  Kpm Member Username: Kpm Post Number: 9 Registered: 08-2005 |
I just received the October 2006 issue of STRUCTURE magazine in the mail, and it features a huge cover photo and a nice 4-page article on the recent blue-football-arch bridge on I-94 over Telegraph in Taylor. Apparently the bridge won an outstanding project award from the NCSEA (National Council of Structural Engineers Association) Excellence in Structural Engineering National Awards program last month, and includes a laundry list of features that make it structurally a very unique bridge. See the magazine’s cover: http://structuremag.org/ Or, the article and numerous photos: http://structuremag.org/archiv es/2006/Oct-2006/F-TiedArchBri dge-Kasi-Oct06.pdf ========================== While we often question whether the bridge was the right allocation of money, it is good to see this local project hailed in the national spotlight as a success on many levels. And, the photos in the article make the bridge look extremely impressive. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2920 Registered: 08-2004 |
Wow! Lots of folks on this forum didn't care for it. But maybe now they'll give it a 2nd look... especially now that we know more about its' characteristics, as well as its' uniqueness. Nice to know that we at least have some innovation here. I wonder if John Gallagher will mention it in the Freep? | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 122 Registered: 10-2005 |
I'm one of those closet people who actually like the Gateway Bridge. Good to see it finally get some positive national and professional recognition. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 246 Registered: 04-2006 |
Only thing I did not like about this project was the footballs (too gimicky). Otherwise it makes the whole interchange perform better and look better. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 247 Registered: 04-2006 |
Only thing I did not like about this project was the footballs (too gimicky). Otherwise it makes the whole interchange perform better and look better. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1370 Registered: 11-2003 |
Back when they were announcing plans for the bridge, I thought it was a dumb idea, building an arched bridge over another road. But I have to admit that it turned out really well. It has a unique, cohesive look, with the "football" mini-arches matching the long arches of the bridge. And the cables are actually functional! Thumbs up. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1371 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yeah, I agree that the "football" theme tied to the Super Bowl was kind of cheesy, and I'd have preferred not to know that that was the inspiration for those shapes. But they look good!  | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1372 Registered: 11-2003 |
 | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2147 Registered: 02-2005 |
Pork barrel legislation at its finest. A sixth grader could tell you that. It may have an appealing design, but since it is not functional and not neccesary, does it really deserve honors? | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 679 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yes, that particular design was not necessary, but it *is* functional. Each structural member serves a purpose; although looks were factored into it, there aren't any pieces tacked on solely for looks. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 248 Registered: 04-2006 |
This was not pork barrelled. Funding for this came from regular transportation funding. This was done as a part of an overall reconstruction of I-94, not as a stand alone bridge project. Not functional? Tell that to the people in Taylor who now have berms between their house and the freeways. Tell that to those who now use the interchange that had the dengrous internal weave of only a couple hundred feet where traffic was entering then exiting the freeway! I am willing to bet that once the data comes out you will be able to see a marked decrease in annual crashes at this intersection. How is a decrease in crashed not functional? Why is it better to have all of the costs of these accidents borne not only on those who suffer the injuries, the loss of capital, or the grief of having to get the car repaired? What about the societal costs to better functioning roads? Less crashes = less congestion, better on-time performance for goods to market, less time devoted by police and rescue to respond to crashes.... (Message edited by Detroitplanner on October 10, 2006) | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 221 Registered: 08-2006 |
I like the bridge. What's the point of it, was it a desperately needed structure? Also, I remember hearing about a new bridge crossing the Detroit river on the south side of the city for 401 expressway in Canada. Are they going through with those plans, have they done a sketch of the new bridge? | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 207 Registered: 01-2006 |
A new crossing is going to happen at some point, but the Ambassador Bridge dude is going to do everything he can to stall it as long as possible. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2004 |
The arches were fully paid for with private money so I'm not sure how a 6th grader would consider this pork barrel legislation... Also, this project wasn't created specifically to build the bridges for the Super Bowl, but to realign I-94 and create a safer interchange between Telegraph and I-94. The overpasses would have been rebuilt anyway, and it was only after private money was donated that they decided to build the iconic arches. It's funny how people in Metro Detroit bitch about how our region is so far behind the rest of the country but then bitch about the cost of anything that would even remotely progress us in that direction. If you don't want to spend money to create a better region than stop bitching about how backwards our region is. | ||
Malcovemagnesia Member Username: Malcovemagnesia Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2005 |
I haven't read TFA yet, but from what I remember the bridge deck looks like pretty much any other newer standard-style bridge over I-94. To my untrained eyes, the arches appear to not be load bearing and instead just glorified bells & whistles. No doubt the article refutes this. Oh well. It sure looks nice! (Message edited by MalcoveMagnesia on October 10, 2006) | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 224 Registered: 08-2006 |
"It's funny how people in Metro Detroit bitch about how our region is so far behind the rest of the country but then bitch about the cost of anything that would even remotely progress us in that direction. If you don't want to spend money to create a better region than stop bitching about how backwards our region is." Hudkina's right, the bridge is pretty cool. Young and artistic people seem to be leaving Detroit, and this is just something cool. I'm not saying one bridge is going to turn everything around, but the fact that they would have an open mind and build this cool bridge is a good sign. I definately hope the city and state do more things to keep roads from just being ugly concrete fields that cris-cross metro Detroit. Good post Hudkina. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 250 Registered: 04-2006 |
Hudkina's right!!! I totally forgot about the contributions from the businsess owners on Telegraph to this project. If I am not mistaken a couple of million of private funds were used to offest the decorative parts of the project. To those who say that it was not needed, the road was 50 years old and the bridges needed to be replaced. The average lifespan on a freeway overpass is 30 years. No kidding, they bitch because the are looks like sprawlsville, then they bitch because we build things unique to the region. I guess some people just like to bitch! | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 142 Registered: 11-2004 |
You definitely need to read the story. Check out the picture on the top of page 3. That looks like a standard-style bridge deck???? | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2148 Registered: 02-2005 |
Even if it somehow is load-bearing, why did we need this flamboyant design to build a bridge over a road? Another thing that needs to be cleared up is that this bridge is not in Detroit. It is solidly on suburban territory, and one can clearly tell that I-94 was completely redone before the Super Bowl starting from the Detroit line. It wasn't funded completely by private dollars, and thus it was a government expenditure that shouldn't have been made. If stuff like this can stop the flight of the "creative class," then we better start building a bunch more all over our flat wasteland of an area. This bridge does not "make us a better area." More jobs and less suburban sprawl would make us better, though. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 143 Registered: 11-2004 |
Span length. 264 feet. You can't span that intersection with a normal bridge design. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 3091 Registered: 10-2003 |
I am another fan of the bridge. Travelers arriving at DTW and going downtown are treated to a creative greeting to Detroit rather than a boring continuous flip of billboards only punctuated by the big wheel. We need to project an image of adventurousness and innovation and this helps. I am a balanced-budget believing fiscal conservative, but I don't believe public work projects have to be soviet-style purely functional and cost minimalized structures. Otherwise we end up with the dreary gray look I remember seeing in East Germany before the wall came down. IMO, this is money well spent that will pass along its intangible benefits for decades. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 260 Registered: 04-2006 |
Mack, the bridges that were there needed to be replaced, as did the adjacent roadway. Therefore an expenditure of public funds collected for the public good had to be made. They did have the option of rebuilding it the way it was, but the old interchange design was very dangerous with left lane entrance, then exit some hundred feet from one another. The new bridge was needed to facilitate the SPUI design of the interchange (Single Point Urban Interchange). Would you have rather seen this money be used to help widen roads at the edge of the urban area? | ||
Rrl Member Username: Rrl Post Number: 669 Registered: 12-2003 |
One comment about the bridge after passing under it at night; it should be lit in some way. At night it all but disappears. Some dramatic uplighting into the arches would be pretty sweet. Why only get the visual impact for half the day? While its not my absolute favorite bridge, I do like it's uniqueness, and dittoing Lowell's thoughts, some creativity into our built environment is a long overdue concept. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2026 Registered: 12-2004 |
What? Was it the only nominee?
I've given it a 2nd look. And a 3rd. And a 4th. And a 5th. It's still just as ugly as it was the 1st time. The fact that they call this thing the "Gateway to Detroit" only infurates me. In my opinion, that's like dumping a load of tiolet paper along the British countryside and calling it the "Gateway to London". Let's be real and call it the "Blue Ugly Tinker Toys of Taylor". (BUTTT for short).
Are you kidding me??? The fact that you can't see it at night is its most endearing feature. | ||
Rrl Member Username: Rrl Post Number: 673 Registered: 12-2003 |
So what do you really think Frank?? (I can appreciate the BUTTT acronym though!) | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2030 Registered: 12-2004 |
LOL! I'm glad you at least appreciate the acronym. |
