I think it's a pretty dumb idea, and I don't think it will end up happening.  I'm all for better utilizing the bridge and the areas immediately adjacent to it on both sides, but I don't think a structure should actually be built on the bridge.  With all the development sites we have begging for something, why do we feel the need to cram something on to the one pedestrian bridge we have in the region? I think it could be cool to add some restaurants or food carts/trucks on or near the bridge, just to make it a bit more of an attraction beyond what it currently is, but anything more than that would be too over the top for my liking.  Let's get a hotel at the Banks before we continue this pipe dream of a proposal.

 

I really like this, especially if the ped/bike right of way can be preserved. In a way it's like capping FWW, dispensing of blank space that divides the city. (Not to insult the river, but it is a major divider for those on foot or bike.) The design is reasonably attractive. It's unique to the area as far as I know.

 

The river divides the region, yes, but it's not an unsightly, loud, polluting freeway.  The bridge isn't a space that needs to be dispensed of, imo. 

The bridge should be more High Line than this but it'd be nice for that sort of hotel at the end of the bridge.

I don't see what's not to like, if you want a unique and potentially vibrant experience, cross the purple people bridge. If you want a clear easy shot with no people or obstructions, cross the Taylor Southgate.

 

Except the PPB is currently pedestrian and bike friendly, where the Taylor-Southgate bridge is much less so.  If Red Bike is to expand across the river successfully, it will be because a bike right-of-way is preserved on the PPB.  People who are not comfortable cycling in traffic will not feel safe on the T-S.  I'm willing to wait and see if (and how) they preserve the right-of-way with this development, but I'm not optimistic.

Where are people getting the idea that the ROW won't be maintained? There are not only images of it being preserved but that was also mentioned in the earliest articles about the project. The ROW will be maintained. This building is built on the open portion and above the existing pathway according to their description and the renderings released.

I think it's a pretty dumb idea, and I don't think it will end up happening.  I'm all for better utilizing the bridge and the areas immediately adjacent to it on both sides, but I don't think a structure should actually be built on the bridge.  With all the development sites we have begging for something, why do we feel the need to cram something on to the one pedestrian bridge we have in the region? I think it could be cool to add some restaurants or food carts/trucks on or near the bridge, just to make it a bit more of an attraction beyond what it currently is, but anything more than that would be too over the top for my liking.  Let's get a hotel at the Banks before we continue this pipe dream of a proposal.

 

I really like this, especially if the ped/bike right of way can be preserved. In a way it's like capping FWW, dispensing of blank space that divides the city. (Not to insult the river, but it is a major divider for those on foot or bike.) The design is reasonably attractive. It's unique to the area as far as I know.

 

The river divides the region, yes, but it's not an unsightly, loud, polluting freeway.  The bridge isn't a space that needs to be dispensed of, imo. 

 

Fair enough. I am sympathetic to this view. I certainly don't think the river is "a space that needs to be dispensed of," and that's why I said "not to insult the river," but I also think it would help make Newport feel closer to Downtown if this were built. There are other ways that could be done. Adding some food carts would be great. Developments closer to both sides of the bridge would be fantastic. Still, this would be a unique attraction and it could really make walking/biking over one crossing seamless. Which might create synergistic development on both sides of the river.

 

I won't be crying if this doesn't happen, but I think it would be a new landmark that raises the image of the city. This thing absolutely would be photographed all the time, published in architectural magazines, people would know about it. It looks sleek and contemporary. Some people would, no doubt, hate it. And if in 20-30 years it's decided this was a huge error, the bones of the bridge will still be there when the building is torn down. If we didn't have the Roebling bridge, I'd be more worried about insulting the historic character of this bridge. But we do have the Roebling bridge, which puts the quaintness of PPB to shame.

 

If the plan were to get rid of the ped/bike ROW, I'd be more hesitant to support this.

 

The bridge should be more High Line than this but it'd be nice for that sort of hotel at the end of the bridge.

 

Making it like the High Line would feel derivative. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it wouldn't have the Wow factor. There's a lot of park space on the Cincy side and hopefully soon there will be on the KY side. Actually, High Line-ifying the Roebling would be pretty damn cool if Covington makes a Smale(lite) on their side. That would be epic, really. That wouldn't be derivative, because the Roebling will never be derivative no matter what it does. And it's dead center on the city and the flagship riverfront park. That would be another project to garner (inter)national attention and be endlessly photographed.

Having a High Line-like structure wouldn't make it a derivative.  By that logic, the High Line would be a derivative of the Promenade Plantée.  Neither the NYC or Paris elevated parks span a large river so it would be unique.  The Roebling wouldn't be practical as it's still a traveled roadway.  The PPB is, well, the PPB.

Having a High Line-like structure wouldn't make it a derivative.  By that logic, the High Line would be a derivative of the Promenade Plantée.  Neither the NYC or Paris elevated parks span a large river so it would be unique.  The Roebling wouldn't be practical as it's still a traveled roadway.  The PPB is, well, the PPB.

 

Roebling is a travelled roadway currently, but doesn't always have to be. It would be a fantastic place for a linear park.

That rendering is pretty awesome.  It would give Cincy a unique and interesting landmark that will really standout.  Please build this now!!

 

Newport should get behind this project.  It would compliment the increased density in the Levee. 

How would people access the hotel? Would there be a way for cars to drive up to the entrance, or would guests be expected to lug their bags from a garage on one of the riverbanks?  Also, there is basically nothing on the Ohio side of the bridge, other than the park.  The Montgomery Inn banquet center was demolished for that condo project that fell through, and it is still just sitting there vacant, adjacent to the bridge.  There is also another surface parking lot directly across from the entrance to the bridge.  Infill on these sites would do much, much more to connect downtown with Newport than this hotel would.  I'm also skeptical that there would be adequate room for pedestrian and bike paths if the hotel is built.  The current span is really not that wide, and it's not just just one wide expanse, but rather it's broken up into a couple of sections.  I just don't see how this project would be possible, or even that beneficial to the region.  Yeah, it might get some press at opening, but beyond that, I don't think Cincinnati gains much.  Really, Newport on the Levee is the only area that I think would see considerable improvement if this project goes through.

It looks like a bunch of shipping containers stacked on top of each other.

It looks like a bunch of shipping containers stacked on top of each other.

 

Isn't that the trendy thing now?

The shipping container look is cool.  It allows them to strategically bump some sections out beyond the bridge's profile and it is also a reference to its history as railroad bridge. 

Does anyone know what firm designed this? The rendering posted on this site looks professionally done, not like a developer just threw something together.

^That's part of what leads me to believe this is further along than maybe we realize. How long ago were the Hard Rock Hotel rumors posted? 6 months? Now renderings that were done by an architecture firm that shows just that. I'm still cautious about this project happening, but so far any information we have received as rumors has turned into something more months later.

 

I quite like the looks of this design. It doesn't try to blend with the bridge but rather offers a contrasting design which allows one to see the hotel and bridge independently even though they would become one. It allows for the bridge's purple essence to continue on, allows for the pedestrian nature of the bridge to continue on, and offers something extremely unique to this country (and really the world). I'd love if this happened.

Yeah I think this isn't a bad solution to give the area a bit more vibrancy and connect it a little stronger to Cincinati's riverfront - though part of the row should be preserved for Bicycles - its really the best bridge across the Ohio for bikes.

This will totally ruin the WEBN fireworks!

This will totally ruin the WEBN fireworks!

 

They'll have to bring back the second barge!

How would people access the hotel? Would there be a way for cars to drive up to the entrance, or would guests be expected to lug their bags from a garage on one of the riverbanks?  Also, there is basically nothing on the Ohio side of the bridge, other than the park.  The Montgomery Inn banquet center was demolished for that condo project that fell through, and it is still just sitting there vacant, adjacent to the bridge.  There is also another surface parking lot directly across from the entrance to the bridge.  Infill on these sites would do much, much more to connect downtown with Newport than this hotel would.  I'm also skeptical that there would be adequate room for pedestrian and bike paths if the hotel is built.  The current span is really not that wide, and it's not just just one wide expanse, but rather it's broken up into a couple of sections.  I just don't see how this project would be possible, or even that beneficial to the region.  Yeah, it might get some press at opening, but beyond that, I don't think Cincinnati gains much.  Really, Newport on the Levee is the only area that I think would see considerable improvement if this project goes through.

 

What makes you think this wouldn't spur development on the Ohio side?

It should remain a pedestrian bridge, and people should have revolted when the state wanted to get rid of it.  Since when does a Transportation department not maintain foot traffic?  Just because cars aren't on it doesn't mean it the state shouldn't maintain it for the taxpayers who use it.

Hotel project stalled on Purple People Bridge

 

There’s nowhere to park on a pedestrian bridge.

 

That detail will likely keep any hotel or shop from opening on the Purple People Bridge, the bridge’s owners told The Enquirer.

 

The development agreement to build a $100 million railroad-themed hotel and restaurant complex on the bridge – an agreement between the bridge’s owner, the Newport Southbank Bridge Co., and developer, DW Real Estate Holdings – lapsed in June, said Wally Pagan, president of the Newport Southbank Bridge Co.

 

Pagan wouldn’t declare the project dead, but said it’s not likely to be resurrected. Instead the bridge company is looking to other sources of income to keep the bridge in good shape.

 

url=http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/29/hotel-project-stalled-purple-people-bridge/30792841/]Cont[/url]

Well there is a huge parking garage at Newport on the Levee, and they're building another one as part of phase 2. Uhhh...

 

 

But, glad to see another stupid idea die. How about using the bridge as a bridge?

I think it's a pretty dumb idea, and I don't think it will end up happening.

 

How would people access the hotel? Would there be a way for cars to drive up to the entrance, or would guests be expected to lug their bags from a garage on one of the riverbanks?

 

called it.

Or, since it was supposed to be rail themed, construct a rail line across it.

Hotel project stalled on Purple People Bridge

 

There’s nowhere to park on a pedestrian bridge.

 

That detail will likely keep any hotel or shop from opening on the Purple People Bridge, the bridge’s owners told The Enquirer.

 

The development agreement to build a $100 million railroad-themed hotel and restaurant complex on the bridge – an agreement between the bridge’s owner, the Newport Southbank Bridge Co., and developer, DW Real Estate Holdings – lapsed in June, said Wally Pagan, president of the Newport Southbank Bridge Co.

 

Pagan wouldn’t declare the project dead, but said it’s not likely to be resurrected. Instead the bridge company is looking to other sources of income to keep the bridge in good shape.

 

url=http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/29/hotel-project-stalled-purple-people-bridge/30792841/]Cont[/url]

 

If your business plan not just involves, but actually requires a Willy Wonka style elevator, you will fail at said business

I'm sure this has already been asked, but can the Purple People Bridge as is be used for a Streetcar or LR? Or would it require extensive upgrades.

Oh man, a structural engineer would have to say "I need to analyze it" but that bridge was a railroad bridge. The side that isn't being used (outside of the pedestrian portion) has massively deep beams. And it all looks to be in a well maintained condition. I'd say there wouldn't be any problem putting a modern streetcar on it (not to mention a hotel ;-) )

 

 

I'm sure this has already been asked, but can the Purple People Bridge as is be used for a Streetcar or LR? Or would it require extensive upgrades.

Yes, it was built for rail traffic.

^It might have to undergo structural repair to handle the additional load, though. IDK what the status of the bridge's structure is.

The load of streetcars is nothing compared to a loaded freight train.  It was built to carry not only a railroad track but streetcars as well.  It handled pretty much all Newport, Bellevue, Dayton, and Ft. Thomas streetcars until the Central Bridge was built.  The configuration was odd though.  The unused railroad section was as-is today, the middle walkway was for northbound streetcars, the roadway was for pedestrians, wagons, horses, etc., and southbound streetcars were cantilevered off the west side of the bridge (the beams are gone, but you can still see the approach on the Ohio side).

 

That said, it functions like three separate bridges all jammed up next to each other, so the capacity of the rail side isn't necessarily the same as the sidewalk or the roadway side.  In the bridge's waning years, the roadway had a weight limit of just 3 tons (!).  That could be due to the awful state of disrepair it was allowed to fall into, but ouch, I never would have guessed it was that low. 

It's hard to see, but in this photo from the late 70s or early 80s the weight limit looks to be 30 tons.  So a 10x drop in weight limit over 20 years. 

 

http://www.cincyrails.com/CSXvintage/DPO-PC-2350-01.jpg

There was also a period of time in the 50s when they experimented with making the Central and L&N bridges one-way.  I think that they attempted to make the Central inbound in the morning and outbound at night.  I'm not sure how long that experiment lasted. 

I can still remember driving across it.  Headed south, the lanes seemed narrow. Probably 11 feet.  Unexpectedly as you got to the middle of the bridge, the lanes narrowed further.  Maybe even as little as 10 feet. Who knows/remembers this?

I dont remember the width exactly but everytime I drove on it and traffic was oncoming I would scare my passenger at the moment by saying I accidentally drove the wrong way on a one lane bridge. I sure didnt look much wider than the car when you were going across and seeing water through the trusses ramped up the danger. The 'climb the bridge' sure was a dud due to the safety overkill/lack of a dramatically different view (vs the Australia bridge climb) cost and rules like no cameras but what about this idea. Purple people bridge zip line! The one down at opening day looked fun, and the speed sure would make the view more dramatic. Heck you could even make it two ways. Stage one you fly among the trusses above the area where the tracks used to be, and stage two hangs over the edge above the river. Saves having to walk back and since you arent above the pedestrian area, bring anything you want to record your flight  camera wise just realize if you drop it it belongs to the river.

Didn't they make people wear a dumb suit also?

 

I vaguely remember the lanes narrowing at some point, but that might just be the suggestion from the above post affecting my memory.  There is a very similar bridge in Montreal which is as narrow but about twice as long.  If I had the choice I'd much rather fall into the Ohio than the St. Lawrence. 

The main span of the bridge (at the highest point) narrows by a foot or a little less on each side compared to the rest, which is already quite narrow.  Maybe the trusses are a little thicker there.  Yeah the purple jumpsuits that people had to wear on the climb just made it that much less appealing. 

Purple People Bridge owner plans upgrades

 

 

Several changes could be coming to the Purple People Bridge over the Ohio River this summer, WCPO reports.

 

Newport-based Southbank Partners, which owns the bridge, plans to spend about $1 million to repaint the structure. It’s currently in the process of raising funds to cover the cost.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/04/27/purple-people-bridge-owner-plans-upgrades.html

I walked across the bridge two weeks ago and was shocked at how rusted out and graffiti-covered the bridge has become.

Most of the rust seems to be from the walkways they installed for the bridge climb whatever thing.  I know they've also been having problems with love locks too.  Either way, it's disappointing how quickly the paint faded. 

If they're going to repaint the bridge anyway, maybe they should invite some professional graffiti artists to come in and decorate the bridge in the mean time. Maybe bring Matt W Moore back since his OTR mural was demolished a few years ago...

The purple faded almost instantly.  It went from purple to light blue in two years. 

They make $250,000 a year on events held on the bridge! That's great and can be used towards the $1 million in cost it will take to repaint the bridge. Having food/drink vendors on the bridge (or near it) will be great for their bottom line, too.

 

"In addition, Southbank is considering other long-term projects including widening usable portions of the bridge with reinforced flooring on the railroad side of the structure and adding LED lighting that can change color to coordinate with holidays and events similar to lighting features used on other landmarks including the Eiffel Tower and San Francisco’s Bay Bridge."

 

Does this mean the abandoned railroad (east) side of the bridge will be decked? That would be great, especially for cyclists.

I think it would be really smart to deck over some of the old train portion to allow not only for seasonal vendors, but to allow more room for City Flea like events where you could line the whole bridge with local vendors. Currently anything like that would take up the right of way for pedestrians and bikes, but if you could place all the vendors on the eastern side of the bridge it would keep the existing right of way open.

The purple faded almost instantly.  It went from purple to light blue in two years. 

 

Periwinkle People Bridge

I always thought purple was kind of a stretch when I saw it.

Well when it was freshly painted it was very much purple.  http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc21280.php

I think it would be really smart to deck over some of the old train portion to allow not only for seasonal vendors, but to allow more room for City Flea like events where you could line the whole bridge with local vendors. Currently anything like that would take up the right of way for pedestrians and bikes, but if you could place all the vendors on the eastern side of the bridge it would keep the existing right of way open.

I totally agree, but I don't think they own that part.

New Party & Concert Series Coming to Purple People Bridge

 

New concert/festival every Wednesday night on the bridge. Sounds like a replacement for Party in the Park, but really this is part of the earlier report that they were looking to raise money to repaint. I'll drink a couple purple cocktails on the way home if its for a good cause...

 

http://www.rcnky.com/articles/2017/05/10/new-party-concert-series-coming-purple-people-bridge

 

 

 

I'll be curious to see how this turns out... the geometry of the bridge obviously poses some obvious logistical/acoustic challenges, but it'll be sweet to have a drink will hanging out on the bridge. I've often thought it'd be nice if there were a drink stand similar to what 3CDC has at the Washington Park "deck". It could have limited hours and only open weather-permitting.

 

They mention food trucks... do you think the food trucks will be able to drive on the bridge into the middle? And where will the drinks be served? Or will the trucks be stationed at one end? I wonder if people will be deterred by having to walk halfway across the bridge to get to the concert. Some people are so lazy. Anyway... I guess we'll see next week how they organize it. I hope they succeed with the concert series and have good attendance!

Whirl and Twirl must be heartbroken