Looks great!

It’ll do to cross the road with, but I do still think the earlier cable bridge would have been even nicer than this turned out.

That is so cool, it looks like someone welded together some old cell phone towers.

Since it was a contest and the winning entry couldn’t be funded maybe the second place or subsequent entry that could be fully funded should have been built. If the city wanted to truly have the bridge be a representation of an artist’s work.

Yeah, it needed those cables. It’s not so much the structure that looks odd in its modified form, but the new truss bridge structure just doesn’t look as good IMO.

The bridge was to be more than just a connecting bridge between the upper and lower sections of the “Park” spanning the interstate. It was to be a landscaped extension of the Park itself. Did that element survive the redo?

One issue I recall is that ODOT insisted that they needed the ability to drive heavy trucks onto the pedestrian bridge; the cost of modifying the original design to allow for such traffic would have been prohibitive.

Did anyone ever follow up with ODOT to find out why it was so necessary for them to have the ability to drive trucks onto the structure? I can think of plenty of pedestrian bridges in older cities that don’t accommodate trucks.

“it looks like someone welded together some old cell phone towers.”
Exactly.. not cool IMHO.

I may have imagined the landscaped part, but could swear I read it and saw renderings indicating as much but cant locate them now…

Also, how much is this thing really costing? A recent post (this month) on the City’s site says $5.8M (the Oklahoman has since picked up on this lower amount), yet numerous media reports (some recent) had put the cost at $12M. A (8/1/11) Bond Advisory Committee Meeting minutes stated that it is $8M. A TIGER grant application by the City had the cost at $18M ($13M in grant money which we apparently didn’t get). The lowest & earliest figure I found was $3.3M

Haters gonna hate…

Re: Paul
You got aesthetic problems,
I feel back for you son.
I got ninety-nine problems,
but a bridge ain’t one.

Per one of the architects, the bridge is to be fitted with modified planking across the span with a wood appearance. This will “soften” the pedestrian walking experience.

Larry, if you thought they were going to cover it in sod, they are not.

Thanks Jeff, I must have dreamed but I can even see the rendering in my head that showed a landscaped bridge with small trees those “ghost” pedestrians & bicyclists along the trail portion. The sculpture part and cables framing the rendering on the top/sides. Very similar in style as the renderings I did find online. Even went over to Dougs blog where he had pics of the model and only landscaping is at the approaches to it…

The original (and superior) design struck me immediately with a WOW when I saw it how long ago now? That coupled with the unique aspect of making it a part of the Park rather than a bridge connecting the park was a really kewl idea.

I still like it but not as much as the original sleek modern appearance…now it looks very 50s/60s Erector-setish. Direct opposite approach from our typical highway signage when they went with the oil pipe design

What we have here is the replacement for two “true icons” that for 80 years served roughly the same purpose in roughly the same area. The difference is this: Nothing was wasted with the S. Robinson and S. Walker street underpasses of the 12-track-wide OKC Union Station rail yard. The underpasses likely provided significantly higher pedestrian capacity on their four, protected pedestrian walkways. However, they also provided significant protection from bad weather, up to and including tornados. They cost the taxpayers of Oklahoma virtually nothing. They were built by the Rock Island and Frisco Railway companies to serve for centuries (unlike anything ever built by ODOT or OKC) — and they did so virtually maintenance free. They were clearly built to require minimal upkeep and maintenance expense.

Where’s the foul-weather protection on the “Skydance Bridge?” What happens the day it’s struck by an F-5 tornado? Does it become a huge, whirling sawblade cutting through downtown office buidings like a rotary scythe from a sci-fi nightmare? (Oh — I know — nothing like that could ever happen in OKC. Right?)

Meanwhile, where’s the budget going to come from to keep it painted and maintained — in a city that can’t reliably paint bridge girders less than 25 feet above street level?

“Scissortail?” How about “Albatross” — on the scale of the mindless “Urban Renewal” destruction of downtown that led to “40 years in the wilderness?”

These are simple questions of the sort that thoughtful and responsible citizens would not just be asking — but demanding be answered.

To be honest, I agree with Tom. I think that the scissortail sculpture is a huge waste of money. Why didn’t we put those MILLIONS of dollars towards things that really matter? That money could’ve gone so far within the school systems alone. And that’s only one option. And not to mention the money that it is going to take to keep it maintained. I think the city should’ve let the people decide by vote if they wanting this monstrosity of a sculpture being built and becoming an “icon” of Oklahoma City. No one that I have spoken with has enjoyed this bridge. My friends from out of state have literally laughed out loud at the sight of the “sculpture”. Why couldn’t we have left it as just a bridge and not put this crazy thing on top of it that in no way to me or anyone else resembles our state bird in the slightest bit.