Rethinking the Columbia Crossing: finding greatness in flatness?

Ushibuka Bridge, Japan, by Renzo Piano Buiding Workshop 

Recently I was talking with an architect friend about the troubled Columbia River Crossing project: the lack of an acceptable design, the lack of leadership, the millions and millions spent on the process without anything approaching a consensus. But this friend challenged my desire for a great bridge in an interesting way that has affected the way I see the process.

In an engineering sense, this friend argued, all that is needed is a flat bridge over the Columbia. A new Golden Gate-esque suspension bridge? Not needed for this site. A tall statement-making bridge? That's just form without function, he argued.

In other words, then, are the transportation departments of Oregon and Washington correct in saying that the uninspiring, pancake-flat Glen Jackson Bridge over Interstate 205 should be the template, the inspiration, the goal?

Well, yes and no.

In my previous post about the CRC, I included pictures of striking bridges around the world by great architects, such as Sir Norman Foster's Milau Viaduct in France and Santiago Calatrava's Alamillo Bridge in Spain. But these bridges, just like famous spans such as the Golden Gate Bridge, were tall in part because they needed to be. The Golden Gate, for example, had to span San Francisco Bay between two hillsides.

Or then there are dramatically tall bridges in Portland like the Fremont and the St. Johns. The former rises in the air in part because of the higher ground from which it emanates. The latter responds with its taller structural form to the mountains and hillside on the west side. In other words, these designs responded to the challenges of their sites. They may be postcard-worthy beautiful, but they also were formal responses to functional challenges.

Ushibuka Bridge, Japan, by Renzo Piano Building Workshop 

But the conditions for the CRC are different. Because of the quaint Pearson airfield in Vancouver, this bridge cannot be tall. But the riverbanks on each side are relatively flat ground, so that also means the topography may not call for a taller bridge.

What if, instead of clamoring for height and postcard quality, the design community instead accepted the need for a flat bridge but still insisted that this be more than a flat highway over the water? What if we embrace the potential of the flat bridge?

In so doing, the design community would gain credibility with those accusing them of unrealistic expectations for a postcard. After all, it doesn't take a "designista" (as developer Dennis Wilde coined hardcore Portland design proponents) to see that "postcard" and "gateway" are terms that don't carry any real weight. They are expressions of what a design-lover thinks should happen: the end result. But design isn't about affixing beautiful sculptures to the landscape. The thing has to work well, and within its set of conditions.

If the design community abandons the perceived need for height and scale for the bridge, the social capital could then be applied to what is still desperately needed: a great designer.

But even to say "great designer" may be slightly misleading. This architect friend with whom I spoke argued that if Portland and Vancouver hire a famous architect with a relatively fixed style, even if it's someone who has a very impressive sense of visual artistry, it may not be the right fit. What the CRC really needs, perhaps, is a designer as leader and editor.

The CRC process has so far been guided by giant groups stocked with representatives of different government and private-sector concerns. That's a necessary step in order to cull the concerns, needs and expertise of the many stakeholders in a new bridge. But until there is some kind of singular voice that does something with those opinions, all the ideas remain equal and no quality consensus is reached. It’s not that democracy is a mob, but the ideas are equal to each other until someone brings it all together together. This is where the designer as leader comes in: the person who takes all the opinions and brings them together in one design -- not a Homer Simpson car that is far less than the sum of its parts, but a greater unified whole. A complex design whose beauty is rooted in making the complex seem simple.

It's not to say this designer couldn't be a "starchitect" like Foster, Calatrava or Zaha Hadid. But given the complexities of the process and the many, many people involved, the CRC needs not just a designer-sculptor but one who accepts that there is no model yet for this bridge. "Right now designers have a preconceived conclusion as much as the engineers," my friend (who chose to remain anonymous) argued. "That’s not how design works in my book."

In other words, we need to find a way to unite those concerned with a great design, those concerned with moving traffic, and those concerned with environmental issues. We need a designer leading this ship who listens to the broad set of conditions and formulates that into a design - one that embodies the needs of the site (such as physical flatness for the bridge) but also refuses to build something banal and ugly like the Glenn Jackson. As great architects like Renzo Piano have demonstrated, a flat bridge can still be gorgeous.

At this point, there won't be a design competition for the CRC. There won't be a new Golden Gate that rises over the Columbia. Even so, by installing a designer as the manager of this process, we can still build a bridge that represents the best of us in its design, a bridge that is as beautiful as it is functional. And it's not to say a bridge keeping a low profile isn't a good design. The one great thing about traveling over the Glenn Jackson Bridge on I-205 is the visceral, experiential sense one gets of the river. There are few obstructions to one's view crossing the Jackson, leaving the Columbia itself, and the snow-capped mountains in the distance, as the postcard.

Portland Aerial Tram, photo by Brian Libby 

As it happens, when architect Sarah Graham and her firm, AGPS Architecture, were being considered for the Portland Aerial Tram commission, she said the same thing: "You don't need a postcard. Mt. Hood is your postcard." But Graham also fought tooth and nail to preserve the integrity of her tram design, to not let it just be utilitarian, banal and ugly. The tram doesn't try to be a beautiful design, per se. But it is a beautiful design. The key? Whether it was Reed Kroloff leading the design competition, or Graham herself, we had the right people in place to do the job - a job that called for design greatness, but also design leadership.

Comments

[billb]

Fine Observation B , I believe we should think outside the box. We are in a special place , a place that values the outdoors and the environment.
A Park-Roofed bridge is low rise AND gives us all a unique place to enjoy the Mighty Columbia.
Please find the latest Blog Coverage below of my Artworks
for a Park-Roofed CRC Bridge.
The vast grass land of the park
will absorb all the rain that drives stormwater pollution , and in doing so greatly reduces the cost of treatment. This savings can largely pay for the park. The working class neighborhoods on both sides of the river need more open space,
and we gain a major unique green-tourist attraction.

http://www.worldinfuture.com/green-roof-solution-to-outdated-historical-bridges/

[Kayla Langos]

I believe you have made great points in your argument for a flat bridge.
I've lived in Portland my whole life and have crossed the current bridge countless times.
I believe this design has great potential to be beautiful without being "cluttered". I know that this bridge needs to do lots of things, not just be a bridge over the Columbia from Oregon to Washington for vehicle traffic but also for MAX line, bikers & pedestrians. The designer on this project should be exploring all possibilities for this design to communicate with its given landscape, needs, others opinions & of course sustainability as well. A designer on a project of this scale should cover all of their bases before coming to any one conclusion.
Has any one thought about maybe a designer contest where designers, architects & engineers can submit their designs to a jury per se. Like Mya lynn's Vietnam memorial?
The jury wouldn't even have to pick one design but then their are so many possibilities right in front of you. With those designs on hand taking ideas/concepts from the submissions and create one cohesive design that pleases all sides of the argument raised.

This bridge will not only become a landmark for Washington & Oregon but a beautiful piece of art that not only includes functionality but represents this great NorthWest that we all inhabit.

[NJD]

That may be good and all, to design a beautiful flat bridge, but due to ODOT and FHA's mandates for highway design we end up with a flat bridge AND a completely devastated Hayden Island, a massive pile of spaghetti over Vancouver, and the non-aesthetics of exhaust spewing gridlock moved (not relieved) closer into North Portland and the I-5/405 loop. Ask your architect friends how they feel about the REAL architectural splendor this project will bring outside of the bridge's footprint. Look at the artist renderings again focusing on the approach interchanges and you'll understand that there is no architect on the planet who could make those ramps and passes better considering mandated designs for speed, curves, clearance, and slope.

Your architect friends are architects and are completely blind. No disrespect, but they are only concerned with 'design' of the bridge, not the environmental, human habitat, sociological, financial, and political tragedy that is proposed. Everyone who pushes to have this bridge built should be mandated to live next to it and its interchanges, and see if they change their tune.

Too bad the best alternatives to this project, and the easiest to incorporate good design, were thrown out years ago by political will alone.

[chris]

At last week's PDXplore event at PNCA, there were concepts for a low bridge that were beautiful - almost looked like a seagull in shape. I believe they were done by Bill Tripp.

[Scott]

That's definitely a good point and a direction we all should be willing to explore, rather than keep pushing for something that may very well be a lost cause. Let's make the best low bridge possible, who knows what we can come up with...it's not like there's a shortage of creative thinkers in the region.

[Fred Leeson]

Well, folks, the bridge can't be TOO low. Ships have to get under it. That's why the Fremont and St. Johns are up high.

Whatever the design, motorists deserve to know they are crossing one of the major rivers of the world. What bothers me about the Glenn Jackson Bridge is that you can drive across it, especially at night, and NOT know that you are crossing a major waterway. It seems highly disrespectful to me, although it was, no doubt, cheap and efficient to build.

[Michael McCulloch AIA]

The discussion and eventual design of the bridge needs to go beyond the narrow confines of the current CRC bridge plan. The impacts to the urban environments five miles in each direction are more important than the bridge itself. Because this project is centered between two major cities that will be absorbing another million inhabitants in the near future, shouldn't we be starting with land uses, energy modeling, infrastructure planning to facilitate thoughtful development, long term job creation, etc., rather than focusing on the aesthetics of the bridge?
Our Governors and Mayors should lead the way toward getting the best talent and most comprehensive thinking from around the world to make this the kind of project the Northwest deserves. We are at a time in the project where the engineering is mostly understood and an initial scheme has been proposed. But all good design efforts have many iterations as they move towards implementation. We needn't throw out what we've done so far. But we need to enrich the solution by including more considerations that simply accommodating cars, trucks, light rail, bikes, and pedestrians.

This project could be a symbol of how we think, how we feel, and what we aspire to. As one panelist at the PNCA event last week said "It is about acknowledging the ascending paradigms, not holding onto the descending paradigm." Don't stop this project. Make it better and more inclusive in its range of solutions and in the issues it addresses. Our region is known for its planning and careful visions. Now is the time to seize the opportunity this project rep[resents and move into the 21st century. The international experts who visited and spoke last week all agreed that NOW is the time and that this current design is just a beginning. The eventual design can have all the grace and beauty we deserve and be dramatically less expensive that the current design. Let's aspire to the best design, and not resign ourselves to the paths of least resistance. Good design is always hard work.

[Stephen]

I have to admit that I am all for a nice design, but I am so tired of the hearing how much time and money has been spent on this project.
I would suggest building a tunnel, but I believe the cost would be ten fold...
I like the bridge with a park on top.

[Greg]

See through concrete. Get real close to the river.

[Jonas JG.]

Although the majority of what we call "architecture" relies heavily on aesthtetics, there have been many Architects (and some engineers)that have produced holistic designs for bridges, parks,buildings, etc..
Architects were producing "holistic" designs long before we embraced a holistic approach to our existence/experience. Creating a design that is in harmony/balance with it's environment...it's a culmination of all parts in a specific context, intended to reflect a sense of being and/or belonging.
Ego's aside, that's what we architects are expected to contribute to our surroundings. That being said, some of the best designs of bridges, parks & building have come from a collaboration of Architect & Engineer...although the Engineer is usualy mentioned in a footnote.

[Bye Bye Birdie]

I agree with your engineer friend Brian, I wish you could have been as poignant and reality based in all your all too many postings over the past year on this subject.

[Brian Libby]

Bye Bye Birdie,

Thanks for your comment.

As it happens, I only wrote about this subject a couple of times over the past year. Is that "too many"?

Perhaps I should have acquiesced earlier to the idea that this has to be a flat bridge. But I also wouldn't retract my point in previous posts that there should have been a design competition for this bridge. My main point, that this project desperately needs a great designer, hasn't changed.

[archinerd]

I think your 'friend' should be the leader that is needed for this project. A great point was made regarding form/function of this particular site. Thanks for this post!

In response to NJD "(architects) are only concerned with 'design' of the bridge, not the environmental, human habitat, sociological, financial, and political tragedy that is proposed." I think I can take that as disrespectful because the practice of architecture is an equal balance of addressing aesthetics as well as ALL the other factors you mentioned. Architecture is not solely concerned about aesthetics. As mentioned in the post, this needs to be collaborative effort to create a solution to all the issues at hand and I hope everyone comes to the table with solutions and not blame.

[NJD]

Thank you archi, but I stand firm in my beliefs that the overall emphasis for the CRC has been the bridge portion of the project and not the overall majority of effected area. The ramps, access and built environments are pushed to the sidelines in architecture discussions where, as you pointed out, are part of an architects job.

I am a small spaces and human environment advocate, and I really feel strongly that the WSDOT/ ODOT approach, which automatically disregarded any alternative outside the narrow and highly policy regulated study area, will leave little room for placemaking outside of the automobile perspective.

[Rob]

I had an earlier port on the absence of consensus on the program for the project. A specific example is Hayden Island.

Hayden and Tomahawk Islands have about 2000 residents in relatively dense townhouses. Though Portland has riverside residential development, none are of this scale, nor with as extensive dock facilities. The Columbia is a richer boating environment too. There is a large trailer park, prefab, if you will, rare in Portland. I have advocated here for the conversion of the hotels to condos or apartments taking advantage of the river.

It also has large big box stores which serve Washington residents seeking to avoid sales taxes. Hayden Meadows and the Airport Way area stores function similarly. It's good for Oregon business.

A good chunk of the Island is undeveloped. owned by the Port of Portland. It's potentially served by rail to the North and South. The CRC would serve it by road. The Columbia is a huge transshipment route for grain from the US and Canadian interior. It would make great business sense for it to be a major port facility when that is needed.

Much of the island is in a floodplain, which has an impact on development and its insurability.

Hayden Island's program is also influenced by the intersection of North-South and East-West roadways, designed originally for low speeds, but now adapted for >50mph ramps. These include N Interstate, MLK 99, Marine Drive and Columbia. Assembling new road and rail rights of way today is impossible. The days of destroying entire neighborhoods, as was the case with I5, are long gone.

No design can be successful until the program is in harmony. It's a challenge, I hope we can equal it. It's not something an architect can resolve.

[Aaronf]

Looks like there's a bit of an unofficial design competition in the works!

http://bikeportland.org/2010/04/23/metros-robert-liberty-on-the-crc-time-to-leave-the-monster-behind/