I think I have such low expectations for the project at this point, I am bound to be pleasently surprised.

I've long ago learned that no matter how low the expectations, ODOT can disappoint.  They'll find a way to not only make their own project look like crap, but destroy even more of our fair city than expected.

Proposals are now available on innerbelt.org

 

 

Wow, when I thought that I couldn't be more disappointed in ODOT, I discover new and deeper wells of disgust from which to draw. How sad.

For easy reference:

 

Bridge A:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/InnerbeltBridge/PublishingImages/BridgeA.pdf

 

Bridge B:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/InnerbeltBridge/PublishingImages/BridgeB.pdf

 

Bridge C:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/projects/ClevelandUrbanCoreProjects/Innerbelt/InnerbeltBridge/PublishingImages/BridgeC.pdf

^I guess A is the best one?  Bridge B is hideous... insulting actually.  Bridge C is equally hideous across the main span but at least they throw in some kind of architectural feature for the Ontario overpass.

 

There sure isn't much to get excited about is there?

Did a higher up at ODOT have a member of his family raped and murdered in Cleveland?  Why the vendetta against us?

ODOT, meeting your expectations of disappointment.  I've been more inspired looking around a used hubcaps store.

Bridge A is ok...

 

This project is supposed to cost how much again?

^I guess A is the best one? Bridge B is hideous... insulting actually. Bridge C is equally hideous across the main span but at least they throw in some kind of architectural feature for the Ontario overpass.

I was thinking the same.

 

A is dull, but I suppose it's almost acceptable, it's the only one that didn't upset me.

 

I can't believe they even bothered showing us option B.

 

Option C looks to me they started with a good design and then ran out of money part way across the valley. Just half ass.

The cable arch section isn't too bad, but the rest of that bridge is as boring as the solid beam design. Why couldn't they combine the cable arch with the lacy open steel design? Then we might able to salvage something positive from this exercise.

 

EDIT: notice how the voting at Cleveland dot bomb is going. So far only one person has opted for the solid beam design. I guess ODOT staff are allowed only one vote for the whole agency....

The solid Beam design was thrown in for the illusion of choice.  The master stroke will be if they do a press release at the end of this exercise saying what a great idea it is to combine the other two bridge elements, furthering the illusion of choice and public input.  Yeah, I'm a pessimist today.

Bridge A is a generic Simcity, cut-and-paste looking bridge

 

Bridge B looks like a freeway overpass

 

Bridge C has an attempt at being different...

 

My vote is C.

Bridge A is a generic Simcity, cut-and-paste looking bridge

 

Bridge B looks like a freeway overpass

 

 

Bridge C has an attempt at being different...

 

 

Where is option D - None of the above?

 

My vote is C.

 

Bridge A - WTF?

Bridge B - Looks very Miami

Bridge C - Eh

Where is option D - None of the above - when you need it?  :wtf:

In this day and age, we get $450 million and can only come up with this...

 

Plus, how many years is it going to take build??

Bridge A is a generic Simcity, cut-and-paste looking bridge

 

Bridge B looks like a freeway overpass

 

 

Bridge C has an attempt at being different...

 

 

Where is option D - None of the above?

 

My vote is C.

 

Bridge A - WTF?

Bridge B - Looks very Miami

Bridge C - Eh

Where is option D - None of the above - when you need it? :wtf:

 

Agreed on the Option D.  But C really does look like we are trying to combine two styles on the same Bridge.  Thats why I like A.  Simple and SimCity-esque, but probably cheap and that always wins out with ODOT.

Agreed on the Option D. But C really does look like we are trying to combine two styles on the same Bridge.

 

Indeed, like we had a bridge but decided we needed another 10 ft of height in the rebuild or redesign for some reason.

This whole process has been one heartbreaking missed opportunity after another.  I guess ODOT gets points for consistancy.

Of the three choices, I guess A.  Would it have killed them to have some of the structure break above the level of the roadway surface to add a little more volume/interest?  I know, it would cost more.  What about some kind of public art over the road surface?  Are US interstates allowed to have remotely interesting features?

Let's see... Toledo gets this (via toledointernetmarketingblog.com)....

 

 

And we get options A, B, and C for how much again?

 

 

Blarg.

Blarg.

 

Dear, what is "Blarg"?

Blarg.

 

Dear, what is "Blarg"?

 

It is a phonetic noise made to express being discontent.

option B makes me physically angry.

Actually, considering that this is the first of two bridges (assuming that the second bridge would require a new design process), I prefer Bridge B.

 

- Out of all three designs, it is the only one that is architecturally honest. It doesn't have the fake arches of design A that sit awkwardly on the concrete pillars (the arches don't even line up with the tops of the pillars!) and it doesn't have the pasted-on arcs adjacent to the I-480 bridge of design C.

 

- It has the fewest and smallest pillars on the landscape below. Design A has many thick pillars that lumber across the landscape

 

- When the next bridge it built, it is the design that will best blend into the background.

 

 

Honestly, at this point, I want the bridge to hide as well as it can.  All three designs are homely girls; at least the homely girl of Design B has the sense to sit quietly in the corner and not wear stiletto heels or a bedazzled halter top.

The Mayor needs to step in and stop this.  He needs to go to Strickland's office and grab him by the throat. 

 

It's like we don't have a Mayor at all. 

Well, I can see now how attaching a bike/pedestrian path on one of these structural masterpieces would have simply ruined it.

 

 

 

- Out of all three designs, it (Bridge B) is the only one that is architecturally honest. It doesn't have the fake arches of design A that sit awkwardly on the concrete pillars (the arches don't even line up with the tops of the pillars!) and it doesn't have the pasted-on arcs adjacent to the I-480 bridge of design C.

 

- It has the fewest and smallest pillars on the landscape below. Design A has many thick pillars that lumber across the landscape

I agree with your comment about architectural honesty.  Bridge B could be enhanced with fluted columns, suggestive of the Sohio Building in the background.  Are they allowed to use colored concrete?

 

Bridge B looks like the flying Interstate-94 from south Milwaukee into downtown.  Milwaukee does not have a deep valley like Cleveland, but they put the freeway on piers that must be eighty feet tall. 

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right, or if there is a major problem with their renderings, but it appears that Option A gets us one bridge, Option B gets us two bridges, and Option C gets us one one-way bridge.

Well, the plan is build one bridge first, then the other one, right?  Maybe the difference is just in how the companies relased the renderings.

 

Knowing ODOT, they will select one design for one bridge, and a cheaper looking one that cost more money for the other side

I'm a little surprised (relieved, I think) that ODOT hasn't suggested a two-decked bridge.  Maybe it wouldn't be cheaper, but I would have guessed it would be because of the consolidation of major structural pieces and piers.  Anyone care to weigh in?

 

EDIT: maybe because it would be a mess linking it up the existing roadways at either end and because it would be too hideous even to be considered?

Thanks Steve Litt- you said it best for all of us.

 

Proposals for I-90 bridge in Cleveland are predictably dull

Published: Saturday, August 07, 2010, 12:09 AM    Updated: Saturday, August 07, 2010, 7:33 AM

Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

 

Cities from Rotterdam in the Netherlands to San Francisco are famous for spectacular bridges that function as hardworking pieces of infrastructure and as dramatic works of structural art.

 

Cleveland won't gain admission to this elite urban club with any of the three proposals for the new westbound I-90 bridge over the Cuyahoga River released Friday by the Ohio Department of Transportation.

 

After spending 10 years and more than $13.5 million in consultant fees, ODOT has come up with several profoundly ho-hum options for one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the state's history. No one will make a fortune selling postcards of the winner, no matter which one gets built.

 

More at: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/08/odot_bridge_designs_mediocre.html

IIRC, the westbound bridge will be built first.  Then the existing bridge will be shut down and all traffic reverted to the new bridge so that they can construct the eastbound bridge in essentially the same spot the existing bridge is now.  The westbound bridge will curve in a bit towards downtown from where the footprint is at the moment.

 

Am I the only one who is somewhat intrigued by A and C?  Sure, neither are iconic, but I see some possibilities there especially with lighting.  The underbelly of A could be remarkable at night if we did the lighting right.  Same goes for the Arches on C.  Also, for the C design, it might be smart to stagger the other arch when the eastbound bridge is rebuilt, setting it off to the east or west from where the other arch is..... and, thus, adding to the visual impact it would have on our skyline.

Allied anti-submarine aircraft used lamps on the leading edges of the wings so that they could hide in the haze near the horizon.  With that camouflage, our aircraft were able to get much closer before being detected by German U-boats.

 

ODOT should paint a gloss on the top surfaces of this bridge so that it picks up whatever color the sky is that day.  The bottom surface should be painted pale blue so we cannot see it from below, and ODOT should put camouflage lamps on it so that nobody sees our big, expensive bridge from the distance. 

 

Sorry, I'm feeling sarcastic this evening.

Hmm. Boreas.  I was starting to like what you were saying-until you said you were being sarcastic!

 

Anyway, someone who knows minutia about WWII anti-submarine aircraft can't be all bad. 

Jesus, I'm listening to the WCPN program on the Innerbelt. What a waste this process has been, and how frustrating it is to listen to the ODOT spin.

 

*sigh*

I always enjoy Steven Litt's writings and this article has to be one of my favorites.  He pulls no punches in his critique but at the same time usually points out what OTHER cities have done to improve their urban design.

 

Slightly off topic, I went to a meeting recently for a new County Council candidate who was bemoaning the impact that ODOT has had on draining the city of population and allowing the urban sprawl to increase dramatically in the 90's & '00's while the inner city crumbled.  He pretty much chalked it up to the fact that no State Governor has stood up to ODOT policies or put a director in place to make the necessary changes.

ODOT is taking a survey to find out what the public thinks of the designs. I'm guessing it is linked in one/some of the articles mentioned, but I don't see a direct link to it here (I might have just missed it though). To complete the survey you have to register with their site.

 

Survey

I always enjoy Steven Litt's writings and this article has to be one of my favorites.  He pulls no punches in his critique but at the same time usually points out what OTHER cities have done to improve their urban design.

 

Slightly off topic, I went to a meeting recently for a new County Council candidate who was bemoaning the impact that ODOT has had on draining the city of population and allowing the urban sprawl to increase dramatically in the 90's & '00's while the inner city crumbled.  He pretty much chalked it up to the fact that no State Governor has stood up to ODOT policies or put a director in place to make the necessary changes.

 

Tedolph, unless you have something to say to advance the conversation... give it a rest.  same thing every time.

 

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right, or if there is a major problem with their renderings, but it appears that Option A gets us one bridge, Option B gets us two bridges, and Option C gets us one one-way bridge.

The renderings for Options A & C show only the westbound bridge, a condiiton that will never really happen except during construction of the eastbound bridge several years later.  Option B at least gives the general public some idea of what their bridge will actually look like, both with the existing truss (the immediate condition) and with a future twin (the long term condition).  The perspectives of these renderings are all pretty bad.  What will it look like while driving on it?  What will it look like from Progressive Field? From the Lorain Carnegie?  ODOT asked for specific renderings, so apparantly they only asked for mid-span perspectives.

 

The reason that this bridge looks unimaginable in all three proposals is pretty simple.  ODOT's technical scoring criteria is available here: (http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D12/Deputy%20Director/News/Pages/EvaluationBeginsonProposalstoBuildNewInnerbeltBridge.aspx).  Bridge aesthetics is worth 5 of 105 possible points.  Proposed Design is also worth 30 points, but may take into account dozens of other items, such as maintenance of traffic during construction, impact on the design to future maintenance, etc.  So Bridge Aesthetics is worth less than 5% of the technical proposal.  But then the technical proposal is merged with the cost proposal, weighted at 30% and 70%, respectively so the result is that Bridge Aesthetics is worth less than 2% of the total score.  So if one team scores a 5 (unlikely) and another scores a 0 (also unlikely) the difference is less than 2% of the total score.

 

 

*sigh*

The two unsuccessful teams will be offered a stipend of up to $1 million to cover their costs of preparing the proposal. If the team accepts the stipend, its technical proposal becomes ODOT's property.

 

This part of the article takes the cake.  So the Ohio Department of Trash is willing to offer up to 1mil for the rights to these proposals, some of which I could have presented by copy and pasting the I-480 bridge.  Awesome.

 

More at: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2010/08/odot_bridge_designs_mediocre.html

Sound of Ideas spends a lot of time on the new Interbelt bridge.  Good stuff on there, with ODOT getting ripped for bad design.

 

New Cleveland Designs

 

When money is an object, there's a balance between creating a signature statement with new construction projects, such as the Innerbelt bridge in Cleveland, and building something functional without going broke. On the next Sound of Ideas, we'll talk about ODOT's design options for the bridge as well as plans for a new convention center and a Museum of Contemporary Art. How big-ticket projects look can say a lot about a region, and about what it can afford. Let us know what you think, Tuesday morning at 9:00 on 90.3.

 

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/soi/31579

 

Steven Litt, art and architecture critic, The Plain Dealer

Scott Varner, spokesman, Ohio Dept. of Transportation

Paul Alsenas, director, Cuyahoga County Planning Commission

Ronald A. Reed, FAIA, IIDA, Principal, Westlake Reed Leskosky

 

edit: Opps, just shall that Avogrado already posted this.  Still worth a listen though.

This makes me sicker and sicker to my stomach the more read about this fiasco...This quote just boils my blood, seeing the dollar amounts...

 

 

Litt:

 

 

After spending 10 years and more than $13.5 million in consultant fees, ODOT has come up with several profoundly ho-hum options for one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the state's history. No one will make a fortune selling postcards of the winner, no matter which one gets built.

 

It's a sad capstone to a process marked by the mediocrity with which ODOT has handled planning for the entire $3.5 billion project to rebuild the Cleveland Inner Belt, which will start with construction of the westbound bridge next year.

 

 

 

Is there any difference in the impact the three designs will have at ground level.  I mean, it is nice and all to look at the bridges from a distance, but what about the land beneath the bridges?  Are any of the three designs more affable to development opportunities in the valley?  Are the "legs" (or whatever they are called) essentially the same regardless of design or does one of the designs offer the possibility of fewer legs placed farther apart?

 

One of the reasons I like the open web design is that it will probably be the best the look up at, if you know what I mean.

^ I wouldn't think that the real issue for development in the valley below will be so much the spacing or size of piers, as they will take up relatively little land with any modern bridge design.  The more important thing will be the psychological impact of the bridge design on the space below.  This is why I think two bridges is a disaster, as it will create a very large visual impact at the ground level below, and over a large swath of land.

 

As for the relative impact of the different bridge designs, I think that bridge A will make for the nicest space underneath.  Because of the arches it will allow people to perceive the underside space of the bridge as a series of (somewhat) smaller and more manageable spaces.  It will also be more "static", it won't cause the eye to automatically draw across the entire bridge, which I think most people would find to be overwhelming and disorienting.  The other two with the closed beams will mostly read as a series of long, slightly undulating lines running off far into the distance, which will grab the eye and draw it to the ends of the bridge.  It makes it very hard for people to really grasp the space that they are in.  This is a pretty good example of the idea of "scale" in design.  Neither will really be "human scale" but options B & C will really blow away people's sense of scale.

Some kind of arched structure better be used, because all else simply looks like the I-480 Bridge: Boring. This is a major gateway to the city for the nation so we may as well put on our best suit and tie.

I wouldnt call any of those designs "suit and tie."  Somewhere between "Polo and Sandles" and "(working outside in 90% humity) Wife beater and shoeless"

Another analogy is that it is not name brand, like Betty Crocker, nor is it a store brand like Great Value, it is a white box with black lettering saying "MUFFINS"

Another analogy is that it is not name brand, like Betty Crocker, nor is it a store brand like Great Value, it is a white box with black lettering saying "MUFFINS"

 

Or instead of Saks 5th Avenue we are getting the Dollar Store....or Goodwill for that matter.