive vs unattractive, that is very different than an extra couple billion.

    And I want to welcome you to contribute to the “Make the Interstate Bridge Pretty” fund.

    Donations are accepted at Commissioner Sam’s Office, City Hall, Portland. You’re also welcome to contribute to the “Let’s build more Streetcars” fund, the “Safe and Green Bikeways” fund, and the “Developers Special Interests” fund. (And if anyone proposes another Tram to nowhere, there’ll be a “Build the New Tram – it’s Portland’s Space Needle” fund.)

    Meanwhile, the rest of us who simply pay taxes for services we need will rest knowing that our taxes are being used in an efficient and effective manner, free from special interests and distractions.

  9. I would like to add that there is a very real benefit to making structures that we as a society can be proud of.

    Building structures that we a proud to call our own, that we love to show people who visit our community, that we feel a part of, that make a valuable visual stimulus in our otherwise normal lives.

    We all too often take the “cheapest up front” version of a structure. And what that means is that the structure is purely functional, and as such is not appreciated or even really acknowleged. It just “is”.

    When thousands of people a day will use the bridge, the psychological impact of something aesthetically pleasing that they pass through every day could have an enormous benefit to society as a whole.

    People are emotional animals. People have feelings and opinions and all of that stuff – all of which can be touched by a wonderful structure.

    And if you are looking at economic benefit – compare the Golden Gate bridge to the Glen Jackson bridge. Which one do you think has the best benefit to the local economy? Both deliver cars across the water… But one is a cultural icon, and one is a virtual unknown.

    Once we as a community start having pride in our structures, we start to have pride in our city, and that makes for an overall better place to live. But if everything is purely functional, no one really even cares if they are here or somewhere else.

    Why bother to spend the money to build it if you can’t be proud of it?

  10. Why bother to spend the money to build it if you can’t be proud of it?

    I’d love a beautiful bridge, but only if there’s a way to keep Pearson Field open (which I’ve never used, but I’ve gone out of my way to get a look at it and read up on it), and keep the Columbia open (too important to the local economy, environment, etc), and eliminate the lift-span.

  11. Isn’t the bridge a historic structure too? Nobody seems to by lobbying to preserve the bridge based on it’s history, and I suspect, (unlike Pearson Field,) that it looks a lot like it did the day it was built…

  12. “And if you are looking at economic benefit – compare the Golden Gate bridge to the Glen Jackson bridge. Which one do you think has the best benefit to the local economy? Both deliver cars across the water… But one is a cultural icon, and one is a virtual unknown.”

    The design of the Golden Gate bridge was an elegant way to span a very active shipping channel–but its elegance has nothing to do with how much use it gets. And I don’t think we want to have a very high traffic level on the CRC. That would just funnel more and more traffic into Central Portland and provoke a lengthy chain of expensive freeway projects. Better to open up a third route in the west area of Portland and leave the present I-5 bridges alone, except to improve their seismic safety. Reconfiguring the crossing in the BNSF corridor will resolve the dangerous shipping channel path we now have and provide a significant relief valve for congestion on the I-5

  13. An ugly bridge will cost us our collective souls. One can already argue the US has one of the ugliest built environments in the industrialized world.

  14. Speaking of historic landmarks (loosely), a new “movement” is afoot in Clark County to prevent any CRC transit proposals from impacting the “iconic Dairy Queen” on Main St.

    From the Columbian:

    Shumway: ‘Save Our Queen’

    “It’s a cornerstone of our neighborhood, and it’s also a cornerstone of the community,” said Shumway resident Anne McEnerny-Ogle. “It’s a heartbreak.”

  15. I thought light rail projects built communities, not destroyed community landmarks…???

    I’m confused.

    Oh, and speaking of Pearson Field, this little tidbit was located on the Portland Mall’s website:

    History of the Portland Mall
    Portland: the city of transit “firsts”

    Here in Portland we have a long tradition of discovering better ways to get from here to there. For example, the nation’s first interurban electric streetcar system began here in 1893, connecting Portland and Oregon City. And the first flight of US airmail service commenced from Portland to Vancouver in 1912.

  16. Many people think all the light rail-steeetcar wires and increasing congestion are the ugliest things around.
    Give us a new beautiful bridge like the Glenn Jackson, or several, and more ways to move traffic.

  17. To say there is no value in a purdy bridge is simplistic and pure ignorance. Imagine if we took this attitude in everything we did – our buildings would all be communist-era brutal block buildings, we wouldn’t bother with street trees, brick sidewalks, or parks, our entire world would be a craphole.

    I’d like to think there are attractive alternatives given the constraint. If not, leave the bridges as they are now – they may be only basically functional, but we’re better off with only what we have – which passes the likeability test and so will survive – than a poorly designed project that the next generation will rip out as quickly as they can. We may as well dump $4B cash into the river itself.

  18. To say there is no value in a purdy bridge is simplistic and pure ignorance.

    The argument isn’t the “value” of a purdy bridge.

    The argument is that there are a select few individuals/groups that are hijacking a transportation project by loading it with expensive design elements that add nothing (if not remove from) the functional aspects of the bridge, and add substantial costs to the project.

    If you want purdy, pay for it. Donations are being taken at Commissioner Sam’s office. Just as my employer is required (by the Public Utilities Commission) to provide service at the lowest cost possible – and we provide the OPTION for those who want more “green power” to pay for it themselves – the same should be true of transportation projects. If you want purdy you can choose to buy special license plates and make an annual payment towards beautification, while those who want “basic service” can pay “basic service” costs.

    And if there are tolls on the bridge, anyone who chooses the special license plates will automatically pay twice the toll.

  19. People who want public infrastructure to look nice are a “select few” “hijackers”, really?

    Have you looked at the maps and renderings? The scope of this thing is enormous … some of the interchanges themselves will be multiple times wider than the current freeway + current interchanges, and it goes right through parkland and historic sites.

    All the article pointed out was that there are those who want the aesthetics of this examined. Doesn’t sound like a hijacking to me.

  20. People who want public infrastructure to look nice are a “select few” “hijackers”, really?

    Bob, I’d agree with you except for one small, itsy bitsy problem.

    I don’t see these same people investing billions of dollars to “pretty” up TriMet’s bus system.

    I don’t see these same people demanding TriMet go 100% hybrid electric AND do it within five years (thus making the environment more “pretty”).

    I don’t see these same people demanding TriMet’s bus stops, stations and transit centers be made asthetically pleasing and welcoming.

    I don’t see these same people calling for a design competition to make a “pretty” bus.

    What I do see are people who hold up ONE massive but necessary project for “beautification”, but then turn around and demand that another necessary project (that they simply don’t “like”) get short-changed left and right. I would agree with them, if every project were subjected to the same rules. But so long as we will overspend on one transportation project and demand another be subjected to deferred maintenance and disinvestment, I will call that a “hi-jack”.

    It’s because my dollars that I put in a TriMet bus farebox are being hijacked (look up the word if you don’t believe me) to go somewhere I don’t want to go – a “pretty” light rail bridge to somewhere that TriMet, by state and federal law – shouldn’t go.

  21. …a “pretty” light rail bridge to somewhere that TriMet, by state and federal law – shouldn’t go.

    Unless they enter into contract with C-Tran to cover those areas with their light rail.

    Kind of like how C-Tran can operate buses into Portland. Or would you prefer that people have to transfer by walking across the Interstate Bridge?

  22. What I do see are people who hold up ONE massive but necessary project for “beautification”,

    A. Although I agree that the current bridges require (at the very least) expensive upgrades, there is no evidence that the CRC proposal is any more “necessary” or effective than supplemental arterial crossings.

    B. Who is “holding up” this project? It seems to be going forward according to schedule. This is the time for those involved to have input on the shape and scope of the project. There is nothing to suggest this project is being held up at all.

    I would agree with them, if every project were subjected to the same rules.

    So does that mean you’re unwilling to form alliances where there is common ground, simply because you perceive certain groups of people as being opposed to your other ideas? Strategy-wise that can be advantageous, but only if you believe your “opponents” will become even more formidable enemies if strengthened by the outcome of your temporary alliance. Otherwise, you’re just working against your own interests.

    somewhere I don’t want to go – a “pretty” light rail bridge to somewhere that TriMet, by state and federal law – shouldn’t go.

    When did this become just about a light rail bridge? Last time I checked, the project had 10 to 12 auto lanes and multiple interchange rebuilds as well.

    Or are you saying it’s OK to make the auto bridge “pretty” but not an accompanying light rail bridge?

    (As an aside, does anyone know what happened to the Transit in a Box proposal?)

    Erik, can you tell us which laws preclude transit from the Portland metro area from operating in Washington? Are these laws that you support? What would have to change to allow transit from Portland metro to serve Washington?

  23. Further –

    I don’t see these same people demanding TriMet’s bus stops, stations and transit centers be made aesthetically pleasing and welcoming.

    I’ve gone to dozens of public meetings where I’ve tried to convince TriMet and related entities to preserve the level of amenities we once had on the transit mall.

    (It was ultimately a losing battle. In addition to my posts here, I managed to get a couple of articles in the paper, and a reasonable degree of support on the CAC, but there just wasn’t sufficient public interest in maintaining transit amenities on the mall. As a result, there will be only about half as much shelter area per passenger, and less protection from wind and rain, when the mall reopens. I know you were here and following those discussions back at the time when a difference could have been made. Did you show up?)

    I have written to local businesses and TriMet to suggest shelters at locations where it is clear they would be of great benefit to riders and the businesses themselves. The businesses did not respond (beyond a boilerplate “receipt of letter” response), and there are still no shelters.

    So, even though you have dismissed me in the past as “clearly biased” against buses, I have in fact lobbied as a citizen in favor of better bus service and facilities.

    So, I appreciate your frustration.

    But I don’t see how you can leap from there to the conclusion that those who would like for the new bridge to be aesthetically pleasing (subjective, I know, but not unachievable) as somehow unworthy of support because bus service, to your assessment, has been ignored.

    Reach for allies, Erik, please.

  24. In the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s, the federal government built roads with the “fastest, widest, cheapest” motto. Of course, these roads were (still are in some cases) plagued with safety problems, and destroyed and harmed the communities through which they passed on a staggering scale. Cities were drained of vitality, neighborhoods – largely minority and disadvantaged – were bulldozed, splintered, and overshadowed – all at enormous social and economic long-term cost. But, the highway engineers built them and they did it cheaply. Of course, we all paid in other ways – crime, health, environment, and far-reaching social and economic damage.

    The impact of infrastructure quality is very different from power generation, so comparing the two tells us little.

    So, to take the approach that Erik is advocating – and I assume this would apply to any transportation project, not just the CRC – would seem to disregard the lessons of six decades of social history.

    It is also counterproductive to the cause – communities stopped many highway projects, in part because the ones that had been built were done so sloppily, destroying the community’s values. The best way to kill a road project is a poorly-conceived design.

    And this suggestion that those who support the aesthetics should ante up is a false argument. We’re not talking about the costs of planting a few trees here. This is real money. If we can’t afford to do it right, we shouldn’t be doing it, period. Of course, with constrained resources, there are rational limits to work within, but the need for a process is real.

  25. They should build something very beautiful and if the “height restriction” becomes more of an issue then relocate that miniscule airport somewhere else.

  26. I’m reminded of another bridge/airport fight a while back. The Portland Airport, (which used to be on Swan Island,) wanted the St Johns bridge painted yellow with black stripes. Everyone else wanted it to be green. Fortunately for us, the airport lost that battle…

    The pictures I’ve seen so far are ugly, but I do have to realize that they could always make it uglier…

  27. They should build something very beautiful and if the “height restriction” becomes more of an issue then relocate that miniscule airport somewhere else.

    While we’re at it, let’s relocate all of Fort Vancouver (it’d provide a large area to build a new freeway interchange), the McLoughlin House (for a Park & Ride Lot), Champoeg State Park (to build a freeway from I-5 to Newberg and McMinnville), and Fort Clatsop (for an expensive condo development).

    I believe that the City of Vancouver owns Pearson Field, and has zero interest in relocating it. It is also a federally designated National Historic Landmark, so it’ll take an act of federal law to move it.

    Let’s move on…

  28. Unit: Indeed it was. I think the bridge should remind everyone of police line tape. Complete with “RESTRICTED AREA KEEP OUT” on big signs over the bridge itself.

  29. Here, I was bored, so I thought I should mock up what that would look like:
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2304/2261347331_339fd8d582_o.jpg
    Don’t forget, it is all in the name of safety. We can’t do too much to make sure that we save people’s lives.

    (And how come all the images that they’ve created of this bridge are from the Vancouver side? Are they pretty much admitting that Portlanders don’t really care about this bridge?)

  30. I believe that the City of Vancouver owns Pearson Field

    From http://www.cityofvancouver.us/pearson.asp?menuid=10465&submenuid=19252

    The airport is operated by the City of Vancouver, Washington, which owns 61.8 acres of the 134.4-acre airport site. The remaining 72.6 acres are owned by the National Park Service and lie within the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. Pearson Field is the only airport in the U.S. that operates totally within the boundaries of a national historic reserve.

    If wrecking Pearson is the answer, who’s asking the question? This is a very historic location in our own backyard, and we’re ready to sacrifice it? Why was SE so important when the Mt Hood Freeway came up then?

  31. Matthew: nice work there. I hope you are actively participating in the aesthetics committee so you can present this stunning idea.

    Dave, as to your question, I think it’s a stretch to compare a historic landing strip used by a few with the 1,750 homes (many historic) and numerous businesses slated for demolition by Mt. Hood Freeway, not to mention the far-reaching damage to the neighborhood that would have accompanied it.

    For comparative purposes, in 2003 Chicago ripped out its historic lakefront airfield (in spite of spirited state and special interest opposition) in order to reclaim its lakefront. The difference here seems to be that Vancouver wants to keep its airfield.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field

  32. This isn’t just another River you are crossing. its the mighty Columbia–the life blood of the pacific northwest.

Leave a Reply to John E. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *