Conceptual vs. Reality
So now that we’ve gotten a good look at the Skydance bridge, both daytime and nighttime, in its completed form, let’s look back at the original designs conceived before ODOT and others added requirements that made the original design cost prohibitive.
The above rendering is especially interesting to view in light of the photos taken by Will Hider on New Year’s Eve. The metal rope cable system is obviously eliminated, but the sculpture itself is much more elaborate, with “feathers” and multi-colored lighting throughout the skeleton replacing what otherwise would have been a smooth steel surface bathed in regular white sculpture style lighting.
To see more original renderings, go here.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
I STILL don’t understand why ODOT insisted on having the ability to drive heavy trucks onto the pedestrian bridge.
Does anyone know why they needed that capability?
It probably had more to do with having exceptional strength so it would not fall down on the highway.
That’s the thing with concepts, they don’t always take into account all federal regulations or codes. That is what design development is for. It is still a great design, it is just unfortunate they couldn’t get the cables into the final product. Even if they weren’t structural, it would have added to the look.
Federal Code requires the ability to drive emergency and/or maintenance vehicles across pedestrian bridges. ODOT did not invent the requirement.
It looks MUCH better at night, lit up than in the daytime. I like the colors. Think the purple is my favorite but the Red looks good and the Green as a definite Borg (Star Trek) look to it. That said, couldn’t the color been used with the original design? Do we know that color wasn’t a component of it (only that the renderings always showed white)?
Still not a fan of the clunky “erector set” design changes (rather than the sleek original). The “feathers look more like fish scales to me. Now if the panels served a purpose (such as solar collectors) then I could see using them.
A complete switch from the “erector set” overhead highway sign supports and the solid “oil pipe” design they went with.
I just drove under it on the new stretch of I-40. Not very impressive in the daytime – looks like something that’s broken.
Drove under the bridge today and the scupture has a WOW factor about it. Quite a nice landmark we now have. I like the new beastly bold look as opposed to the sleek design.
I don’t know what others think of the “new” eastbound I-40 but I personally think it sucks. I’ve been traveling I-40 for 34 years now and the new I-40 goes so far south I can’t imagine what a nightmare the downtown travelers have finding an exit and then hitting more traffic lights to get to their destination. UGH!
From the new crosstown it looks fairly good, particularly with the lights. However, from some angles you mainly see the frame and it looks like a mobile crane. More of the stainless “feathers” are desperately needed to give it a finished appearance.
Susan, I suspect, however, that the downtown travelers appreciate that they don’t have to worry about the road falling in under them when they drive downtown.
I noticed that too Dennis. It has to go. I wouldn’t mind some of the MAPS 3 dollars going towards the purchase and demolition.
Cotton seed mill looks fine. There are a lot of cities with ugly industry right near their downtown. I visited Seattle this summer and harbor cranes aren’t pretty.
The cotton mill location looks even better for the convention center…lots of space, close to Bricktown and Downtown, but not taking up prime urban park frontage.
This things reminds me of the McDonalds that crosses the Will Rogers Turnpike near Vinita, OK: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hollywoodplace/3060273922/
Oklahoma is OK!!
I liked the original concept a lot, but I was skeptical about the changes. I drove the new I-40 for the first time yesterday, and I have to say my initial reservations were well founded. I think Skydance is awful as built. It looks like a broken down crane they left behind from road construction. The lights help, but, once again, we have a structure we can indiscriminately bathe in technicolor excess. It has no stylistic connection to what’s around it, and I don’t think it was executed well enough to form a good contrast with the rest of the road’s design. Deleting the stay cables really hurt the most, in my opinion. Overall, it was a great idea and initial design, but the implementation ruined it.
I never cease to be amazed by architecture/design critics who are ignorant of the basics of the two disciplines and attempt to interpose their somewhat uneducated opinions upon reality. In truth taste exists only in the complainers mouths.
Working on the video for this now. Sorry it’s taking so long.