Jim Foti of the Star Tribune quoted me in a story today about the I-35W Bridge redesign, Debate begins: Elegant simplicity or uninspired slab?.
Aaron Landry of Minneapolis said his first reaction was that the state was replacing “a structurally deficient bridge with an aesthetically deficient one,” but his views softened Tuesday after he visited the Minnesota Department of Transportation website and checked out the designs that didn’t win. “Out of the choices, this is the best one,” he said.
People who follow me on Twitter heard the same quote a couple days ago. While what I said might be harsh, it was honestly my first reaction when the design was released.
Since I’ve taken more time to look at it, my opinion has changed a bit. In my conversation with the Star Tribune I mentioned a few things that I almost wish would have gotten published instead. For example, one of the main feelings I get when looking at the bridge design now is that it’s a simple, strong-looking bridge. Jim Foti joked with me that hey, if it looks strong, it must be strong! Honestly, I think that makes a big impact with people’s impressions considering the circumstances. It’s a strong-looking bridge!
I also spent a bunch of time talking about the lighting. If you look at the full proposal (88mb PDF) you can see a rendering of it at dusk with a nice blue glow to it. I suggested that under the bridge the lighting could be changing or moving, joking that if it took example of from the lighting atop of the Target Headquarters building, perhaps it and the bridge could talk to one another through the night. I thought about it a bit more and realized it may not be a bad idea. Perhaps it could be pulled off in an decent and artful manner without it being obnoxious. It’s one of the few bridge locations where a creative lighting solution like that would be appropriate. Of course, this would only be on the underside of the bridge as to not distract motorists.
I think it could be a relatively inexpensive, appropriate and unique way to make our new bridge augment our cityscape at night. What do you think?
Comments 3
I like the idea of the changing/moving lights on the underside.
Water running between pieces of glass, though? I don’t know.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 11:50 ¶My first impressions were “god that’s boring,” and “it’s much like the old bridge insofar as you might not notice you were going over a bridge.” While moving lights might be novel or even possibly borderline artistic, I think I/most people would find them distracting and annoying after a short time. Remember this isn’t just a billboard you drive by at 60mph every day, it’s an integral part of the city’s structure/ character/skyline and can be seen 24/7 from peoples homes, businesses, and recreational locales.
Posted 10 Oct 2007 at 21:22 ¶Someone else somewhere made the very valid point that there are already a bunch of pretty-looking bridges in close proximity to each other. Do we need another one?
Although, having a bunch of pretty-looking buildings in close proximity makes for an interesting skyline.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 13:06 ¶Post a Comment