Submission #15 CLOSE
ARUP with Falko Schmitt Architects (London, UK)
Final Presentation PDF #1
Final Presentation PDF #2
Final Presentation PDF #3
The proposed new bridge between the East Village and the north shore of the Bow River is a stress ribbon bridge with a landing on St. Patrick’s Island. It incorporates two symmetrical supporting steel arches to reduce the effective span. The resulting slender structure hangs via its deck in a cable-like form between the bridge embankments.
Since the introduction of this rather new structural type (stress-ribbon bridge), a considerable number of stress ribbon bridges have been built and tested successfully. By the help of the arch and a concrete compression link, the anchoring requirements at the concrete abutments will be reduced to a minimum. The railing consists of steel frames with an infill which helps to decrease the visual height of the bridge, keeping it slender in elevation and reducing wind loads.
Being a controlled intervention into the existing landscape the proposal is in harmony with the surroundings and legibly marks the crossing point as a structure of exciting slenderness and elegance. The bridge respects the natural environment setting and is not competing in height with the busy network of the adjacent bridges but stages the Island of St. Patrick as a future regional destination.
The central landing functions as a viewing platform as well as a public space that forms the gate to St. Patrick’s Island. At the same time the platform, shaped to break-up ice, performs as abutment of the self anchored structures, settlement basin and gravity box reducing the necessary foundations to a minimum.
37 Responses to “Submission #15”
Leave a Comment
Administrator reserves the right to remove comments which are not on topic, are distasteful or contain inappropriate content and/or references. Thank you.
Another really underwhelming design. Why?
what a waste of money.
This design represents the level of structural consideration that many of the unsuccessful submissions certainly did not. Doesn’t mean its interesting, but it’s certainly more likable than 29.
This one was my favourite! It is such an elegant design and in harmony with its surroundings unlike many others in the 1st stage. Congratulations to the jury and the designers. It is really an innovative structure and will be recognized for it! Very elegant!
Boring but probably the cheapest to build.
Love this one.
Simple and elegant.
Allowing more money to be spent on materials.
Love the public discourse.
Thanks
David Minke
Keep pushing Calgary onto the international stage!
A very good design but a little lack-lustre. Kudos for making it this far, but the other two are more up the city’s alley for beauty and intelligence while showing off in a simply-elegant way.
It’s a bit boring though isn’t it? It’s like they didn’t really care. The last image looks a bit like an industrial catwalk. Not a very fun experience for St Patrick’s Island visits.
Elegant structure and urban integration, but as a structural engineer I doubt that the built bridge will look as slender as shown here.
It looks great and does the job. Practicality is timeless. Good work, You’ve got my vote.
If you wanted underwhelming and pragmatic, why not just leave the perfectly fine suspension bridge in tact and build another conecting to the north.
It does not look anything I would want to walk on or invite me to the island… couple of pliewood will do the same trick… very dissapointed this was considered for Calgary…
Boring!
I really prefer this one than #7: no mast! But because the sensation of pedestrians crossing the bridge will be quite boring all along, and because I don’t believe that the structure can be the same (dimensions) to support the two really different spans, I prefer choosing submittal 29.
Elegant,straightforward,unobtrusive,functional and pleasing to the eye .Best of the three.
Based on the rationale for the choices in the papers they wanted something that was minimalist in its surroundings. Unfortunately this wasn’t conveyed to the public nor the competition participants. It set up the expectation of something truly daring, excentric and iconic. We got quite a few of those in the competition, but it’s now clear they never had a chance. Sorry you wasted your time. They could have gotten these results through a local engineering firm.
They are uncontroversial, which is what they seemed to be after, but the best architecture IS controversial. True love/hate like the Calatrava bridge is the best result rather than simply mild approval or dislike.
Unfortunately, the choices are controversial amongst people for exactly the WRONG reason – being utterly boring.
Going for harmony with its surroundings rather than trying to outshine them is a plus to this bridge. Minimal impact to the rivers natural beauty is very important.
I don’t think this is a design that is going to have developers itching to start private sector construction in the area…
This bridge is way too subtle to stand out from the concrete overpasses from the north, or the design of many other bridges.
I understand it was a tough job to go from 33 designs to three, but I think it is also discouraging that designers were not given guidance upon what the committee were looking for. The competition essentially became a lottery, and I think that at least Calgary MLC would have had a higher number of candidates to choose from that fit their unspoken criteria.
Aren’t the highway overpasses to the north a bigger engineering marvel in itself? The spans of the overpasses to the north are probably longer and hold up more weight, and the materials don’t look a lot different either.
I thought this was a design competition and not an engineering competition.
Congratulations to this entry for it’s exciting aesthetics and engineering. Glad to see the judging panel has good taste and able to see the subtleties of its genius.
A little understated and humdrum for my liking but it is elegant. This would be my last choice of the 3 finalists.
A bridge FOR pedestrians doesn’t have to BE pedestrian. Compares poorly to #29.
this bridge is perfect, no sightline obscructions, simple design, and does not overwhelm its surroundings.this would be my chioce for sure.
In the few minutes you take to cross the river it is unlikely you will have time to be bored. The destination is probably more exciting.
This design gets my vote because it RESPECTS THE UNIQUE RIVERINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE BOW RIVER MAKING WILDLIFE, AVIAN, AND HUMAN PASSAGE SAFER.
This is the best design. The river crossing shouldn’t be about the bridge, it should be about the environs. I don’t want a design that impunges on the skyline. Anyone who has been to London will see the elegance of the Millenium Bridge compared to all the others on the Thames.
Simple, elegant, provides access to the island (unlike #29), should be durable and low cost to maintain. If we have to have one this is it.
They seem to be hiding what the landing point to the island looks like, meaning they probably haven’t thought about it much.
Central balcony and oblique piers will become a large barrier for the Bow River and ice sheets.
In response to the Calgary Herald call for votes: Out of the three final submission – this one seems to reflect Calgary the most. Agile, flexible and ingenious at every angle.
The simplicity and clean lines of the bridge are what makes this design the most appropriate. Since there isn’t anything other than the railing protruding above the deck surface, views in all directions are unobstructed. It also complements the natural features of the island and park, blending in with the river and vegetation rather than overpowering it like the cable-stayed design.
Not really a fan of this one. A little on the boring side and looks like barely any effort went into making something special and unique.
I fear that crossing this bridge would feel dull and monotonous. I am also concerned by the massive anchorage (?) structure on the island which would effectively prevent anyone from walking to its tip(one of my favorite spots).
I think it’s important to bear in mind what makes a great pedestrian experience. This is when the pedestrian becomes engaged in their surroundings.
In a natural setting, this could be examining a wild flower, listening to a stream, or the smell of wet earth. In a city environ, this could be listening to a saxophonist busker, looking at unique architecture, or the smell of a bakery.
I think it is important that this bridge engages the user in both a large scale, and on a human-sized scale. The RFR exemplifies that it is an engaging experience both how it is designed, I see that it was meant to be noticed by the pedestrian along the Riverwalk, but pays particular attention to the humansized scale interaction as one enters the park setting onto the island. Likewise the Buckland and Taylor design is noticable from the Riverwalk, but provides for sweeping vistas of the city and riverbank, but also the humansized scale anchor bench as it approaches onto the island.
What I don’t like about the Falco Shmitt design is that it is designed NOT to engage the pedestrian visually. There is nothing that differentiates it from the flyovers to the north. Nor can one appreciate the natural environment in comparison to the scale of the bridge from the riverbank.
As others have commented, this bridge risks be boring or not being an engaging experience. For these reasons, in my opinion, this bridge design is a distant third place among the three remaining competitors.
This bridge is an embarrassment to the competition. Completely boring, uninspired, and we already have 100 bridges in town that look exactly like it.
No amount of lighting or good materials is going to save this bridge. Please don’t pick this bridge, and please remove all evidence that it was even being considered as a finalist.
I’m two steps across, and I’m bored already. Shouldn’t have made the final round.
this does not reflect calgary neither inviting me anywhere… scary rather
For what it’s worth, the following votes were tabulated on a CBC article:
RFR / Halsall: 61%
Buckland & Taylor Ltd./Kitchell: 28%
ARUP/Falko Schmitt: 11%
Likewise, on Calgary Construction Forum website:
RFR / Halsall: 62%
Buckland & Taylor Ltd./Kitchell: 31%
ARUP/Falko Schmitt: 8%
As a local, I do agree that I think both the RFR and Buckland & Taylor are the leaders for the competition.
Of course these are not scientific polls, nor may they best represent the interests of the users, however if a non-favourite is ultimately selected I would like to know what other design considerations affected the ultimate selection.
Please no! Very boring!