Jump to content

      



























Photo

[Old Johnson Street Bridge] General discussion


  • Please log in to reply
3519 replies to this topic

#61 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 09:44 AM

Hmmm, I hope "old beater" wasn't in response to my Dodge Dart analogy. I didn't use the term "old beater": I'd far rather restore an old Dart than buy a new Neon as the Dart has some classic lines and I think is cool. However, that's as far as I'd take the analogy - I don't think the Johnson St Bridge is so wonderful one could compare it to a fancy old Mercedes. As I said above, compare the JSB to the ship canal bridges in Seattle and you'll see what I mean.

lol, no, it wasn't! Dean Fortin was quoted in the Times-Colonist as saying that fixing up the bridge would be like throwing money at "an old beater."

I can name a couple of vintage cars that were wrecks and were restored to look like dynamite. "Old beater" conjures images of mass-produced cheap cars (ok, maybe like your Dart, so...), and somehow that bridge and its type and from that era conjures anything but cheap and/or mass-produced. That's why I thought the "old beater" reference was totally wrong.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#62 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:14 AM

There is nothing wrong with a big curve that forces traffic to slow down. There is something very wrong with a straight road that lets traffic rush across the bridge at 50 klicks, right into Old Town.


Indeed. It's much too utilitarian. It's freeway thinking, and it makes even less sense in the city today than it did 40 years ago (and it didn't make sense then, either). Motorists will gain absolutely nothing because the distances in the city aren't great, because downtown is the end of the line (unless you're racing from Esquimalt to Willows Beach for some reason and absolutely must save every precious second), and because the city is the city and you can't go fast in the city anyway.

Utilitarian thinking has been Victoria's worst nemesis over the past six or seven decades. I really hope we won't be poring over pictures of the Johnson Street Bridge a few years from now, lamenting about how we used to have a quirky and interesting downtown bridge.

#63 Koru

Koru
  • Member
  • 715 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:24 AM

^ Your joking right? This is one of the symbols of the city. If we are going to replace it which I am opposed to in the first place the structure must be at least equal in drawing the eye as the current bridge. Building it cheap is exactly what I am afraid of. As a property tax paying citizen of Victoria I am willing to pay more for a better bridge.

As for Johnson and Pandora going back to two way this would be great. It would really encourage the shops that have already sprung along there, as traffic would be slowed/discouraged.


I really don't think that the argument of replacing the bridge with an "icon" is a very good one, then again thats just me. We have a lot bigger needs and requirements in this region than a damn "iconic" bridge. Hell I love ol'Blue, it provides a great backdrops for pictures, stories, and comments, but then again so does our homelessness and sewage treatment issues too. If this had been properly addressed years ago perhaps contingencies funds put in place, planning for replacement etc then we could be looking at an "iconic" structure to replace this bascule bridge, but lets face it Victoria and the region's infastructure sucks, we've got no sewage treatment system, we've got aging water and sewage lines, roads in hideous condition, bridge slowly falling apart, a burgeoning homeless population, growing social ills such as addicitions and crimethat we should be focusing money on. Lets get with the program, build a NEW COST EFFECTIVE bridge to allow the flow of traffic and commerce, stop this petty argument and rebuild the other aging infastructure and work on solving the other social perils that are growing and just going to cost more and more to solve unless we step into action.

Just my two cents...probably not a lot of you will agree but, I'd rather see this city cleaned up, both socially and infastructure wise and become a leader in green construction, living, and infastructure than iconic bridges. I think that would speak volumes more than spending 50 or 100 million on a hunk of steel for cars to drive over...

#64 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:54 AM

Yeah, I'd take a boring bridge if they also put money into extending the E&N into one of urbanrail's plans.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#65 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:57 AM

In years to come the upper harbour will be fully built out. The blue bridge will provide a perfect heritage counterpoint to offset the modernity that will come. It will provide a beautiful, highly-visible link to the city's history and continue to delight aesthetically on a summer evening.
In the T-C this morning it says the powers-that-be are soon going to examine the four "designs" we saw last week in the T-C.
Let's hope they don't put dollars before heritage and aesthetic sense, though I fear they may rush something through. The T-C's priority seems to be getting a place at the government stimulus trough.
We need full public consultation otherwise we stand a good chance of getting an uninspired, mediocre and entirely forgettable Wal-Mart bridge.
As Dan Hicks' "Little Jimmy" says, "This is an opportunity, folks."

#66 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:11 AM

^ I find one-way streets to be more pedestrian friendly...


according to Allan Jacobs they're not

Indeed. It's much too utilitarian. It's freeway thinking, and it makes even less sense in the city today than it did 40 years ago (and it didn't make sense then, either). Motorists will gain absolutely nothing because the distances in the city aren't great, because downtown is the end of the line (unless you're racing from Esquimalt to Willows Beach for some reason and absolutely must save every precious second), and because the city is the city and you can't go fast in the city anyway.


"straight streets" is freeway thinking? I don't follow. if the bridge & its approaches were straightened out I fail to see how it would become more of a freeway than other straight parts of johnson, or other streets downtown. with narrow lanes, bike lanes, and wide sidewalks across it, drivers won't want to go fast, and there would be a much more efficient use of the land at each end of the bridge. the city could also offset their costs (& determine what gets built on them) by creating & selling new lots at each end of the bridge

& can we pls stop talking about creating another iconic/symbolic/memorable bridge, as if it's possible to make a building like that by design, or at will, etc? i can understand including unique things like victoria's blue lamp posts or whatever, which would be very cool if it's possible. to attempt to make the new bridge (if that's what we get) a symbol of victoria "out of the box", without waiting 80 years for it to age & become part of the city, etc is pure ridiculous fantasy imo. if that's what's attempted I can easily see it backfiring & turning out to be a tasteless piece of **** instead.

#67 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:43 AM

^ Your joking right? This is one of the symbols of the city. If we are going to replace it which I am opposed to in the first place the structure must be at least equal in drawing the eye as the current bridge. Building it cheap is exactly what I am afraid of. As a property tax paying citizen of Victoria I am willing to pay more for a better bridge.

As for Johnson and Pandora going back to two way this would be great. It would really encourage the shops that have already sprung along there, as traffic would be slowed/discouraged.


No, I'm not joking. How is that piece of junk a symbol of the City? Of course its surrounded by other great marvels, the abandoned Janion Hotel, the abandonded Northern Junk buildings on the other.

Of course, when I go to Toronto, New York, London, they always talk about the Butchart Gardens, the Empress Hotel, the Legislature, and...the Johnson St bridge....pretty funny.

Lets find something that works, build it cheap to last a good 60-70 years and lets move on. There are more important things to spend money on in the City than a small bridge.

#68 Newlywednotnearlydead

Newlywednotnearlydead
  • Member
  • 187 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:55 AM

Just my two cents...probably not a lot of you will agree but, I'd rather see this city cleaned up, both socially and infastructure wise and become a leader in green construction, living, and infastructure than iconic bridges. I think that would speak volumes more than spending 50 or 100 million on a hunk of steel for cars to drive over...


I agree as well. I think it's definitely possible to design a decent looking bridge replacement that is affordable and functional. In the end, how much effort really needs to go into building a bridge that I can throw a baseball the length of? It's not like we're talking about a monumental span across a major river.

#69 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 04 April 2009 - 12:01 PM

Victoria has the unfortunate position of not having many water crossings, whether that is for pedestrian, cycling or cars.

Perhaps the problem isnt if we should replace it, but what we should replace it with. It wont be an overnight project. It will probably take at least 5 years of planning ,design and construction (assuming we do replace it). Make the bridge two lanes for traffic, improve access


The approaches on the downtown side are a bigger problem than the VicWest side. As for returning Johnson and Pandora to two way streets. I think they should be two ways up to Douglas st and continue to be one way after. Make Pandora between Store St and Douglas St a transit and cycling corridor, reduce it to one lane.

This would be an opportunity to realign the tracks and upgrade the row and a proper cycling connection across the bridge from Downtown.

#70 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 02:04 PM

I messed up earlier, it wasn't Allan Jacobs who wrote that one-way streets are bad (well maybe he did but I couldn't find it quickly), it was Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck on p.159-160 of Suburban Nation, in the chapter on the inner city. The section on physical health (of the city I think, not the people) begins by describing Victoria (sort of):

Fifty years ago, American cities provided a pedestrian environment that compared favourably with the world's best cities. What has happened in the intervening decades has been sheer lunacy: in an attempt to lure auto-dependent suburbanites downtown, consultants of every ilk turned our cities into freeways. Interstate highways were welcomed into the city core, streets were widened and made one-way, street trees were cut down, sidewalks were narrowed or eliminated, and on-street parking was replaced by massive parking lots, often on the sites of demolished historic buildings.


... the solution is not the removal of cars from the city - far from it. The most vital American public spaces are full of cars. But these cars move slowly, due to the appropriate design of the thoroughfares. Just as in residential neighbourhoods, city streets must be narrow - lanes should be ten feet wide, not twelve - with on-street parallel parking to protect the pedestrian. To make life easier for both walkers and drivers, streets should be two-way (typically one lane in each direction), since one-way streets contribute to speeding and make it difficult to find one's way around.


& there's a footnote to go with that

People speed on multiple-lane one-way streets because there is less friction from opposing traffic, and because of the temptation to jockey from lane to lane. Whichever lane you are in, the other seems faster. In contrast, when two-way traffic makes passing impossible, the driver is less likely to slip into the "road racer" frame of mind. One-way streets should be avoided in retail areas because they distribute vitality unevenly. For example, traffic planners in Miami turned two streets in Little Havana into a one-way pair, such that people drive to work on SW 8th St - "Calle Ocho," the retail heart of the district - and drive home from work on SW 7th St, which is entirely residential. The problem with this configuration, in addition to the fact that drivers are always jockeying for the fastest lane, is that people don't shop on the way to work; they shop on the way home. Unsuprisingly, merchants on Calle Ocho were devastated. Decades later, city leaders are still scratching their heads over why this once vibrant main street continues to struggle.



#71 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 04:31 PM

^ Yeah I guess I buy the lane-jockey thing as being dangerous. I just like one-way streets because they are easy to jaywalk on.

I am a little confused about this whole issue. Does the bridge actually need work or is this just a money grab? If it is just a money grab then I think there are lots of other things that could be built rather than worrying about the slight possibility of an earthquake.

If it should be fixed then I am all for either doing a good restoration or building something attractive. As I said above, I can't imagine that it is that hard or expensive to make a utilitarian bridge look interesting. Another Bay Street Bridge that rotates would be a shame, and it certainly would have no chance of ever being iconic.

#72 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 04:38 PM

No, I'm not joking. How is that piece of junk a symbol of the City? Of course its surrounded by other great marvels, the abandoned Janion Hotel, the abandonded Northern Junk buildings on the other.

Of course, when I go to Toronto, New York, London, they always talk about the Butchart Gardens, the Empress Hotel, the Legislature, and...the Johnson St bridge....pretty funny.
Lets find something that works, build it cheap to last a good 60-70 years and lets move on. There are more important things to spend money on in the City than a small bridge.



concorde,
its certainly not THE symbol of our city. I don't think anyone would argue that it is. Although as a symbol I'll take it over the anonymous, comic-book CN Tower any day. Though the CN Tower does reflect T.O. to a remarkable degree - anonymous, characterless and generic.

But the Blue Bridge is a meaningful heritage structure to Victorians. As the harbour area gets built out with modern and post-modern structures, some good some awful, the bridge would be a wonderful functional visual link to the days when it was a working harbour. And its low-tech beauty reminds of us an earlier age of technology, pre-digital and human.

#73 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 04:45 PM

Funny blurb on the city of Victoria's website:

The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there.


http://www.victoria....onhistory.shtml

Here's a fan:

This is one of my most favorite bridges in all of North America for a few reasons. First, It's got two separate spans, one for automotive traffic and one for ped, bike, and TRAIN traffic! ... it's also a beautiful bridge. I love old bridges like this, more busy looking than the "clean" highway bridges we have today. Over the years, several "civic leaders" have proposed tearing down this structure with a high level bridge for "greater efficiency". Thankfully this sky blue relic from an earlier era remains to grace Victoria.


http://www.sito.org/...t?show=sgr.0037

#74 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 04:47 PM

As I said above, I can't imagine that it is that hard or expensive to make a utilitarian bridge look interesting.


It's a good point.

#75 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:07 PM

"straight streets" is freeway thinking? I don't follow. if the bridge & its approaches were straightened out I fail to see how it would become more of a freeway than other straight parts of johnson, or other streets downtown...


So other than the potential for reclaiming land where the curve is (which I've already mentioned a couple of times myself), what's the point then? I likened it to freeway thinking (an obvious reference, I thought, to the old freeway visions for Vic West) because it supposes that the directness of vehicle routes is the highest priority in a city's built form. Save a second wherever you can, even if the distances are short and the scenery is interesting.

It's the same school of idiocy that envisioned a straight route right across Beacon Hill Park. There's nothing fundamentally wrong about a slightly indirect route, a curved road, etc.


...as if it's possible to make a building like that by design, or at will, etc?


In fact, Victoria has several iconic buildings that were indeed built by design, at will, intentionally, etc. There's absolutely no logical reason to suppose that it can't be done again, and there's absolutely no logical reason to suppose that an "accidental" icon such as the current bridge couldn't be replaced by something modern, fundamentally different, but equally iconic.

#76 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:15 PM

Crazy people defending an iconic bridge that's really just a piece of junk:
http://www.flickr.co...with/889982897/

#77 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:18 PM

edited

#78 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:28 PM

I should add, there's absolutely no logical reason to suppose that an effort to create a new icon would necessarily be successful. It could easily be botched. But it's a chance I'm willing to take.

#79 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:37 PM

So other than the potential for reclaiming land where the curve is (which I've already mentioned a couple of times myself), what's the point then?

the city could offset their costs by selling it, like Vancouver could with the redesign of the loops at the northeast end of the granville bridge. & since the city doesn't have the cash flow at the moment it's something they might consider. there's room for a few more buildings around there, which means more intensity, people living or working or shopping, etc in that part of town.


I likened it to freeway thinking (an obvious reference, I thought, to the old freeway visions for Vic West) because it supposes that the directness of vehicle routes is the highest priority in a city's built form. Save a second wherever you can, even if the distances are short and the scenery is interesting.

i don't see how it's any kind of reference, since nobody has suggested freeways through vicwest in 40 years now. it's more efficient use of the land around the bridgeheads. simple as that

It's the same school of idiocy that envisioned a straight route right across Beacon Hill Park. There's nothing fundamentally wrong about a slightly indirect route, a curved road, etc.

& there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a straight road. there are other variables that affect whether or not it's "freeway thinking." can I say it's *obvious* that johnson st wouldn't suddenly become a freeway for 200m if it were merely straightened out?

In fact, Victoria has several iconic buildings that were indeed built by design, at will, intentionally, etc. There's absolutely no logical reason to suppose that it can't be done again, and there's absolutely no logical reason to suppose that an "accidental" icon such as the current bridge couldn't be replaced by something modern, fundamentally different, but equally iconic.

if you mean the legislature & the empress, even if they were built today, they wouldn't have the same 100yrs of stories & history that they do have, and no amount of design can substitute

I am a little confused about this whole issue. Does the bridge actually need work or is this just a money grab? If it is just a money grab then I think there are lots of other things that could be built rather than worrying about the slight possibility of an earthquake.

pam madoff said earlier in the thread that the reason they want to make a decision quickly is so that they can get federal stimulus cash, which could fund up to 2/3(?) of the project, not because drivers are in imminent danger of it collapsing

If it should be fixed then I am all for either doing a good restoration or building something attractive. As I said above, I can't imagine that it is that hard or expensive to make a utilitarian bridge look interesting. Another Bay Street Bridge that rotates would be a shame, and it certainly would have no chance of ever being iconic.

you've got that right. all it takes is some blue paint & voila, an interesting utilitarian bridge!

#80 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:18 PM

No, I'm not joking. How is that piece of junk a symbol of the City?


OK, granted it's not the Sydney Opera House. But photographers, artists, writers and even model railroaders find inspiration in it.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users