innerbelt bridge subcommittee meeting 4 - meeting minutes · innerbelt bridge subcommittee meeting...

Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting August 17, 2006

1

CLEVELAND INNERBELT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GROUP 1 CUY-90-14.92, PID No. 77332 Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Meeting 4 - Meeting Minutes

Project: Central Viaduct Date: August 17, 2006 Subject: Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Time: 9:00am - 12:30pm By: AMC/DJB Place: NOACA Attendees: (ODOT – D12) Craig Hebebrand – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Joseph Seif – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Dave Lastovka – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Lora Hummer – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 James Calanni – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Natalie Conley – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Mike Malloy – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Keri Welch – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Dave Coyle – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 (ODOT – C.O.) Jeff Crace – Ohio Department of Transportation – Central Office Kelly Brooker Scocco – Ohio Department of Transportation – Central Office Jennifer Townley – Ohio Department of Transportation – Central Office Tim Keller – Ohio Department of Transportation – Central Office

(City of Cleveland) Bob Brown – City of Cleveland Planning Commission Scott Frantz – City of Cleveland Planning Commission Jennifer Coleman – Landmarks Commission, Design Review Committee

(Cuyahoga County) Brendan Finn – Cuyahoga County Engineers Office

(Other Organizations) Bill Beckenbach – Quadrangle Thomas Starinsky – Historic Gateway and Warehouse District Ron Eckner – Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Richard Enty – Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Tony Gutowski – Flats Oxbow Hunter Morrison – Cuyahoga Community College Joe Marinucci – Downtown Cleveland Partnership Matt Shamis – FHWA Mike Armstrong – FHWA Steve Litt – Plain Dealer Ed Hauser – Citizen


2

(Michael Baker Jr., Inc. - Design Team) Bob Parker – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Amilyn Cedergreen – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. John Dietrick – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Daniel Baxter – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Laura Toole – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Doug Blank – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Jeff Broadwater – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Skip Smallridge – Crosby Schlessinger & Smallridge Peter Taylor – Buckland & Taylor (Burgess & Niple - Consultant) Neil Chase – B&N Bruce Mansfield – B&N MEETING SUMMARY � Welcome/Introductions � Design Goal Statement � Design Principles � Presentation/Preview Concepts � Facilitated Workshop

� Recommend 3 Final Bridge Types � Discuss Focus of Future refinement

� What’s Next � Closing Comments/Adjourn

Welcome & Introductions (Bob Brown – City of Cleveland)

Review (Craig Hebebrand – ODOT D12) -Review of July 20th meeting -Reviewed Current status of the project - Noted that the Innerbelt Corridor Conceptual Alternatives Study (CAS) had been accepted by Federal Highway Administration - Goal of today’s meeting would be to review goals, principals, and concepts and leave with three concepts to carry forward. - Team is still on the schedule that had been previously developed

Presentation (John Dietrick – Baker, Skip Smallridge – CSS) Overview and comments about the design principles:

Goal Statement “Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects

technology of our time and respects Cleveland’s history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner”.


3

Design Principles

1. “The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above-deck structure.”

2. “The design should be inspired by Cleveland’s civil, industrial, and bridge design

history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place.”

3. “Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm, and scale. The scale of bridge

elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.”

4. “The new bridge should reflect consistent design themes of the existing bridges in

the valley, and should strive for similar attention to form and detail, while not being overly imitative.

5. “The new bridge should reflect architecture and technology of our time, not be

nostalgic.” 6. “The design of the approaches and main spans should be consistent and coherent

across the entire valley, and speak with a single design vocabulary.” Skip commented that this principle was not implemented well on the rendering image shown.

7. “Design of the new bridge and plans for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge

should be compatible.” 8. “Treat side, under, and above deck views with care.” 9. “Design should incorporate opportunities for aesthetic lighting, including the

underside of the structure, in keeping with the lighting schemes common to existing bridges in the valley.” Skip commented that lighting can change the character of a bridge dramatically.

10. “Consideration of people environment adjacent to and under the bridge is

important. Design should recognize the potential for future pedestrian use on the land under the bridge and consider lighting or other means to increase safety and user-friendliness.” Skip commented that the Zakim Bridge was consciously designed like this.

11. “The design should be sensitive to the scale and appearance of the neighborhoods

where it touches down and should respect the special character of Tremont and Gateway.” Skip commented that this principle will be most relevant to the design of the approaches.


4

12. “The bridge and placement of its supports should be conducive to positive and beneficial future land use adjacent to the underside of the structure.” Skip commented that we’ll go back through these principles later.

John Dietrick (Baker) spoke next and provided an outline of the next part of the meeting. He stated that the design principles are evolving. He said that we’ll run though the seven bridge concepts and give our take on how they relate to the design principles. The rendering views reflect the comments from the June subcommittee meeting. He provided an overview of the ten different rendering views:

• View One – Lorain-Carnegie Bridge focuses on the main portion of the bridge over the river.

• View Two – from Valley below the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge.

• View Three – View from Jacob’s Field. This is how many people from out of town

will see the bridge.

• View Four - Driver’s perspective. (Westbound)

• View Five – from I-77

• View Six – from I-490.

• View Seven – from Tremont near the University Inn. (Some concepts are visible in the sightline, some not at all.)

• View Eight – Driver’s perspective (Eastbound into the city). Skyline impact of each

concept.

• View Nine – from University Avenue a view of the underside of the bridge.

• View Ten – Aerial view. Captures all of the bridges in the valley. (The alignment shown of the new bridge is approximate.)

John Dietrick (Baker) then gave a quick run through of the concepts with a few comments about each:

• Concrete Box Girder (Concept 1). It is somewhat limited in architectural alternatives. This concept emphasizes simplicity and slenderness.

• Steel Truss (Concept 2). Duplicates the existing.

• Steel Plate Girder (Concept 3). It is the low cost alternative and is shown with

standard low cost piers. The piers spacing tries to match existing bridges.


5

• Steel Tied Arch (Concept 4). The 300-ft reduction in span length dramatically

affects the proportions of this alternative. We may want to refine the tilting of the arch ribs. The networked cables were shown to try to compliment the neighboring truss elements.

• Single Tower Cable Stay-East bank (Concept 5). The placement of the tower has a

dramatic impact. The tower on the east bank is a departure from what is there, hence the transparent shape.

• Single Tower Cable Stay-West bank (Concept 6). This tower acts as a bookend. We

thought a tower that is more visible, and acts as a bookend or gateway would be best here. The fan cable pattern used is not as transparent as the harp cable pattern used for the east bank tower. The west bank tower could be more transparent if people wish.

• Two-Tower Cable Stay (Concept 7). The geotechnical conditions required shorter

spans. The form is now close to the extradosed bridge type. The shorter towers diminish the impact. The visual statement is in the tops of the towers and could include lighting.

John Dietrick (Baker) then advised those in attendance to take the score sheet and tell is how the concepts match up with the design principles. He then discussed the cost of each alternative:

• Other factors such as cost go into selecting the final bridge type.

• The numbers shown are not in stone and are our best guess for what these will cost. They are a good example for relative costs.

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): The handouts show cost inflation. The total budget

is $297 Million. Energy costs impact construction disproportionately, not to mention the heavy equipment that is required. The last sheet shows the projection of future inflation currently being used by ODOT.

• Hunter Morrison (Tri-C): The $297 Million is a 2010 number?

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): Yes. There are fundraising gaps between what we

have budgeted and what they cost.

• Hunter Morrison (Tri-C): What is the range of error?

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): We are not asking for people to eliminate concepts based on cost. Keep the numbers in mind but they should not be a driver of this decision.


6

• Mike Armstrong (FHWA): Congress has a requirement for ODOT to develop a fiscal plan for this project to fund the project from beginning to end. I just saw the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee Wisconsin and staying within the budget has been critical for that project. When ODOT manages projects, they have a budget to manage and the fiscal plan must be in place before detailed design begins. This impacts ODOT’s overall program.

• Ed Hauser (Citizen): The financial plan is done prior to environmental documents.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): It is counterintuitive that the two-tower

bridge costs less than the single tower bridge.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Building shorter towers is less expensive.

• Ed Hauser (Citizen): What is the budget for the rehab of the existing bridge? • (Unknown): $205 Million.

• Brendan Finn (Cuyahoga County Engineers Office): Are the asymmetric cable

arrangements that were shown in previous renderings gone?

• John Dietrick (Baker): No, they can be brought back for the single tower cable stay bridges.

• (Unknown): Can different types of piers be used on all structures?

• John Dietrick (Baker): Yes, there are lots of options. We tried to pick pier shapes

for renderings that match the main spans.

• Hunter Morrison (Tri-C): Do you need to carry forward the cheap option?

• John Dietrick (Baker): Yes, for documentation purposes. We will continue to document the steel plate girder for baseline reasons, but will not render it or treat it as a preferred option.

John Dietrick (Baker) then discussed constructability:

• Constructing the east bank single tower is more problematic than the west bank single tower. We need to consider that today in addition to aesthetic considerations.

• At the next meeting there will be more variety and pier shapes will be shown.

• (Unknown): You mentioned the [west bank] slope. Are any concepts shown not

feasible because of the slope?


7

• John Dietrick (Baker): No, but some remediation will be involved. We’re looking at different options closely. We need to figure out how the remediation will be treated.

• Steve Litt (Plain Dealer): Didn’t you start out with eight alternatives?

• John Dietrick (Baker): Yes. We eliminated the extradosed bridge all the way across

the valley since it was too expensive. Then we combined the two tower and extradosed concepts since they would both have the same span lengths.

• Ed Hauser (Citizen): Will there be a discussion of feasibility of the future

eastbound bridge in these meetings?

• John Dietrick (Baker): No. The second new bridge may not potentially be studied for 50 years.

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): We will select a consultant for the rehabilitation of

the existing bridge in 2007.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Let’s stretch our legs and look at the concepts. Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) began a guided tour through the room where renderings of each concept were displayed on the walls.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) asked if anybody wanted to say something positive about the concrete box girder.

• Hunter Morrison (Tri-C): stated that the box girder represents the technology of

our time.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) asked if anybody wanted to say something negative about the box girder, or had any other comments. He commented that the piers seem to stack up when seen from University Avenue.

• John Dietrick (Baker): commented that the box girder does not have a slender

deck. It gets deeper as it gets haunched.

• (Unknown): How can you reconcile a concrete box with the steel bridges in the area?

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): It’s a bridge type in the mix.

Also there is a history of masonry bridges here too. It’s all a matter of the time when something was built.


8

• John Dietrick (Baker): replied that this was a valid comment because the superstructure type is unique for the valley.

Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then introduced the steel deck truss concept:

• The second concept is the steel deck truss. This is not the only possible truss design. The Lorain-Carnegie truss sections were curved consciously. One disadvantage of the truss is that it is poor for future land use.

• John Dietrick (Baker): The intent of the truss design was to match what is there

now. Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then introduced the steel plate girder concept:

• I have nothing to say about the steel plate girder.

• John Dietrick (Baker): asked if there were any questions, and advised people to look at the hammerhead piers. He said to let us know if you see a pier type that you like.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): The great majority of the span is below deck. The piers are a critical element.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): Piers are the predominate visual

element going through the valley. These piers are simple. Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then introduced the steel tied arch concept:

• This arch is shorter than the last arch. That was an 800-ft span. Whether arches are vertical or inclined is in play. It has similarities to other arches, but the view from Jacob’s Field looks weird.

• John Dietrick (Baker): asked for comments about how the arch could be improved

and noted that the cables were in a network pattern.

• (Unknown): If the arch ribs are vertical, do you need cross bracing?

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): No.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then noted that the arch is interspersed with vertical elements. It’s like coming into Manhattan. It sets up visual tension that is neither good nor bad.


9

• (Unknown): The Detroit-Superior Bridge is impressive, --this could be too.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): The Louisville arch omits cross bracing. Let’s move on.

Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then introduced the single tower cable-stay east bank concept:

• It is possible to use these towers and a harped cable arrangement on the west bank of the river.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): The intention was to keep the east side

tower more transparent. Is there an engineering reason why the east side tower could not be as elaborate as the west side?

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): No.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): Is constructability a problem on the east

side?

• John Dietrick (Baker): Yes. It’s not to say you can’t do it, but it’s more of an issue. • (Unknown): The valley is long and flat and has long bridges. This is very tall in a

valley where everything is very long. It looks lonely in the middle of the valley.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): This view shows fewer cables; it may be possible to make them more visible. Then it might be possible to see the cables from a greater distance.

• Peter Taylor (Buckland & Taylor): The cables on bridges with many slender cables

often disappear, as in the Brotonne Bridge in France. There are no crossing lines on that bridge.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): The harp pattern sets up a series

of triangular patterns, and references the existing truss.

Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then introduced the single tower cable-stay west bank concept:

• The straight tower shown for the east bank could be on the west bank. The embankment could be sculpted to create a dynamic and sculptural form.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Our goal was to create a gateway appearance. This makes

people wonder what’s over on the other side of the river.


10

• Peter Taylor (Buckland & Taylor): The viaduct is a very long bridge, and this tower provides a logical termination of the Tremont end. The tower needs some work.

• John Dietrick (Baker): No portion of the main span is visible on the lower left of

the rendering view from Tremont. This reflects how the concept preserves the view.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): We looked at the impact of predecessor designs on Tremont. We need to look at the impact of this new tower. Any comments or observations? Let’s move on.

Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then introduced the two-tower cable stay/extradosed west bank concept:

• The extradosed bridge is cool to look at. There is lots of flexibility with the towers.

• Peter Taylor (Buckland & Taylor): The towers could be longer and slimmer.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): The pylons are functional, and also reflective of the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge pylons. It is interesting to see them juxtaposed against the railroad bridge. We will do an animation showing the drivers view. Interesting things could be done with the lighting.

Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge) then encouraged the attendees to look at the concepts further and to fill out the evaluation form:

• Let us know if there is something positive you like about each concept, as well as negatives.

• If you turn them in we can do a really quick tally. Hang around, and see how they

come out. About 30 minutes later, the results were ready to present and the meeting was reconvened. Each concept was rated by the attendees on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being worst, 5 being best) on how each concept met the goal statement and the first five design principles. The results were averaged to produce an overall score for each concept. John Dietrick (Baker) presented the results of the surveys:

• Concrete Box Girder (Concept 1) had a score of 2.3 for the goal statement and 2.375 overall.

• Steel Truss (Concept 2) had a score of 2.31 for the goal statement and 2.31 overall.

• Steel Plate Girder (Concept 3) had a score of 2.37 for the goal statement and 2.06

overall.


11

• Steel Tied Arch (Concept 4) had a score of 4.38 for the goal statement and 4.44 overall.

• Single Tower Cable Stay-East bank (Concept 5) had a score of 3.63 for the goal

statement and 3.56 overall.

• Single Tower Cable Stay-West bank (Concept 6) had a score of 3.56 for the goal statement and 3.56 overall.

• Two-Tower Cable Stay (Concept 7) had a score of 4.44 for the goal statement and

4.375 overall. John Dietrick (Baker) then asked the attendees if they had any insights or thoughts.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): A different design was used for the west side cable-stayed tower than the east side tower. This is a flaw in the process, because you’re ranking what you’re seeing, so the results might not be fully reflective of people’s views about where the tower should be.

• Mike Armstrong (FHWA): We should find out what people liked about each

concept, since we may be able to incorporate elements people liked into other designs.

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): I don’t know if you can make the call between the

east and west bank cable stay concepts.

• (Unknown): A lot of this will be about the potential to have iconographic details and this is not captured here. I like the west bank cable stay, but want the tower farther away from the river.

• (Unknown): We need to look at the written comments to figure out what this really

tells us.

• Hunter Morrison (Tri-C): We are comparing apples and oranges between the first three and last four concepts. Eighty percent of the entire bridge is one of the first three concepts. So, with the last four concepts we’re talking about the statement piece. You should get some sense about how to handle the rest of the bridge.

• John Dietrick (Baker): We want to come back with more options for the

approaches. We need to figure out how the pieces go together aesthetically.

• Hunter Morrison (Tri-C): So you’ll be able to give costs for different approaches?

• John Dietrick (Baker): Yes.


12

• (Unknown): Can you attach the plate girder, box girder, or deck truss to tied arch and cable stay concepts?

• John Dietrick (Baker): The approaches can either be plate girder, concrete box

girder, or concrete I-girder, but there is still flexibility.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): There cannot be under deck arches for the approaches?

• John Dietrick (Baker): The approaches will most likely be constant depth. There is

a strong likelihood of this.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): It’s really going to be the design of the piers that determines the appearance of the approaches.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Other features like railings and lighting can also add interest.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): With the below deck structure, there is

not much opportunity to add interest with anything but piers.

• John Dietrick (Baker): There is a significant visual difference between steel I-girders and concrete box girders.

• Hunter Morrison (Tri-C): The turnpike bridge over the Cuyahoga River Valley has

good looks.

• Peter Taylor (Buckland & Taylor): The vertical dimensions of the tower on Concept Seven are significantly smaller than on Concepts Five and Six. There is a significant difference in dimensions. It’s important in the overall scale of things.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): I’m worried the two towers will

disappear.

• John Dietrick (Baker): The two-tower scored high. What was good about it?

• (Unknown): I liked that the towers fit with the scale of the railroad bridge.

• (Unknown): The towers complement the skyline; they don’t overpower the skyline, so I liked that one better. Also, the four towers give an interesting change of shape as you drive through.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): The animations should show

well how it looks as you approach it.


13

• (Unknown): This goes back to how it could be detailed. Could the four towers be extended up higher? The one tower cable-stays may be too tall; the two-tower may be too small.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): We should be careful because the

Tremont representatives are not here.

• Laura Toole (Baker): Can we eliminate the box girder and the truss?

• (Unknown): To get down to three concepts, the question is whether to keep the east bank or west bank single tower cable stay concepts.

• (Unknown): Concepts Four and Seven are a bigger step above others in scores.

There is a distinct gap in the numbers.

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): I’m not sure there is a difference. How accurate is this?

• (Unknown): The consultant team should look at comments. Concepts One through

Three speaks to approaches; Concepts Four through Seven speak to the main span.

• (Unknown): We talked about likes and dislikes for the extradosed bridge [Concept Seven]. Let’s look at the same thing for the other concepts.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Why did people like the tied arch?

• Joseph Seif (ODOT D12): It’s an arch and everything nearby is curved. It is steel,

and this is a steel town. It has a good cost. The tied arch stands out from far away.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): The arch picks up on arch forms of other bridges. It’s a steel town, plus it’s the other above deck option.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Did anyone not like it?

• (Unknown): When the arch is shortened to 400 feet, it loses its presence. Could it

be tweaked to have greater presence?

• John Dietrick (Baker): He liked it better before it was 400 feet.

• (Unknown): With the arch it becomes two bridges. It’s good that you can get different views of the bridge at different points.

• Tim Keller (ODOT Central Office): I didn’t like that the appearance is very linear. I

don’t like the lines from the driver’s perspective.


14

• John Dietrick (Baker): Did anyone else not like it? Is it the ribs that come in that people don’t like?

• Tim Keller (ODOT Central Office): I liked the incline but there are other things I

don’t like.

• John Dietrick (Baker): For the cable stay concepts, what takes your focus? Is it the shape of the towers, the cable pattern, and the location?

• Mike Armstrong (FHWA): I saw the Maumee River Bridge and was disappointed. I

spent years working on paper work for that bridge so this was a big disappointment. The tower got lost in the sky and didn’t make a statement at all. I rated Concepts Five and Six very low since I think you will lose detail from a distance. It will look like a chimneystack sticking up in the middle of nowhere.

• (Unknown): Everyone seems like they are going with cable stays. The tied arch and

the extradosed are more unique. • Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): Some of us chose Concepts Five and

Six because of the 200 foot height of the towers, which will have more visual impact. Will any of the choices have an impact from downtown?

• Mike Armstrong (FHWA): When I looked at the Maumee tower above tree lines, it

was hard to pick out.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Toledo is a different style single center pylon.

• Tim Keller (ODOT Central office): Only two stays are in place for the Maumee River Bridge so the bridge may look different when it’s finished.

• John Dietrick (Baker): It is possible to make the cables stand out with colored

sheaths, such as the Sunshine Skyway Bridge which used yellow sheaths.

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): The bridge will stand out against the Tremont skyline, with twin towers.

• (Unknown): Did you think of something they could have done to make the

Maumee River Bridge stand out more?

• Mike Armstrong (FHWA): Downtown Toledo is farther away. It didn’t do anything for me. I liked how the two-tower concept emulated the railroad bridges and the buildings downtown.

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): The Maumee River Bridge is downriver from

downtown Toledo.


15

• (Unknown): The tower is by itself on the Tremont side. On the river it is by itself.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Any other observations?

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): The west tower aesthetics are better than those of

the east tower.

• (Unknown): There are so many issues with Concepts Five and Six that it could have skewed the decision. We need to look at both with the same design.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): Great point. We need to look at both

locations with the same tower shapes. The lack of visual statement for the approaches emphasizes the need to give the approach bridges an aesthetic character.

• (Unknown): The Tremont rendering view could be stepped back further, closer to

the homes. We need multiple rendering views from Tremont.

• Craig Hebebrand (ODOT D12): We need different views from Tremont.

• Skip Smallridge (Crosby Schlessinger Smallridge): We have four other views, and for the old cable-stay bridge we sketched the outlines of the bridge in these views. We’ll do the same thing for these new concepts.

• John Dietrick (Baker): Concepts One and Two won’t be moving forward, and

Concept Three will be kept for documentation purposes. In the September Seventh meeting we’ll focus on the placement of the cable stay pier. That will get us to a place where we can decide between Concepts Five and Six. Concepts Four and Seven move forward. We’ll use the September Seventh meeting to choose between Concepts Five and Six.

• (Unknown): Some below deck approach structures are more appropriate for

different main span concepts.

• John Dietrick (Baker): We’ll also look at different girder forms.

• (Unknown): What happened to asymmetrical cable patters and Dr. Menn’s tower?

• John Dietrick (Baker): We’ll bring back tower variations and cable variations. But this helps, since we’re dealing with a smaller subset now.

• Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): Paul Alsenas raised a good point at the

last meeting. What will the hillside stabilization look like?


16

• John Dietrick (Baker): These are suggestions for agenda items. Tower placement (east versus west), arch variations, slope stabilization appearance, and approaches. Unless there’s anything else we’ll adjourn.

Discussion

Closing Comments / Adjourn


17

Appendix A: August 29, 2006 Make-Up Session for Subcommittee Members who were unable to attend

August 17, 2006 Meeting


18

CLEVELAND INNERBELT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT GROUP 1 CUY-90-14.92, PID No. 77332 Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Make-Up Meeting - Meeting Minutes

Project: Central Viaduct Date: August 29, 2006 Subject: Innerbelt Bridge Subcommittee Time: 2:30pm - 4:30pm By: AMC/JWB Place: City Hall Planning Conference

Room Attendees: (Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12) Joseph Seif – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 Dave Lastovka – Ohio Department of Transportation – District 12 (City of Cleveland) Bob Brown – City of Cleveland Planning Commission Scott Frantz – City of Cleveland Planning Commission (Michael Baker Jr., Inc. - Design Team) Bob Parker – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Amilyn Cedergreen – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. John Dietrick – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Jeff Broadwater – Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Other Organizations) Colleen Gilson – Tremont West Development Corp. Paul Alsenas – Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Lillian Kuri – Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Tim Tramble – Burton Bell Carr Development Corp.


19

Presentation & Discussion (John Dietrick – Baker) � Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning): Added that much discussion took place that

gave 80% ± of bridge is low-level of viaduct. We should also focus attention on approach spans. John Dietrick (Baker) gave an overview of the goal statement and design principles. Below are comments and suggested revisions to the design principles:

Goal Statement “Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects

technology of our time and respects Cleveland’s history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner”.

Design Principles

1. “The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement,

preferably with an above-deck structure.”

2. “The design should be inspired by Cleveland’s civil, industrial, and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of

the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place.” � Tim Tramble: is concerned that the design principle suggests a historical imitation of

surroundings; where he and others want something new. � Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning) & Paul Alsenas (Cuyahoga County Planning

Commission) see it as more of statement of great design tradition of bridges, not just copying.

� Paul suggested that means using a world-class design approach. � Lillian Kuri (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) suggests deleting “grow out of” – it

should “respect” the history of this place.

3. “Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm, and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall

valley.”

4. “The new bridge should reflect consistent design themes of the existing bridges in the valley, and should strive for similar attention to form and detail, while not being

overly imitative.


20

� Lillian Kuri (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) wants to see renderings of possibilities for the existing bridge after it is rehabilitated with our proposed final structure renderings.

� Design Principle delete “overly” .It should say, “while not being imitative” � Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning) suggested design principle be changed � Lillian Kuri (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) wanted a new design principle –

“bike/ped access should be incorporated into new or rehabbed bridge” � Dave Lastovka (ODOT D12) indicated that ODOT and FHWA have concerns about

ped/bike access on an interstate structure and he is not sure if it will be allowed. � Lillian Kuri (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) says this bridge shall be a reflection

of the future, but its positive impact of the valley & community (by adding ped/bike lanes) is as critical as how it looks.

� Lillian Kuri (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) wants to fight for it on this new

bridge now that she’s aware of the idea that no consideration for bike/ped access is going to be given.

� Bob Parker/John Dietrick (Baker) – Will prepare a draft design principle for interest in

bike/ped facilities where possible. � Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning) suggested that the remainder of the subcommittee

would likely support bike/ped access on one of these two bridges. � Lillian Kuri (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) concerned about the bike/ped issue

getting lost in the shuffle of the two separate projects.

5. “The new bridge should reflect architecture and technology of our time, not be nostalgic.”

� Paul Alsenas (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) wants revision to Design Principle � Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning) proposed; “The new bridge should advance

architecture and technology of our time, and not be nostalgic” � Lillian Kuri (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) suggested idea that integrally

designed bike/ped access could be very technologically advanced.

6. “The design of the approaches and main spans should be consistent and coherent across the entire valley, and speak with a single design vocabulary.”


21

7. “Design of the new bridge and plans for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge should be compatible.”

� Change Design Principle to design new bridge first and then design Rehabilitation of the

existing to imitate the new one “The design for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge should be compatible with the newly designed bridge”

� Paul Alsenas (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) asked if these design principles

should be a design contract between city and ODOT. � Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning) suggested that City Planning could adopt the

Design Principles with the structure type recommendation.

8. “Treat side, under, and above deck views with care.” � Paul Alsenas (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) doesn’t feel “treat with care” is

sufficient. He proposed to change it to a more strongly worded statement “treat with comparable effort”

9. “Design should incorporate opportunities for aesthetic lighting, including the

underside of the structure, in keeping with the lighting schemes common to existing bridges in the valley.”

� Tim Tramble (Burton Bell Carr Devel. Corp) suggests that many, like himself, want

cutting edge design and not historical & imitation as Hunter Morrison or other few vocal members may suggest.

10. “Consideration of people environment adjacent to and under the bridge is

important. Design should recognize the potential for future pedestrian use on the land under the bridge and consider lighting or other means to increase safety and user-

friendliness.”

11. “The design should be sensitive to the scale and appearance of the neighborhoods where it touches down and should respect the special character of Tremont and

Gateway.”

12. “The bridge and placement of its supports should be conducive to positive and beneficial future land use adjacent to the underside of the structure.”

� Paul Alsenas (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) asked if new bridge could be

designed “to expand” into 10 lane bridge in future instead of building parallel. � John/Bob (Baker) responded, it’s more practical to build twin bridges not widen existing. John Dietrick (Baker) showed views for renderings.


22

� Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning) mentioned Tremont views of Westbound Cable

Stay tower are important for Tremont residents/Colleen to address. � John (Baker) explained that views have been developed for Tremont views and will be

shown at next weeks meeting. � John (Baker) mentioned that west Bank excavation was being looked at.

� Dave Lastovka (ODOT D12) mentioned that ODOT acknowledges that all but one concept

exceed $297M budget, but ODOT has not asked the committee to limit its choices at this time.

� Paul (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) asked about land use opportunities for

viaduct approaches. John mentioned that approach span lengths will be maximized as much as possible – 200-250ft. spans. Significant interest in demarcation of valley on downtown side as well as river side. To balance the spans considerations should be given to introducing a second “signature span” on the downtown side.

� Colleen Gilson (Tremont West Development Corp) doesn’t feel single tower on west bank

is problematic; in fact, she feels that west bank tower is desirable to Tremont residents. � Paul Alsenas (Cuyahoga County Planning Commission) mentioned that curvature of

roadway will give different views. � Bob Brown (City of Cleveland Planning) mentioned that relative difference of west bank

vs. east bank towers viewed from downtown is not dramatic, since only 400 ft. difference over 4000 ft.valley.

Adjourn


23

Appendix B: Evaluation Ratings for each of the (7) bridge types


24

Concept 1 – Concrete Box Girder Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects the technology or our time and respects Cleveland's history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner. The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above deck structure. The design should be inspired by Cleveland's civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.

Goal Statement

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5

1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree

Goal Statement

D.P. 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 1

D.P. 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 2

D.P. 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 3


25

The new bridge should reflect consistent design themes of existing bridges in the valley, and should strive for similar attention to form and detail, while not being overly imitative. New bridge should reflect architecture and technology of our time, not be nostalgic. Overall Rating

D.P. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 4

D.P. 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 5

Overall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5

1 = Strongly Negative to 5 = Strongly Positive

Overall

Concept 1 - Box Girder Average Scores

0

1

2

3

4

5

GS 1 2 3 4 5 Overall

Design Principle

Ave

rage

Sco

re


26

Concept 2 – Steel Deck Truss Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects the technology or our time and respects Cleveland's history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner. The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above deck structure. The design should be inspired by Cleveland's civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.

Goal Statement

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


Goal Statement

D.P. 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 1

D.P. 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 2

D.P. 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 3


27


D.P. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 4

D.P. 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 5

Overall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


Overall

Concept 2 - Deck Truss Average Scores

0

1

2

3

4

5


Design Principle

Ave

rage

Sco

re


28

Concept 3 – Steel Plate Girder Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects the technology or our time and respects Cleveland's history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner. The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above deck structure. The design should be inspired by Cleveland's civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.

Goal Statement

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


Goal Statement

D.P. 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 1

D.P. 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 2

D.P. 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 3


29


D.P. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 4

D.P. 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 5

Overall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


Overall

Concept 3 - Steel Plate Girder Average Scores

0

1

2

3

4

5


Design Principle

Ave

rage

Sco

re


30

Concept 4 – Steel Tied Arch Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects the technology or our time and respects Cleveland's history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner. The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above deck structure. The design should be inspired by Cleveland's civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.

Goal Statement

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


Goal Statement

D.P. 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 1

D.P. 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 2

D.P. 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 3


31


D.P. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 4

D.P. 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 5

Overall

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


Overall

Concept 4 - Steel Tied Arch Average Scores

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5


Design Principle

Ave

rage

Sco

re


32

Concept 5 – Single Tower Cable Stay (East bank) Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects the technology or our time and respects Cleveland's history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner. The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above deck structure. The design should be inspired by Cleveland's civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.

Goal Statement

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


Goal Statement

D.P. 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 1

D.P. 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 2

D.P. 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 3


33


D.P. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 4

D.P. 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 5

Overall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5


Overall

Concept 5 - East Bank Single Tower Cable Stay

0

1

2

3

4

5


Design Principle

Ave

rage

Sco

re


34

Concept 6 – Single Tower Cable Stay (West bank) Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects the technology or our time and respects Cleveland's history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner. The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above deck structure. The design should be inspired by Cleveland's civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.

Goal Statement

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


Goal Statement

D.P. 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 1

D.P. 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 2

D.P. 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 3


35


D.P. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 4

D.P. 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 5

Overall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5


Overall

Concept 6 - West Bank Single Tower Cable Stay

0

1

2

3

4

5


Design Principle

Ave

rage

Sco

re


36

Concept 7 – Two-Tower Cable Stay Aspire to a design that further defines and enhances the identity of Cleveland, reflects the technology or our time and respects Cleveland's history and culture in a fiscally responsible manner. The design should maximize the possibility to create a visual image or statement, preferably with an above deck structure. The design should be inspired by Cleveland's civic, industrial and bridge design history, and should be the next contribution to the rich bridge architectural history of the valley. It should grow out of the aesthetic history of this place. Bridge should focus on principles of form, rhythm and scale. The scale of bridge elements should invoke and be in proper proportion with the dimensions of the overall valley.

Goal Statement

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5


Goal Statement

D.P. 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 1

D.P. 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 2

D.P. 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 3


37


D.P. 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 4

D.P. 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5


D.P. 5

Overall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5


Overall

Concept 7 - Two Tower Cable Stay / Extradosed Average Scores

0

1

2

3

4

5


Design Principle

Ave

rage

Sco

re


38

Appendix C: Comments from Evaluation Sheets on each of the (7) Concepts


39

Concept 1 Comments: “I-77 look" "This alternative reflects modern bridge design, is clean and elegant. It does not make a visual impact at this location since it disappears into its surroundings. Would we consider artificial above deck enhancements, like Lorain-Carnegie pylons, to meet more of the design goals?" "Bridge would be very modern and typical of what we see statewide but not what we see in the valley of 'steel' now." "Concrete bridge in a valley of steel bridges bad for river crossing. Keep in mind for approaches." Concept 2 Comments: "Identical to Main Ave. -" "This bridge does not reflect modern bridge design --very 1950's. Large visual impact below deck; would affect future use down there. When existing viaduct is replaced in 50 years, we would be passing along a poor representation to the next generation of bridge designers. Also, construction cost and future maintenance is un-economical." "Bridge speaks well of Cleveland history with many opportunities for aesthetic treatments for it to make its own statement like the Lorain/Carnegie bridge." "Too much structure for valley. Too high cost. Too expensive maintenance. Not ugly, but drop this idea." Concept 3 Comments: "Sleek, but boring." "More modern, but not modern enough. (Very 1970s - 80s). Disappears, like concrete box girder, but does not reflect current technology. Would require artificial above-deck enhancements to meet design goals." "Bridge speaks well of 'steel' in the valley. This bridge is modern while not being out of context. Bridge provides many opportunities for aesthetic design elements." "Like I-480. If we build this bridge, then we will know that ODOT was lying to us all along. T-structures too massive for low valley."


40

Concept 4 Comments: "Keep inclined arches. Has seemingly less opportunities for lighting but that's okay. Like the curvature and match to 3 or so other arch bridges nearby. Curvature also flows with curves of understructure of other bridges." "The detail of the arch is important. Detail should enhance/increase the scale. Consider a non-tied arch (would increase thickness of arch). Details of remaining bridge to complement the arch and rhythm of the bridge (on the sides like Lorain-Carnegie, underneath like Detroit-Superior with the shapes of the piers." "Like the height, --matches others in valley. Like the curves which match underdeck trusses as well as others, --Detroit Superior. Like basket handle. No opinions on cables yet." "Keep this bridge in the mix for further review." "Seems to highlight that the arch is a small portion of the overall bridge. View #3 looks stubby. Bridge profile changes significantly from view to view (this is probably good, but lessens identity as a whole somewhat)." "This alternative meets many of the design goals, including modern bridge design reflecting of existing designs in the valley, particularly the steel arch of the Detroit-Superior. I would like to see other options, including parallel arch ribs and different cable arrangements. It meets the above-deck and "gateway" elements in a natural, structurally necessary way. I believe this alternative benefits by the shorter span. Previously, arch was too tall and did not fit into its space. Arch anchors both banks of the river, which I find appealing." "The arch speaks well to the steel in the valley along with the approach spans. The arch relates well to the form of the lift bridges in the valley as well as Detroit-Superior. The bridge is a modern version of what's mixed throughout the valley." "Reflects arch theme found elsewhere in valley. Not as dramatic as the single tower cable stay west." "Like to see not so steep inclined arch ribs. Will inclined arch ribs be an ice fall concern? "Good visual relationship with viaduct viewed from south. Good symmetry with Detroit-Superior Bridge. Only two highway bridges that rise above the road: both arches! Could we have variations with longer arches? View 5 is beautiful!" Concept 5 Comments: "Prefer eastside location but prefer design shown for west side." "The details of the tower are important. This will create the visual icon / image. The details of the remaining bridge will have to compliment the tower on rhythm, on the side and underneath


41

(like the Detroit-Superior). The placement of the tower is too close to the existing bridge. This concept should be used only if it can be moved to a less conflicted placement." "Examine pier location on river bank. Examine both harp and fan design for cables." "Dramatic / bold. Lower base not exciting, -cramped. Under whelmed at east bank placement. Interesting design opportunities." "East bank tower placement is preferable to west bank, in my opinion. This places tower among other elements of the skyline of downtown as well as railroad bridge and other flats structures. Provides above-deck, gateway elements. Tower configuration and cable arrangements can be fine-tuned during final design. Probably the most modern (w / other cable-stay alternatives); will cable-stay appear passé in 50 years? Arches are timeless; --Detroit-Superior is as elegant 90 years later." "This bridge does not blend with anything in the valley. The valley is very wide and flat, bridges are long. This bridge injects a very high element out of place in the valley. If the tower was on the east end it would work with downtown, but on the west end it sticks out like a sore thumb. The bridge is very modern." "Tower does not frame valley but punches through datum line." "Concern with railroad bridge clearance." "Most visible from a distance. If we do a symmetric cable-stay, harp arrangement is better." Concept 6 Comments: "The detail of the tower is important to the iconography and image. The detail of the remaining bridge is important to the overall bridge rhythm, on sides and underneath. The placement may be too close to Tremont for a tower of that scale - [illegible]. I like the two tower version." "Like west bank placement better. 21st century (early) feel. Overall relationship to entire bridge stronger. Not exuberant about the 'bowlegged' structure." "Tower looks a little out of place from the rest of the skyline and flats structures. Still good at meeting above-deck and gateway considerations. This will impact Tremont more than downtown/Gateway. Scale of tower might hurt church steeple visual of Tremont." "Same comments as on Concept 5. Changing the configuration does not change how design principles are addressed." "Bookends for the valley with new federal court house!"


42

Concept 7 Comments: "This version is good in scale, --but the towers could be a little taller for aesthetics (no cables). Details of tower are important to iconography. Details of remaining bridge important." "I like the towers in relation to downtown skyline. Like possibility for great lighting." "This option offers significant decorative opportunities in a manner consistent with the Lorain-Carnegie Bridge." "Interesting relationship with train lift bridge, size, location, relationship are similar, --design opportunities exist." "This alternative appeals to me because it is anchored on both banks of the river. It provides a gateway and meets the above-deck visual impact goal. Four pylons reflection of Lorain-Carnegie and provide opportunity for aesthetic considerations during final design." "The towers speak to the form of downtown high-rise buildings. The bridge is modern. The bridge is long not high. Additional aesthetic treatment could be easily added. Approach spans can be steel to be in context with steel in the valley. Twin tower would fit well with the lift bridge towers in the valley." "Sailboat Race! Good relationship with railroad bridge. Think of large-scale art on the four outside tower faces. 1) viewed from the river, valley, other bridges, 2) reflective, not imitative, of Lorain-Carnegie pylons."

innerbelt bridge subcommittee meeting 4 - meeting minutes · innerbelt bridge subcommittee meeting...

Documents