[Johnson Street Bridge] General discussion

[DesignStyles]

Originally Posted by G-Man

I have never felt threatened by riding my bike across and think the corner has been debunked as a non-issue (accident reports please).

Your opinion, I myself don't like it and a know quite a few who are with me on this. Maybe not the majority, I don't know.

This is only bridge of this type west of Ontario.
It was built by Joseph Strauss
Its scale makes it monumental in the harbour
Tourists value it as they take pictures of it.

Not enough reasons for me to agree with you yet. Speaking purely on financial #s, I don't think it's worth the extra $ to retrofit. Lets see the extra money put where it's needed, not some selfish snobbery about a bridge we must keep. We must help our street problem, isn't that a little more important? That's more of where I'm coming from, as well as the safety of it.

... precedent council is setting in regards to heritage structures that are less costly to tear down than restore

Not sure this is a precedent setting situation.

an incredibly bogus argument because:..

I agree with you, it is pretty weak. My point is most of this anti-teardown noise is coming from a minority of people in the city, most of which coast this forum regularly, but have loud voices. I don't think the general public really cares as much as the supporters ***** about this bridge. Hard to quantify it in any case however.

So you aren't challenging them by rooting for the bridge's demise. You're in arm with them.

. Sorry to say but I'm far from being in arm with them. The very group you suggest I'm with I have very different ideals. This is maybe your weakest argument.. Midrise condo? Yes, let them build. Mods to the interior of Rogers store, what a circus. They should have been able to move that wall. Downtown arts gallery/performing arts, come on.. we need more of those. Those are the kind of things tourists really come for, again, not for a bridge. No we're not equivalent to the Golden gate, never will be. I would absolutely support retrofit of a bridge that deserves it, like the Golden gate needed. Just not this one.

... can't negotiate any road that isn't absolutely straight?

Engineers are right on with this one. It's not great, simple as that. It could be improved, or do you want to make unsafe intersections heritage sites too? It's a supporting argument to total replacement, it can't stand up on it's own as an argument to replace the bridge. Take it for what it's worth.

... significant fraction of the population that thinks like me

I think you just said what everyone here knows but doesn't want to admit.

... 1920's building of that size anywhere else in Victoria would be protected...

Health issue, I suspect. Not exactly something I'd keep. Things they can do to help preserve is to maintain the exterior look when they build new. Why isn't this an option on the table more often?

In the most recent post someone mentions about waiting to see the true teardown/rebuild numbers vs. retrofit. Using the same logic I'd suspect the retrofit question would be no different.

[ressen]

[DesignStyles]

It's actually illegal for that cyclist to be there. That's pedestrian only, bikes are to take the whole lane of where cars go. Unless of course they got off their bike and walked across.

[gumgum]

I think you just said what everyone here knows but doesn't want to admit.

That they want it to stay? Great! well we're in agreement then.

[LJ]

Hey, if the bridge is so valuable and sought after, maybe we could sell it and make some real dough!!

[DesignStyles]

Originally Posted by gumgum

That they want it to stay? Great! well we're in agreement then.

Ha, the key was "fraction of the population".

[DesignStyles]

Originally Posted by LJ

Hey, if the bridge is so valuable and sought after, maybe we could sell it and make some real dough!!

I'm sure the steel is worth some big coin. Maybe worth more as scrap than freestanding.

[Lover Fighter]

Originally Posted by DesignStyles

Not enough reasons for me to agree with you yet. Speaking purely on financial #s, I don't think it's worth the extra $ to retrofit. Lets see the extra money put where it's needed, not some selfish snobbery about a bridge we must keep. We must help our street problem, isn't that a little more important? That's more of where I'm coming from, as well as the safety of it.

First off, the issue of whether or not it will save money in the long run has not been resolved so arguments along the lines of "we could be spending it on something else instead!" is moot since I think we can all agree at least something needs to be done (unless you don't support any infrastructure improvement whatsoever).

Secondly, I believe he was mentioning the historic value of the bridge not to convince you to 'like' it, but to point out how it should meet heritage designation status following separate guidelines set out by all three levels of government.

Originally Posted by DesignStyles

Not sure this is a precedent setting situation.

Up until now the city of Victoria has demanded landowners to restore their historically-significant buildings rather than tear them down. If the City were to tear down the Johnson Street Bridge future landowners could use the JSB argument in favour of demolishing their own buildings.

[mat]

This is one of the most active, and divisive, discussions on Vibrant Victoria. Over 20 thread pages, lots of photos, and very current activism. The VV members who are active both on and off line have joined Facebook groups, blogged and sent letters to City of Victoria Council, the Times Colonist and Black Press (various blogs included)

If you read through all posts on this thread you will immediately see a concern for the future of the 'Blue Bridge', advocacy for various opinions, and lately, an overwhelming support to lobby City Council for a reversal on the decision of a new bridge, in favour of heritage preservation.

There are Facebook groups profiled to preserve the bridge

Keep the Bridge l The Memorial l Save the Blue Bridge

There are, however, VV members who, while sympathizing with the preservation advocates, see an opportunity to build a bridge that meets current and future needs. On this board, and other networks, it seems anyone who is proactive to building a new, iconic, functional bridge, that will meet the vision of a vibrant transport and visual plan for the Downtown/Vic West core, are branded 'development friendly', 'historical preservation be damned' and City Council political proxies.

The City of Victoria Council, Mayor's office, and Engineering Dept. have done a lamentable job in communicating how the decision to replace, rather than restore, the Johnson Street Bridge was considered - the webpage is frankly pathetic. There is nothing on future visions for the bridge, how citizens can communicate ideas and concerns, or links to development plans for the bridge itself, and road/rail/cycle/walking approaches.

Those who write off City Council design decisions have historical precedent on their side. There is a lamentable history of poor decisions and vision. In the case of the bridge one hopes they are taking all sorts of advice - and making a decision not only on cost and functionality, but the realization that whatever replaces the Blue Bridge, should be a recognizable and positive design.

Some ideas to consider...

1. A single combination lift/swing bridge
2. Wide, safe, defined, on bridge paths that separate cyclists, pedestrians, vehicles and rail.
3. On deck side view point platforms for pedestrians and cyclists to remove themselves from traffic.
4. Single bridge that combines road and rail.
5. Flat bed, cable supported (if required) bridge that opens the view from both sides.
6. Single pillar bridge that widens the the channel for vessels.
7. Multiple pathways to connect with a coastal walk way.
8. Safe, inshore water route for harbour ferries, kayaks and low profile vessels.
9. Lighting - under spots and structural lights that highlight the bridge.
10. Energy - solar and wind that could offset the energy cost.

This is a rare opportunity: everyone of us can lobby City Council over bridge design ideas and concerns about approaches/connections.

[jklymak]

I guess I would consider most of the things on that list easily doable with the present bridge, or already not a problem.

[G-Man]

The idea that anyone could come to a conclusion about getting rid of an old bridge when the design for its replacement has not been shown is bizarre.

[DesignStyles]

Originally Posted by mat

This is one of the most active, and divisive, discussions on Vibrant Victoria. Over 20 thread pages, lots of photos, and very current activism. The VV members who are active both on and off line have joined Facebook groups, blogged and sent letters to City of Victoria Council, the Times Colonist and Black Press (various blogs included)

If you read through all posts on this thread you will immediately see a concern for the future of the 'Blue Bridge', advocacy for various opinions, and lately, an overwhelming support to lobby City Council for a reversal on the decision of a new bridge, in favour of heritage preservation.

There are Facebook groups profiled to preserve the bridge

Keep the Bridge l The Memorial l Save the Blue Bridge

There are, however, VV members who, while sympathizing with the preservation advocates, see an opportunity to build a bridge that meets current and future needs. On this board, and other networks, it seems anyone who is proactive to building a new, iconic, functional bridge, that will meet the vision of a vibrant transport and visual plan for the Downtown/Vic West core, are branded 'development friendly', 'historical preservation be damned' and City Council political proxies.

The City of Victoria Council, Mayor's office, and Engineering Dept. have done a lamentable job in communicating how the decision to replace, rather than restore, the Johnson Street Bridge was considered - the webpage is frankly pathetic. There is nothing on future visions for the bridge, how citizens can communicate ideas and concerns, or links to development plans for the bridge itself, and road/rail/cycle/walking approaches.

Those who write off City Council design decisions have historical precedent on their side. There is a lamentable history of poor decisions and vision. In the case of the bridge one hopes they are taking all sorts of advice - and making a decision not only on cost and functionality, but the realization that whatever replaces the Blue Bridge, should be a recognizable and positive design.

Some ideas to consider...

1. A single combination lift/swing bridge
2. Wide, safe, defined, on bridge paths that separate cyclists, pedestrians, vehicles and rail.
3. On deck side view point platforms for pedestrians and cyclists to remove themselves from traffic.
4. Single bridge that combines road and rail.
5. Flat bed, cable supported (if required) bridge that opens the view from both sides.
6. Single pillar bridge that widens the the channel for vessels.
7. Multiple pathways to connect with a coastal walk way.
8. Safe, inshore water route for harbour ferries, kayaks and low profile vessels.
9. Lighting - under spots and structural lights that highlight the bridge.
10. Energy - solar and wind that could offset the energy cost.

This is a rare opportunity: everyone of us can lobby City Council over bridge design ideas and concerns about approaches/connections.

Mat, not to sound too patronizing but this is exactly the type of discussion and tone of discussion that really gets results. The biggest problem with this forum is that it always is an us vs. them mentality. What happens is people take a few things out of what you say and blast emotionally. Instead of a more constructive approach and leveled discussion.

The list you point out I agree with wholly. However, this is where Heritage lovers and progressive modernists come to a clash. I don't think we'll ever get to an agreement because it's something that's too close to the heart.

[DesignStyles]

Originally Posted by G-Man

The idea that anyone could come to a conclusion about getting rid of an old bridge when the design for its replacement has not been shown is bizarre.

Similarly, is it so bizarre to know when your car isn't worth fixing before you've found a new car to replace it?

[G-Man]

^ You don't seem to understand on 90% percent of things that go on in this town I am in full support of modernist approaches.

[DesignStyles]

That somehow strengthens your save the bridge argument? I just don't see it the same way you do.

[gumgum]

^Yes it does. It shows that people like G-man are progressive, but see the value in our rich history. It's not as black and white as you put it.

[DesignStyles]

Originally Posted by gumgum

^Yes it does. It shows that people like G-man is progressive, but sees the value in our rich history. It's not as black and white as you put it.

I don't think I've been black/white about it. I've weighed the options and don't see the heritage as much as you do. I do recognize that there's a little after seeing a lot of you voicing your opinion, but not enough for me to say save the bridge.

G-man, yes you appear progressive and I can't argue that. However, there's no way I can weigh G-man's argument more in this particular situation, just because he's been "progressive" in the past. I'm sorry but that's not a good way to go about business. I believe I'm similar to G-man, just not on this issue. Simple as that.

[Caramia]

Originally Posted by DesignStyles

However, this is where Heritage lovers and progressive modernists come to a clash. I don't think we'll ever get to an agreement because it's something that's too close to the heart.

I think what G-Man is trying to point out here is that it can't be simplified into a clash between two irreconcilable camps "Heritage Lovers" and "Progressive Modernists." The reality is much more complex and people who are `Progressive Modernists` can also love Heritage. People who love Heritage have also switched "sides" on this one. The camps are broken, opinions are wandering freely!

It isn`t that you should give G-Man`s argument more credence because he often argues for progressive modernists. Rather that you should not be trying to write off his opinion by pidgeon holing him as someone who is just waving the flag of his camp.

I love Heritage too, and I want to see the Blue Bridge restored. But I also support this council and ALSO often argue on behalf of progressive change. No camp here either.

[UrbanRail]

Originally Posted by G-Man

The idea that anyone could come to a conclusion about getting rid of an old bridge when the design for its replacement has not been shown is bizarre.

I agree, I would also like to see what design the city is considering. I am kind of surprised that no public open houses have been set up (or maybe I shouldnt be surprised). I also agree with Caramia recent points.

[aastra]

No we're not equivalent to the Golden gate, never will be. I would absolutely support retrofit of a bridge that deserves it, like the Golden gate needed. Just not this one.

You've got to substantiate remarks like this or they'll blow away in the wind. What does "we're not equivalent" mean? What's the "we"? Victoria? So Victoria is less, just because it's Victoria? What does "deserve it" mean?

Victoria's bascule bridge doesn't deserve restoration, but the equivalent bascule bridges in San Francisco (we're not talking about the Golden Gate here!), Mystic River, Ashtabula, Toronto, and Chattanooga do? Why?

In Victoria you'll hear people say these vacuous sorts of things all the time, as if we're all supposed to roll over and accept their personal neuroses about being second rate as compared to...well...anywhere and anything else. It's the "Victoria sucks" card. Once somebody plays it, all further discussion is moot. It's an opinion that requires no justification, no facts. And it's used all the time to argue against doing good things.

I don't think the general public really cares as much...

I can guarantee you that they don't. But what's the relevance?

I think I've shown many times on this board and others that your average Victorian knows next to nothing about Victoria's history, or the history of the west coast, or history in general.

Dare I say it, but if this bascule bridge were on the lower mainland it would be a major issue.

We've seen plenty of comments in favour of replacing the bridge but we still haven't seen anything substantive or defensible as to why the bridge should be replaced.

[Nparker]

Originally Posted by aastra

Dare I say it, but if this bridge were on the lower mainland it would be a major issue.

If this bridge were on the lower mainland, the BC Liberals would spend $100 million to restore it and build 2 new $300 million dollar bridges along side it, one specifically for use during the 2010 Olympics. But it's not, so the funding of WHATEVER ultimately transpires here comes from the wallets of the 70,000 residents of the city of Victoria. Good luck getting any of the other municipalities to pay their fair share. Bottom line, if you are not paying for it, you should have no say in what happens to it.

[Bob Fugger]

Originally Posted by Nparker

If this bridge were on the lower mainland, the BC Liberals would spend $100 million to restore it and build 2 new $300 million dollar bridges along side it, one specifically for use during the 2010 Olympics. But it's not, so the funding of WHATEVER ultimately transpires here comes from the wallets of the 70,000 residents of the city of Victoria. Good luck getting any of the other municipalities to pay their fair share. Bottom line, if you are not paying for it, you should have no say in what happens to it.

I hate to be flippant, but it serves us right for continually sending Opposition MLAs to the Legislature. In an ideal world, everyone's priorities would be first. But if I lived in the Okanagan, I would expect some kind of rewards - something along the lines of a big-ass bridge across Lake Okanagan - for a consistent show of support for the government.

As for having to fund the bridge out of our own municipal taxdollars, I would put a toll on the new JSB and the Bay Street bridge and exempt Victoria residents from the toll - which is easy enough with EZ Pass technology. Of course, this isn't all that realistic.

[mat]

Originally Posted by aastra

You've got to substantiate remarks like this or they'll blow away in the wind. What does "we're not equivalent" mean? What's the "we"? Victoria? So Victoria is less, just because it's Victoria? What does "deserve it" mean?

Victoria's bascule bridge doesn't deserve restoration, but the equivalent bascule bridges in San Francisco (we're not talking about the Golden Gate here!), Mystic River, Ashtabula, Toronto, and Chattanooga do? Why?

In Victoria you'll hear people say these vacuous sorts of things all the time, as if we're all supposed to roll over and accept their personal neuroses about being second rate as compared to...well...anywhere and anything else. It's the "Victoria sucks" card. Once somebody plays it, all further discussion is moot. It's an opinion that requires no justification, no facts. And it's used all the time to argue against doing good things.

I can guarantee you that they don't. But what's the relevance?

I think I've shown many times on this board and others that your average Victorian knows next to nothing about Victoria's history, or the history of the west coast, or history in general.

Dare I say it, but if this bascule bridge were on the lower mainland it would be a major issue.

We've seen plenty of comments in favour of replacing the bridge but we still haven't seen anything substantive or defensible as to why the bridge should be replaced.

Wow! - I really take issue with many of your points. This thread has plenty of substantive and relevant posts as to why it might be better to build a new bridge, I have listed some, and if you do not think they are substantive or relevant enough - so be it.

Quickly deal with another point - "who has a say". The argument that only City of Victoria residents should debate and have the final decision on the Blue Bridge is spurious and wrong. Much of the cost will be subsidized through Federal and Provincial infrastructure funds. So all taxpayers should have a say.

Aastra - agreed, the average resident's knowledge of local history is lamentable, but frankly no different than in any other city or town in Canada. It is the same with Canadian history in general - ask any high school student the date of confederation, and who was the 1st prime minister and you usually receive a blank stare. That does not mean that those who become interested in an issue (like myself) cannot find out, or be taught, the historical relevance. Did you know everything about the history of the JSB before the issue became paramount? I certainly didn't - but I found out, mainly through links provided on this thread.

Caramia stated it well - some of us DO appreciate our heritage, and also imagine the future vision of the city. This is not black and white, more like shades of blue (pun intended).

My own decision to support a new bridge came after much thought - having lived in Brugge, Belgium for over a decade (one of the best preserved Medieval Towns in Europe - with fanatic preservation and restoration policies) the default position was to restore the JSB. It does have iconic and historical value - no argument there. BUT - I see a cost argument, and can imagine a new beautifully iconic and functional bridge design that ties into a total vision of a revamped and vital downtown core.

Cost: The 4th Street Bridge in San Fran, which you yourself have identified as a restoration example, cost far more than estimated. Any one who has renovated a house knows it is impossible to 'see' all the damage - rip open a wall, find 80 year old wiring, and your 'estimate' doubles. Cost over runs can also be an issue with new build of course - but it is likely to be more accurate than estimating restoration.

Fake restoration: My own personal big push towards new build was the 4th St. bridge example. Due to seismic considerations the restored bridge now has fake fiberglass counter weights, replacing the original concrete. The entire mechanism for lift has also radically changed to an underground chamber - is that restoration? We have the same seismic issues as San Fran - would a restored JSB also be 'fake'? There is a point when restoration diverges so far from the original it is no longer historically valid.

Are those points valid enough?

[pseudotsuga]

I believe the whole point of the rush to repar/replace the bridge is the potential for major federal cash....so residents aren't on the hook.
Could be wrong, but if the 'stimulus dollars' weren't there for the taking, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
Perhaps not the best way to plan for major infrastructure projects, but it is the way government seems to work.

And for what it is worth, I'll be sorry to see it go. I like the current bridge...I just don't like the approaches to and from the goose.

[Lover Fighter]

Originally Posted by DesignStyles

The list you point out I agree with wholly. However, this is where Heritage lovers and progressive modernists come to a clash. I don't think we'll ever get to an agreement because it's something that's too close to the heart.

I'm pretty upset that you seem determined to have this turned into an US vs THEM type thing. I am a 21-year old who advocates a denser, more vibrant downtown core. But because I also value heritage you want to pit me against the "progressive modernists".

Like others have mentioned, this is not as black or white an issue as you make it. I mentioned at the beginning of the thread that if I had it my way, I would keep the Johnson Street Bridge (or at least, one half of it) as a pedestrian/transit bridge and build a second one on the north side that would better align with Esquimalt Road. But of course, this is unrealistic, so I must compromise and I favour restoration of the current JSB.