|
Post by Balfour on Jun 24, 2009 20:46:01 GMT -8
Isn't it the Bridge of the 23 Camels?
I did some drawings for a Hydrographic Survey on that bridge back in January...
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jun 25, 2009 8:10:28 GMT -8
and as far as the Lillooet bridges go, there's another Howe Truss at the Seton dam complex (crosses the canal). There's the old suspension bridge which was built in the early 1900's but is now pedestrian only. The replacement for it is the Bridge of the 23 Camels opened in the late 1980s. Was able to cross that old Lillooet Bridge when driving my Dad around on his business trips. It was a rickety thing and at the time I think limited to just 2 tons at a time. There also is/was another wooden bridge in Lillooet heading north out town. Where the road crosses the Bridge River, it uses a deck howe truss (where the actual truss structure is beneath the road deck). I hopefully plan to get back up there sometime this summer to take pictures of it. It does have a very dramatic location, and if you follow the road, it becomes the infamous highway to Gold Bridge. Last time I was at this bridge it was high summer and there seemed to be quite a convention of what I assumed to be local ranchers at one end of the bridge in very large low four dour cars that Doug would be proud of (the just needed steers horns mounted on their hoods), sporting clothing right off the country music channel. As a Cub Scout we camped in Lillooet and I remember walking out on that bridge. We took the dayliner from North Van, stayed one night and then got rained out by heavy, heavy rain .
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 26, 2009 10:59:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jun 26, 2009 11:11:33 GMT -8
Now there's a hero. The Sir Wilfred Laurier was also the Coast Guard Ship that arrived at the Queen of the North's position to assist with the rescue of crew and passengers. She took them to Prince George. So you're implying that ships can travel on the highway now?
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 26, 2009 11:15:31 GMT -8
Now there's a hero. The Sir Wilfred Laurier was also the Coast Guard Ship that arrived at the Queen of the North's position to assist with the rescue of crew and passengers. She took them to Prince George. You mean Pr. Rupert, Right? My Grandfather worked on that ship until last month when he retired. I actually have a lifejacket that someone wore on the night of the sinking. I have some photos of it on my facebook group: 'Ferries Fan Club'
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 19, 2009 13:52:05 GMT -8
Who made the "Future Rare Sights" thread disappear...? That's where I wanted to post it this. But, anyway, here is a link to the Johnson Street Bridge replacement project. www.johnsonstreetbridge.com/the-project/overview/But I don't have any idea where someone got the notion to put together the incomprehensible sentence stating they plan to replace it with something more aesthetically pleasing. Whoever said that needs to read a dictionary and take a language comprehension course, because they obviously don't know what the word aesthetic means. For one thing, the Johnson Street Bridge has been a long time landmark in Victoria's inner harbour because its location and appearance are pleasing to look at. Just throwing around two or three generic computer generated cable stayed or steel beam spans is in no way imaginable creating something more appealing than an intricate and delicate structure of elevated steel painted that nice baby blue.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 25, 2009 11:38:10 GMT -8
Apparently at a city council meeting last night, they found out they won't be receiving any provincial funding to replace the Johnson Street bridge. Not sure exactly about federal funding. So now, they actually are considering rehabilitating the bridge instead, if they now can't afford to replace it. However, they did choose a preferred design to use for cost studies and such in case they do come up with the funding to go through with the project. That design is a rolling lift type bridge with some interesting looking frills according to concept drawings. News Release Page: www.johnsonstreetbridge.com/the-project/design/
|
|
tom98250
Deckhand
Life doesn't get better than this...
Posts: 85
|
Post by tom98250 on Sept 25, 2009 12:32:57 GMT -8
Not to sound averse to change, but why can't they replicate the design already in place? It's managed to hold up for 85 years...
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 25, 2009 13:49:32 GMT -8
Not to sound averse to change, but why can't they replicate the design already in place? It's managed to hold up for 85 years... Not really... that sort of thing just doesn't enter into the consciousness of most designers anymore. It has to be something new, computer generated, ultra modern built from space age technologies for super efficiency, so it can't possibly be allowed to replicate the design of the new bridge, that just isn't allowable.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Oct 6, 2009 22:24:06 GMT -8
Not a favourite bridge, or even a functional one, but bridge pictures have to go somewhere, and I found this kind of intriguing, for a couple of reasons. For one, it seems odd to me that a major urban industrial area like Mitchell Island would not produce enough traffic to sustain a rail connection. This is the former CP bridge to their south Vancouver line. I've criticized the notion that every bit of urban waterfront has to be a gentrified coffee shop and promenade zone, and I think there is pretty much zero likelihood of Mitchell Island ever going that route. It is an almost unrelieved bastion of grim and grimy busy-ness, of big barrelling rigs, junk yards, and manufacturing. The western end is more landscaped, and there is a tiny park with a south facing view (where you can see a bit of the Queen of The Islands), and on the north side, this slightly incongruous sliver of green with the abandoned rail bridge, still partly crossing the channel. looking across to the north side...
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 15, 2010 21:08:35 GMT -8
Much earlier in this thread a certain Fluge & I were discussing a certain rail turned road bridge near Kicking Horse Pass in eastern BC. The bridge dates from the original construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1884. Here is a link to a colourized version of a post card that shows this bridge in use circa 1890. The bridge shown is the original wooden structure that was replaced by one of steel and stone in ~1895. members.kos.net/sdgagnon/po10.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 26, 2010 18:07:58 GMT -8
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 5, 2010 10:40:31 GMT -8
I was disappointed to hear recently, that the bridge over the Capilano River on Marine Drive is about to be replaced. It's a real disappointment because the old bridge is classic, built out of nice web of steel arching over the river and the roadway. Now they are just going to replace it with something cheap, featureless and flat.
I guess cheapness is as cheapness does when it comes to bridge designs these days, but I think it could also be true that thoughtlessness in design leads to ugliness in reality. When are builders going to realize that, no matter how nicely you dress it in a concept drawing, there is ultimately absolutely no way that flat concrete can ever look nice!
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 5, 2010 18:38:07 GMT -8
They still have some of the old one-laner woodens just south of Lillouet on 99.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jul 5, 2010 19:26:13 GMT -8
I was disappointed to hear recently, that the bridge over the Capilano River on Marine Drive is about to be replaced. It's a real disappointment because the old bridge is classic, built out of nice web of steel arching over the river and the roadway. Now they are just going to replace it with something cheap, featureless and flat. I guess cheapness is as cheapness does when it comes to bridge designs these days, but I think it could also be true that thoughtlessness in design leads to ugliness in reality. When are builders going to realize that, no matter how nicely you dress it in a concept drawing, there is ultimately absolutely no way that flat concrete can ever look nice! I'm a bit surprised that someone would find a structure like that attractive. Seems to me the prime aesthetic goal of any roadway is to be as unintrusive on the landscape as possible, and if a bridge can be built without a mass of rusty bolted steel looming overhead, all the better, especially when it passes over a picturesque river.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 5, 2010 20:59:43 GMT -8
I thought one of the viaducts into Downtown is made of steel... The one at the east end of terminal avenue...
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 6, 2010 7:22:51 GMT -8
I was glad when they twinned the Island Highway that they didn't remove the orginal steel bridge north of Duncan with its graceful arches. That was always a landmark for me when I was a kid, that we were getting close to Duncan driving south from Nanaimo.
I couldn't disagree more with the notion that driving and roadways should be a faceless and generic affair. Adding some element of design doesn't need to be overly expensive and can add a lot of interest and character to an area.
A small example are light standards. Most are generic, dull and uninteresting and you wouldn't notice them at all. The Queen Elizabeth Way (freeway) west of Toronto, had orginal light standards that incorporated a QEII in metal between the vertical and horizontal arm that held the light. They were situated on bridges that crossed the Port Credit River and a number of other water crossings. When one bridge was twinned they restored the existing light standards and replicated new ones for the new section.
I would suggest that if someone wants bland and utilitarian a visit to Russia where Soviet era uninteresting architecture was the norm unless propaganda was involved. Then no expense was spared.
Planting of no-mow, native wildflowers and landscaping along roadways, interesting bridge and overpass design, better looking noise barriers, and even what type of road dividers are used, can be interesting without being overly expensive, and add a lot of character to an area.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 6, 2010 8:54:26 GMT -8
I'm a bit surprised that someone would find a structure like that attractive. Seems to me the prime aesthetic goal of any roadway is to be as unintrusive on the landscape as possible, and if a bridge can be built without a mass of rusty bolted steel looming overhead, all the better, especially when it passes over a picturesque river. I have both agree and disagree with your assertion. In many cases a bridge with a well designed profile adds altitude and detail to a otherwise flat vista ( www.flickr.com/photos/50351223@N08/4723440310/). However, you are also correct to say that sometimes blending the bridge structure into the background provides a far superior fit ( www.flickr.com/photos/fandi3/2980586440/). I think it really depends on the how you design to fit the surrounding landscape.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jul 6, 2010 10:27:15 GMT -8
I couldn't disagree more with the notion that driving and roadways should be a faceless and generic affair. Adding some element of design doesn't need to be overly expensive and can add a lot of interest and character to an area..... I would suggest that if someone wants bland and utilitarian a visit to Russia where Soviet era uninteresting architecture was the norm unless propaganda was involved. Then no expense was spared. I don't recall anyone promoting faceless, generic, bland, utilitarian, Soviet style roadways or architecture. The question was over the attractiveness of bridges constructed with a spiderweb of steel girders overhead, and I tend to think most people would rather not see that, especially if it dominates what might otherwise be a pleasant view, as with the Capilano River. Attractive lighting and landscaping unquestionably help a roadway and can help it blend in to the surroundings.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 6, 2010 13:33:39 GMT -8
I couldn't disagree more with the notion that driving and roadways should be a faceless and generic affair. Adding some element of design doesn't need to be overly expensive and can add a lot of interest and character to an area..... I would suggest that if someone wants bland and utilitarian a visit to Russia where Soviet era uninteresting architecture was the norm unless propaganda was involved. Then no expense was spared. I don't recall anyone promoting faceless, generic, bland, utilitarian, Soviet style roadways or architecture. The question was over the attractiveness of bridges constructed with a spiderweb of steel girders overhead, and I tend to think most people would rather not see that, especially if it dominates what might otherwise be a pleasant view, as with the Capilano River. Attractive lighting and landscaping unquestionably help a roadway and can help it blend in to the surroundings. Honestly, Neil. You can see through the steelwork, you know... it's not one solid mass, it's light, it's open, it's graceful. A shape, any shape, is far superior in terms of visual appeal than a flat beam any day, especially a shape that has color. Even on a blank piece of paper, what would attract your eye more: a single flat line, or a shape? Or even one of those spiral designs you used to be able to draw with the little stencils that geared into each other. There was a case recently in Oregon where an old steel bridge was replaced with a new tied-steel arch span. The state DOT went through a very long consulting process to work with the local residents on the design work to find a suitable type of construction that was modern, served its purpose properly and also maintained a certain unity in its appearance with the bridge it was replacing. It didn't increase the cost of the bridge, because it was all included as part of the cost, and I believe a bridge that had an arch shape to it was actually cheaper and easier to build then a concrete or steel beam span. If you want a prime example of a failure in a design to blend into it's environment, look at the much hailed Kicking Horse canyon bridge just newly opened. Sure, everyone driving over it loves it, cause you don't even realize that you've just crossed a bridge. It doesn't even give you a sense of location. But look at it from the side, or from a distance, and it is nothing but harsh, blank grey pillars rising up, without even an attempt to blend them into the landscape. All that happened was a computer spat up the design, so they built it with very little of any sort of human touch. It doesn't blend, it doesn't feel natural, it doesn't look natural. It may not look like a Soviet-Communist structure, but it sure doesn't look, uh, well... Canadian, either. I actually think that a green steel arch has historically blended in with the trees along the river, alot more naturally than a flat grey concret beam will.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 7, 2010 8:02:43 GMT -8
I couldn't disagree more with the notion that driving and roadways should be a faceless and generic affair. Adding some element of design doesn't need to be overly expensive and can add a lot of interest and character to an area..... I would suggest that if someone wants bland and utilitarian a visit to Russia where Soviet era uninteresting architecture was the norm unless propaganda was involved. Then no expense was spared. I don't recall anyone promoting faceless, generic, bland, utilitarian, Soviet style roadways or architecture. The question was over the attractiveness of bridges constructed with a spiderweb of steel girders overhead, and I tend to think most people would rather not see that, especially if it dominates what might otherwise be a pleasant view, as with the Capilano River. Attractive lighting and landscaping unquestionably help a roadway and can help it blend in to the surroundings. So using the rationale about bridges ruining the view of surroundings, Lions Gate should have been replaced with a simple bridge with no arches, cable stays, and other structure which would interfere with the view of the north shore mountains. Or remove the Golden Gate so you can see downtown San Fran and the bay better. You would hate what they did to the Bloor Street viaduct as it crossed the Don River and Don Valley. They put in suicide barriers that are vertical cables. No one can point to a reduction in suicides since it was installed though. news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jul 7, 2010 10:07:28 GMT -8
So using the rationale about bridges ruining the view of surroundings, Lions Gate should have been replaced with a simple bridge with no arches, cable stays, and other structure which would interfere with the view of the north shore mountains. Or remove the Golden Gate so you can see downtown San Fran and the bay better. Apparently I needed to make it clear that I was still refering to bridges such as the one that started this exchange- the one on Marine Drive over the Capilano River. That sort of bridge has a tremendous amount of steel overhead, in all its bolted, rusty glory, and considering the distance covered, it dominates the landscape far more than it should. Bridge fans notwithstanding, I doubt there will be much of a move to preserve its design when the time comes to replace it with something cleaner and less intrusive. The Lions Gate Bridge is a graceful, spare structure and adds to the attractiveness of the harbour.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 7, 2010 12:21:39 GMT -8
...Planting of no-mow, native wildflowers and landscaping along roadways... That's what they've done on both sides of the Golden Ears Bridge, on the edges of the approach roads. They look very nice during Summertime.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 7, 2010 12:27:03 GMT -8
If you want a prime example of a failure in a design to blend into it's environment, look at the much hailed Kicking Horse canyon bridge just newly opened. Sure, everyone driving over it loves it, cause you don't even realize that you've just crossed a bridge. It doesn't even give you a sense of location. But look at it from the side, or from a distance, and it is nothing but harsh, blank grey pillars rising up, without even an attempt to blend them into the landscape. All that happened was a computer spat up the design, so they built it with very little of any sort of human touch. It doesn't blend, it doesn't feel natural, it doesn't look natural. I actually like the Park Bridge. I think it looks really neat. So simple and tall. www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse/photo_gallery/2007_Phase_2/Park_Bridge5.JPGThe angle on the picture isn't the best I've seen, but from most, it's a really cool bridge.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 7, 2010 14:46:01 GMT -8
Actually Neil the replacement of the bridge on Marine Drive isn't something that is forecast for the future: it's a current event. The bridge was moved slightly upstream a few days ago to permit the building of a new span in it's place. You have your wish, though, as the new bridge is simply a concrete beam span which surely won't interfere with the natural environment. I actually do not think that the rusty bolts are the bridge's fault, though, or represent a failure in the design to blend into its surroundings. They represent a failure in humanity to properly take care of the things that we build and use. How many ferries have had mechanical failures and been pulled from service because the crews couldn't be bothered...? It's not my ship... or the ship just doesn't have a regular crew, so no one else bothers to keep an awareness of the mechanical state and make sure maintenance is done. Also, you would be surprised what bridge purists have to say about the Lion's Gate as well, after its MLU. Apparently the removal of the above deck stiffening truss has irrevocably destroyed the historical integrity of the bridge and ruined its sight lines. For myself, the Lion's Gate still stands as worthy of beauty because of its iconic location and design. My major concern with bridge design is that few designers care what effect the end result might have upon the environment or the perceptions of the viewer. Basically, when you restrict yourself to one mindset, one point of view, you will stagnate and ultimately flat-line at the bottom of the graph. As I said, very rarely can concrete ever be used to build something that looks nice, not unless a lot of care and creative thought is taken, which it is not anymore. In terms of bridges, no designer can see anything but cables stayed these days. It was different when the concept first emerged and a cable stayed bridge was considered ground breaking. The Alex Fraser was a marvel in its day and had a certain beauty of its own because it was unique. Now that there are dozens of other clones around the world, what does it really represent anymore? Maybe the engineers have stopped testing their limits... they have certainly by and large stopped being artists. What will we think when every single major bridge in Vancouver is a grey, cable stayed hulk? Well, they will certainly blend in with the prevailing color of the skies, so I guess that makes them suit the environment admirably. How will you know where you are when you look up and see another cable stayed bridge... wait a minute..., I can't tell which one that is... Is it the Port Mann...? No maybe it's the Alex Fraser...? No, I'm definitely sure it's the Pitt River bridge... I'd know that flat featureless concrete anywhere... Every society in history has built its unique monuments to history, until now. In retrospect we will come to realize that everything can be mass produced... even bridges, and the debts they pile up in construction costs. I guess to the vast majority of us, a bridge will just become like the next cell phone... mass produced, not unique and only noticed when two people with the same phone drop them and accidentally switch... a shapeless world and a featureless world. As for the Golden Ears... would be nice to actually be able to afford to cross it and see the nice native plants, but for the Kicking Horse canyon bridge, I've seen dozens of photos and never one view in which the bridge looked attractive, let alone remotely natural or blended into its surroundings. For a comparison of what can be achieved when a thought process includes the ideal of shape into a structure, a side-by-side view of the old and new Sauvie Island bridges in Oregon. The new bridge is of thoroughly new construction, yet still manages to convey a recognizable identity with a unique shape in a unique location. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/SauvieIslandBridges.jpg
|
|