Comments on: UC Planners Envision “Bay Line” Park on the Old Bay Bridge Span http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Oliver Maxwell http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-545907 Oliver Maxwell Thu, 01 Sep 2011 02:40:00 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-545907 William Gibson would applaud this. William Gibson would applaud this.

]]> By: Michael Young http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-58401 Michael Young Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:13:18 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-58401 I think this is an example of an idea of some merit, to re-purpose this thing, although it needs a lot more consideration: It's like the brief at the beginning of a design investigation. I'm not intending to raise anyone's ire, but the "design" exemplifies what happens in a program like modo, where the imagination of the designer is conditioned by the digital tools, over-conditioned in this case. The bridge is *beautiful*, but the design seems not to respect this and tortures the existing geometry instead of complementing it. I'd like to see what Lebbeus Wood would make of this... it would be much more deeply considered, and that depth of iteration is what is required. Architecture students seem to have lost the knack for iteration, and although this isn't student work, it has that tang to it. I think this is an example of an idea of some merit, to re-purpose this thing, although it needs a lot more consideration: It’s like the brief at the beginning of a design investigation. I’m not intending to raise anyone’s ire, but the “design” exemplifies what happens in a program like modo, where the imagination of the designer is conditioned by the digital tools, over-conditioned in this case. The bridge is *beautiful*, but the design seems not to respect this and tortures the existing geometry instead of complementing it. I’d like to see what Lebbeus Wood would make of this… it would be much more deeply considered, and that depth of iteration is what is required. Architecture students seem to have lost the knack for iteration, and although this isn’t student work, it has that tang to it.

]]> By: Yvonne http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-36311 Yvonne Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:12:02 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-36311 Tennis is decidedly NOT a game to play on the bridge. Even in Emeryville, on a ground level, protected court, wind is considerable and balls quickly get heavy with moisture off the bay ... enough to deter enjoyment and send me to the hills. Tennis is decidedly NOT a game to play on the bridge.

Even in Emeryville, on a ground level, protected court, wind is considerable and balls quickly get heavy with moisture off the bay … enough to deter enjoyment and send me to the hills.

]]> By: Frank C. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-36201 Frank C. Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:07:34 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-36201 This is idiotic. And I'm a liberal environmentalist who lives in SF. We have enough problems keeping our state parks open. What a waste of time, effort and money. There is so much more that can be done with existing infrastructure and buildings. This is idiotic. And I’m a liberal environmentalist who lives in SF. We have enough problems keeping our state parks open. What a waste of time, effort and money. There is so much more that can be done with existing infrastructure and buildings.

]]> By: Mark E. Sackett http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35961 Mark E. Sackett Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:34:36 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35961 Does anyone know how I can reach this guy? There has been a group of us working on a project like this for some time now....I would like to contact him! Please email me at: msackett@reflectur.com or call me at 415-934-6900 Many thanks! Mark E. Sackett President/Creative Director/Executive Producer Reflectur /THE BOX / Articulation Films / Brainfood Creative Programs Does anyone know how I can reach this guy? There has been a group of us working on a project like this for some time now….I would like to contact him! Please email me at: msackett@reflectur.com or call me at 415-934-6900

Many thanks!

Mark E. Sackett
President/Creative Director/Executive Producer
Reflectur /THE BOX / Articulation Films / Brainfood Creative Programs

]]> By: Erik Whittaker http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35951 Erik Whittaker Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:17:22 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35951 It should be noted that it was the causeway that failed during the 1989 the Loma Prieta earthquake and not the once world record breaking span of the cantilever. Engineering reports concluded that the cantilever to be seismically superior to the causeway. It should also be noted that for various reasons the seismic requirements for structures like bridges is higher than for buildings. I think I remember hearing that for reasons of national security at the time that the bridge was over engineered. Below is a clip from some research I did on this idea. The numbers are out of date as they are from 2003. "The Metropolitan Transportation Commission was created by the State Legislature in 1970 (California Government Code § 66500 et seq.), to be responsible for the Regional Transportation Plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area and as such it screens requests from local agencies for state and federal grants for transportation projects. On December 10, 1996, on behalf of the MTC, Joseph Penzien and Charles Seim reported to James Van Loben Sels, Director California Department of Transportation, on seismic issues arising from the 1989 earthquake damage to the East Span. Though costs were close, they recommended a new bridge be built at $1.5 billion vs. a retrofitting of the present bridge at $1.3 billion. This is not to say that the existing bridge is a seismic tragedy waiting to happen. Rather “The design for the retrofit of the old bridge is compromised by restraints imposed by the existing structure and by the need to minimize traffic interruptions.” http://www.mtc.ca.gov/projects/bay_bridge/bbletter.htm If the final use of the bridge is not to carry the abuse of continual traffic now averaging 250,000 vehicles a day, and if continuous time can be dedicated to a re-adaption of the bridge, much of the seismic retrofitting required could easily be incorporated as part of the structures built between the upper and lower decks. Such construction would deal directly with the seismic failures arising from the 1989 earthquake. Additional retrofitting required would also be much easier to install on a traffic free bridge and could take up much of space that is now needed for such traffic. Under such circumstances, the engineering and economic feasibility of making the bridge seismically safe could easily be reconsidered. The original retrofit estimate of $1.3 billion was inflated by the inefficient expenditures incurred from the complications of working without interfering in the function of a heavily used bridge. Free access to the bridge would dramatically reduce these costs of retrofitting and future maintenance. The costs or removing the bridge would also be a great savings. The $150 million earmarked for the addition of a bike lane could naturally be transferred to the conversion of the old bridge. Sales of over 300 units between the upper and lower decks would also contribute to making the project feasible. Modern prefabricated construction methods and an unencumbered approach to retrofitting should be explored to see what the real costs of saving the bridge are." It should be noted that it was the causeway that failed during the 1989 the Loma Prieta earthquake and not the once world record breaking span of the cantilever. Engineering reports concluded that the cantilever to be seismically superior to the causeway. It should also be noted that for various reasons the seismic requirements for structures like bridges is higher than for buildings. I think I remember hearing that for reasons of national security at the time that the bridge was over engineered.

Below is a clip from some research I did on this idea. The numbers are out of date as they are from 2003.

“The Metropolitan Transportation Commission was created by the State Legislature in 1970 (California Government Code § 66500 et seq.), to be responsible for the Regional Transportation Plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area and as such it screens requests from local agencies for state and federal grants for transportation projects.

On December 10, 1996, on behalf of the MTC, Joseph Penzien and Charles Seim reported to James Van Loben Sels, Director California Department of Transportation, on seismic issues arising from the 1989 earthquake damage to the East Span. Though costs were close, they recommended a new bridge be built at $1.5 billion vs. a retrofitting of the present bridge at $1.3 billion.

This is not to say that the existing bridge is a seismic tragedy waiting to happen. Rather “The design for the retrofit of the old bridge is compromised by restraints imposed by the existing structure and by the need to minimize traffic interruptions.” http://www.mtc.ca.gov/projects/bay_bridge/bbletter.htm

If the final use of the bridge is not to carry the abuse of continual traffic now averaging 250,000 vehicles a day, and if continuous time can be dedicated to a re-adaption of the bridge, much of the seismic retrofitting required could easily be incorporated as part of the structures built between the upper and lower decks. Such construction would deal directly with the seismic failures arising from the 1989 earthquake. Additional retrofitting required would also be much easier to install on a traffic free bridge and could take up much of space that is now needed for such traffic. Under such circumstances, the engineering and economic feasibility of making the bridge seismically safe could easily be reconsidered.

The original retrofit estimate of $1.3 billion was inflated by the inefficient expenditures incurred from the complications of working without interfering in the function of a heavily used bridge. Free access to the bridge would dramatically reduce these costs of retrofitting and future maintenance. The costs or removing the bridge would also be a great savings. The $150 million earmarked for the addition of a bike lane could naturally be transferred to the conversion of the old bridge. Sales of over 300 units between the upper and lower decks would also contribute to making the project feasible.

Modern prefabricated construction methods and an unencumbered approach to retrofitting should be explored to see what the real costs of saving the bridge are.”

]]> By: gil http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35931 gil Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:29:17 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35931 what would the cost be to span a bridge jumpers security net?....nice concept but it'll not fly...too many "practical" issues...accessibility and high wind loads are red flashing tapes... what would the cost be to span a bridge jumpers security net?….nice concept but it’ll not fly…too many “practical” issues…accessibility and high wind loads are red flashing tapes…

]]> By: Anthony Holmes http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35861 Anthony Holmes Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:20:18 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35861 i applaud great thinking, but is this really desirable? The High Line is cool in NYC because it is somewhat aesthetic in the midst of urban browns and greys. Whereas a similar project would DECREASE the asethetic value of the Bay Area- over here, the LESS built up, the better. Short of another Golden Gate Bridge nothing will improve the Bay other than leaving it as unspoiled and unmodified as possible. i applaud great thinking, but is this really desirable? The High Line is cool in NYC because it is somewhat aesthetic in the midst of urban browns and greys. Whereas a similar project would DECREASE the asethetic value of the Bay Area- over here, the LESS built up, the better. Short of another Golden Gate Bridge nothing will improve the Bay other than leaving it as unspoiled and unmodified as possible.

]]> By: Don Neuwirth http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35851 Don Neuwirth Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:31:40 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35851 When I was planning manager for the Eastshore State Park, we considered using sections of the old bridge as historic railing. CALTRANS engineers told us that would require abating 70 years of lead paint. Have any of the proponents consulted with bridge experts? While facing real threats of closing 100 state parks, we should get a grip on such folly. When I was planning manager for the Eastshore State Park, we considered using sections of the old bridge as historic railing. CALTRANS engineers told us that would require abating 70 years of lead paint. Have any of the proponents consulted with bridge experts? While facing real threats of closing 100 state parks, we should get a grip on such folly.

]]> By: Georgia http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35841 Georgia Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:40:11 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35841 Interesting concepts but is the structure safe? Wondering why the new span was not designed to be multi-modal. (For example, in NYC, several bridges carry vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the subway.) Interesting concepts but is the structure safe? Wondering why the new span was not designed to be multi-modal. (For example, in NYC, several bridges carry vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the subway.)

]]> By: Mr. Engineer http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35831 Mr. Engineer Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:52:53 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35831 You need to consider the cost of maintaining the bridge which is considerable. No residents are going to want to pay that much and taxpayers shouldn't have to. You need to consider the cost of maintaining the bridge which is considerable. No residents are going to want to pay that much and taxpayers shouldn’t have to.

]]> By: Nancy Pelosi http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35811 Nancy Pelosi Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:59:15 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35811 Hey why don't we use the old structure as a road from oakland to SF? We could even let cars on it so people could commute from the east bay to SF while I fly my team every week back and forth to DC costing the tax payers $60000 a flight. Hey why don’t we use the old structure as a road from oakland to SF? We could even let cars on it so people could commute from the east bay to SF while I fly my team every week back and forth to DC costing the tax payers $60000 a flight.

]]> By: Hank Chapot http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35671 Hank Chapot Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:13:58 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35671 I suggest cutting the idea down to size, recycle the cantilever section and build a park on the causeway. I'm a horticulturalist, I would sign up in a heartbeat. During the 1990s I was employed by an industrial historian, doing private research on Bay Area infrastructure from the gold rush to the present and I wrote the following letter promoting this idea to the Berkeley Daily Planet in 2006.... 9.01.2006 Berkeley Daily Planet Save the old San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge! BAY BRIDGE Editors, Daily Planet: Now that the bids for the final section of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge are being considered, perhaps we should start a campaign to preserve the existing eastern span, for logistic as well as historical reasons. It would be a backup bridge in the event the new one is a failure and it would be a nice place to walk or ride bicycles and picnic. Saving the old bridge would be a nice homage to the builders of the 1930s and a prudent effort perhaps, considering the problems we’ve had building a new one. Hank Chapot I suggest cutting the idea down to size, recycle the cantilever section and build a park on the causeway.

I’m a horticulturalist, I would sign up in a heartbeat. During the 1990s I was employed by an industrial historian, doing private research on Bay Area infrastructure from the gold rush to the present and I wrote the following letter promoting this idea to the Berkeley Daily Planet in 2006….

9.01.2006

Berkeley Daily Planet
Save the old San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge!
BAY BRIDGE

Editors, Daily Planet:

Now that the bids for the final section of the new eastern span of the Bay
Bridge are being considered, perhaps we should start a campaign to preserve
the existing eastern span, for logistic as well as historical reasons. It
would be a backup bridge in the event the new one is a failure and it would
be a nice place to walk or ride bicycles and picnic. Saving the old bridge
would be a nice homage to the builders of the 1930s and a prudent effort
perhaps, considering the problems we’ve had building a new one.

Hank Chapot

]]> By: lisaaa http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-35631 lisaaa Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:16:11 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-35631 perhaps the inspirations regarding the lifecycling of the bay bridge should be boston's big dig: http://www.ssdarchitecture.com/works/residential/big-dig-house/ perhaps the inspirations regarding the lifecycling of the bay bridge should be boston’s big dig: http://www.ssdarchitecture.com/works/residential/big-dig-house/

]]> By: Frank http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-34931 Frank Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:17:59 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-34931 I'm a structural engineer and I have to say this is one of the most impractical ideas I have heard regarding the Bay Bridge. I understand the desire to be creative and giving new life to existing structures. I have done it myself in several retrofit jobs I have done during my career. However, to think that a bridge with seismic problems, which is why it is being replaced, can be used for housing or a park! Please we have a lot better existing structures that could be renovated and be useful again. I know this will not actually happen. There is no way Caltrans or any other state organization will permit this to happen. As an engineer and an expert on the topic, the seismic concerns in the bay area are serious and very real. The next big earthquake in the bay area will devastate many cities. Let's invest our resources in retrofitting schools, hospitals and other essential facilities that will be needed when the next quake comes. I’m a structural engineer and I have to say this is one of the most impractical ideas I have heard regarding the Bay Bridge. I understand the desire to be creative and giving new life to existing structures. I have done it myself in several retrofit jobs I have done during my career. However, to think that a bridge with seismic problems, which is why it is being replaced, can be used for housing or a park! Please we have a lot better existing structures that could be renovated and be useful again. I know this will not actually happen. There is no way Caltrans or any other state organization will permit this to happen. As an engineer and an expert on the topic, the seismic concerns in the bay area are serious and very real. The next big earthquake in the bay area will devastate many cities. Let’s invest our resources in retrofitting schools, hospitals and other essential facilities that will be needed when the next quake comes.

]]> By: keith saggers http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-34921 keith saggers Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:16:48 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-34921 Yeah 6.2 billion last week. 6.3 billion this week, see chron. Yeah 6.2 billion last week. 6.3 billion this week, see chron.

]]> By: Hefe http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-34791 Hefe Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:47:19 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-34791 I concur with all of the other statements--cool idea, but so impractical from every stand point. The worst part though--calling it the Bay Line? Seriously? How does that make any sense? Quite revealing. I concur with all of the other statements–cool idea, but so impractical from every stand point.

The worst part though–calling it the Bay Line? Seriously? How does that make any sense? Quite revealing.

]]> By: Sounds nice...but impractical http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-34771 Sounds nice...but impractical Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:27:30 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-34771 Recycle the bridge, don't try to reuse it. The cost of maintaining and continuous inspection would be tremendous and wasteful. It is being replaced for a good reason. Built 70 years ago and not designed for earthquakes...as 1989 proved. Recycle the bridge, don’t try to reuse it. The cost of maintaining and continuous inspection would be tremendous and wasteful. It is being replaced for a good reason. Built 70 years ago and not designed for earthquakes…as 1989 proved.

]]> By: taomom http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-34761 taomom Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:47:28 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-34761 The current eastern span of the Bay bridge is ugly and dangerous. Tear it down. Use the steel for something good. To create more public green space, restore wetlands around the edge of the bay complete with biking/walking trails. Yes, I can imagine other bridges in other cities where this might be a good idea, but not this one at this time. The current eastern span of the Bay bridge is ugly and dangerous. Tear it down. Use the steel for something good. To create more public green space, restore wetlands around the edge of the bay complete with biking/walking trails. Yes, I can imagine other bridges in other cities where this might be a good idea, but not this one at this time.

]]> By: chad w http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/09/uc-planners-envision-bay-line-park-on-the-old-bay-bridge-span/comment-page-1/#comment-34681 chad w Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:51:26 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=39721#comment-34681 i like the creativity. i see the highest and best use in relocating the old span to Treasure Island and recycling the materials into public spaces and new construction projects there. unfortunatley sometimes the best way to treat historical structures kindly is to dismantle them and re-use the parts to pay tribute to what was. i like the creativity. i see the highest and best use in relocating the old span to Treasure Island and recycling the materials into public spaces and new construction projects there. unfortunatley sometimes the best way to treat historical structures kindly is to dismantle them and re-use the parts to pay tribute to what was.

]]>