Submission #29 CLOSE
RFR (Paris, France) and Halsall (Calgary)
The design of the St. PatrickÃs Bridge will take its cues both from the urban and from the natural. The Bow River is a ribbon of nature winding through the urban environment of the city. For pedestrians and cyclists crossing the river, the footbridge becomes an instrument through which to observe, understand, and appreciate the spectacle of the river.
One of the primary goals of the bridge architectural concept is to keep the supporting bridge structure located primarily above the deck. This basic trait leads to several important attributes.
Firstly, the bridge is supported solely from land, with the only supports below 100?year flood levels being those located on the river banks. This strategy has a number of clear benefits. From the viewpoint of the riverside pathways and river craft, the river corridor appears minimally occupied. During construction, turbidity from construction activity is reduced or eliminated, to the benefit of aquatic life. And finally, less structure in the river channel during floods means less accumulation of debris and associated pier scouring.
A second attribute of the architectural concept is that it creates a spatial sequence along the crossing. The rhythm of the continuous arches is aligned with the river channels and the island, giving visual cues to pedestrians that are synchronized with the surrounding environment. The lateral inclination of the arches leads to a feeling of a partially enclosed deck over each river channel, with the arches located overhead of the pedestrians. On the island, however, the arch structure remains below the deck, leaving bridge users in intimate contact with the islandÃs verdant setting.
The architecture of the structure also contributes to its physical robustness. The resistance of the bridge to floods and ice floes is improved by limiting the number of elements located in the flood zone. The leaning geometry of the arches facilitates inspection of the arch, hangers, and struts, with the entire structure visible from the deck. The inclination of the arches also makes them more resistant to ice floes while remaining slender, by forcing ice upwards until it breaks and falls back onto itself. This is contrasted to a blunt vertical support that would receive large horizontal forces from the ice and would have to be quite stout as a result.
53 Responses to “Submission #29”
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.
Not sure why the shortlist is as it is. Three of the most banal designs. Sorry.
I will pay 1 million for this not 25.
so…. can you even get to the island from this bridge?
Are you sure when you selected 29 someone didn’t make a typo when they meant to pick 27? I get the whole simple is better thing that our boring City approvals always result in; this is certainly very consistent with that.
Since this design seems unworth of the trouble of a competition, one can only surmise that its presence among the finalists means its likely a frontrunner!
INteresting but not my Favorite
The RFR / Halsall bridge is a highly intelligent design that brings a fresh breath of simplicity and elegance to the competition. These subtle, low twin-arch structures will probably most likely be cost effective but yet leaving a harmonious and well-balanced structure to fit perfectly into the urban landscape of the city. Thank you RFR and Halsall for bringing an innovate design to the competition.
I think RFR submission is very elegant and is an interesting contrast to the Calatrava bridge. I like the way it lightly jumps across the river. Ironically the London based submission is somewhat derivative of early Calatrava bridges.
This one is the best out of all three. Simple but elegant, classic really but in a modern way.
Just looks like a road with a thin railing.
I think the design is simple, elegant and beautiful. The people who have posted negative comments here are ignorant — this bridge would be a beautiful addition to the world-renowned Bow River system and the fact that a Calgary design firm is involved makes it all the more impressive. I hope this stands out as the clear winner when the dust settles.
This my favourite because it does not scream to be noticed and run the risk of trying to eclipse the natural beauty. Like that the design firm is local!
Simplicity marry beauty, the view from riverside is most coherent to natural beauty
There is a real elegance in this solution. By Far the most ‘worked out’ of the three schemes.
The Halsall design seems to depict foothills rolling acrosse the river. This design, somewhat simplistic but in an elegant way, fits.
I really like this bridge, it’s subtle, let’s you enjoy the landscape which is what bridges are all about. They can be very elegant, but still add to the landscape not take away from the landscape.
The bridge has a sublte flow to it and certainly looks elegant as it spans across the water. The design is most excellent.
The arches and deck of this bridge make a lighter more modern counterpoint to the Centre Street Bridge.
Definetely the best of the three…… it’s nice but is it necessary and for 25 mil?
Elegantly shaped footbridge. Still iconic, but very intelligent use of materials and sensible urban integration. My vote if they manage to design a proper island access as well!
The bridge is outstanding…elegant and fits beautifully with the environment.
It reminds me of a stone skipping on water. Very nice.
Simple, elegant, tasteful, iconic. I agree with Ryan, a stone skipping on the water is the first thing I think of. Fantastic!
This looks like a thin faded copy drawing of center st bridge, it is missing the point to lead people on or invite me to the island… it is just another boring bridge, very dissapointed this was considered for a progressive city like Calgary…
Looks great!
My preferred choice! It’s not so out of scale as proposal #7, and allows better variety of sensations, with people walking along and playing with the structure that is also part of the landscape.
Totally and hopelessly uninspired. Never mind the rocks, skip this design.
Disappointing. If this is the chosen design then we really wasted our time and money. I would rather have nothing then have this.
It’s absurd to me that the concept desing doesn’t actually even show how you get to the island from the bridge! fail.
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.
As a native Calgarian who appreciates the natural beauty of the bow river valley, I favour this design for its graceful leaps across the two channels. This bridge is for everyone who grew up on the banks of the bow and skipped stones across its waters. This bridge best respects the harmony between Calgarians and our river.
Hello from Halifax, NS. My mother and sister are residents of the East Village and after my first visit home to Calgary this past July in ten years. I was amazed with all the changes going on ‘for the good’ in the East Village area. I know my mother is very active in the East Village community and I know none of these ’shortlist’ designs appeal to my mother. But if the bridge does have be built I’d pick this one for St. Patrick’s Island. It’s the design that my mother might be able to get use to . . over time, and she might not be able to see from her balcony. I still wonder is this bridge really necessary at a cost 25 million that could be used for senior housing and or programs?
The 3 choices that this was narrowed down to are all good and the best choices. This one #29 is my favourite, I like the simplicity and gracefulness. 2nd choice would be #7, I like the curve and the tower and cable make it stand out (that is both what I like and dislike). Cost of building and of maintenance would be a factor in my choosing one over the other. I think bridges to encourage pedestrian traffic is a great idea.
I live in Bridgeland, and I thought while I think the basic structure is interesting in that one can view the arches, and appreciate the bridge in itself as one crosses, but one can also appreciate the natural environment as well.
What I don’t like about this bridge is that is says virtually nothing about the creative bustling urban environment that it will border. I hope that the final design will bridge not only be a bridge to cross from one riverbank to the next, but will be a bridge that bridges the natural environment with a human and urban environment.
Please jazz up this bridge! This bridge will also need adequate night lighting so people feel safe.
I prefer this design for its simplicity and elegance, a perfect contrast to the nearby “bustling urban environment” that is creative in its own way. The arches flow across the river, serving a practical purpose that is also aesthetically pleasing to behold (something #15 lacks). The sleekness of the bridge gives it a modern feel, but without imposing itself upon either the river or the skyline (something #7 achieves, or over-achieves). I believe this design for St. Patrick’s Bridge will best serve the fine people of Calgary, appealing to both intellect and creativity, while humbly allowing them to appreciate and enjoy the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape.
I am familiar with the somewhat similar “La Defense” bridge designed by RFR which I really enjoyed. What I liked about that bridge design, is that a variety of materials (metal arch spans), wires and support structure, were all extremely elegant as to almost be invisible, but at the same time it was the different materials and contrast that made the bridge very much a minimalist bridge, but at the same time I think it was more exciting due to use of vibrant colours. I like that this bridge has a varying span, and arches that lean towards one another. I like that it is minimalist and does not compete structurally with the bridges.
What I don’t like is that the design ignores the urban environment. It’s monotonic white tubes appear to be so pragmatic and utilitarian, that it can be confused with being nondescript. The downtown is trying to attract “urban explorers” and creative people. To be more clear, there is a set of flyovers to the north, that are 200 m apart, and this bridge looks no more creative or remarkable than these flyovers.
While I think it blends well with the natural environment, it hasn’t differentiated itself from the flyovers directly to the northwest, and it hasn’t tried to make a metaphorical connection with the creative people that live in this city.
That is why I strongly think this bridge needs to be jazzed up or else it risks being labeled as flyover number 5. If it doesn’t successfully differentiate itself from the network of transportation infrastructure to the northwest then it risks not being perceived as the amenity that this bridge is meant to be.
I am not the first to share the comment that it “looks like a road with a thin railing”.
As a frequent walker, bridge #29 is my choice. I would feel safe and comfortable, yet at one with the river and its power! It is simple and natural, such a wise choice for a bustling city, a place to be in contact with the forces of our natural world.
No. 29 is clean and unpretentious and leaves the natural landscape alone so the landscape remains the prime feature. It’s typically French, being so elegant and is the best of the three.
Clean and elegant. This is my favorite design of all of the choices. It is organic and flows with the landscape without being wastefull.
No. 29 is stunning in its graceful beauty and its engineering. It is a bridge that speaks to the soul of both calm peacefulness and soaring possibilities. A walker’s delight.
My 2nd choice of the 3 finalists is this bridge. Nothing overly dramatic but elegant just the same.
Wins my vote for my “walk in the park.” Works with the river, and has nice lines.
I went for a walk last evening through Centenary Park (the island). I had a couple of observations. First, that a majority of the people that live in the surrounding residential communities will do so in the evening when they are off work. Secondly, that it was dark out. In the evening, your senses are attuned to different things, you hear scurrying in the bushes, and you can see the beautiful Calgary skyline and LRTs whisking over the flyovers. In fact, nature is not readibly observable in the evenings.
The renderings do not include the flyovers or full site context because it was edited out to appeal to certain attributes.
Therefore, I believe that the bridge should be designed to engage humans instead of primarily appealing or blending in with nature. It is important that this bridge considers the evening user. I believe the Buckland and Taylor design does this best.
Bravo!
It’s a light beautiful project!
superbe, raffinÈ, intÈgrÈ, harmonieux, pas banal, loin d’Ãtre monotone (arcs diffÈrenciÈs en fonction de l’enjambement…
bravo
The RFR bridge looks great, classic and moderne in the same time.
This project looks fabulous ! The design is great, very original, light, modern. Fits incredibly well with the landscape. Congartulation !
A bridge that skips lightly, in three steps, over the river. Children and their grandparents will take more steps, but with the same rhythm.
This genial design reveals itself as work of art at each crossing. A visible bridge, biased over the river, where it sheds its ice safely during the yearly thaw. A bridge open to the future natural landscape of the island.
It will be great to build, great to use; the city and citizen continue to advance.
Action city.
I’ve read with interests all the previously posted remarks.
The RFR bridge, no. 29, is certainly beautiful and elegant, a pure solution to the situation of a double crossing over a small piece of land. By attending to natural demands first, the bridge minimizes its appearance as a line, a quick-silver gesture that honors and respects rather than “embelllishes” its surroundings. It does not need to be “jazzed up”; a new element of this beauty and simplicity will add plenty to a vital urban environment without having to “match” its complexity. (The complexity of a city takes care of itself.) Break ground!
To arrive at the simple is difficult, and RFR has achieved a reliable, creative solution that suits the surroundings.
Wonderful proposition by RFR… as usual!
If East village will be built high density with some tall buildings then this bridge desing will dissapear in east village faster than it get’s built.. Urban setting of east village require a tall standing urban desing as we want to make st patric’s island part of inner city feel like Princess Island…
I vote for the first bride #7 it just have the look to invite people across and join bridgeland with east village… this one lacks future vision of east village, feels cheap and over priced for the 25mill…
I don’t know what is so elegant about this road with a thin railing. People needs to think and see further in future the area won’t look like this in 10 years this will be a busy urban setting with tall modern buildings none of that subtle nature with thin pencil draw designs… we need a thick marker to draw a line to be noticed in future… build for future now what the area looks like now…
This bridge location is the portal to nature (Fort Calgary, the river islands, the Zoo, Harvie Passage…) as one is leaving the urban core by foot or cycle. We can assume then that the sense of emerging into the respite of the river parklands will be an important aspect of the users choice of this pathway, as opposed to more “urbane” routes that they could choose. In contrast to other opinions, I believe that this place of emergence will only become more important as the East Village is developed. This design creates a light grace note that complements the natural setting of the islands. The other semifinalists appear more concerned with making modern design statements that threaten to diminish the sense of emergence into nature.