« Jahn pictures Pietro Belluschi's Cathedral of St. Mary in San Francisco | Main | Landmarks Commission approves SERA-designed Blanchet House expansion »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


While I think the cable-stayed bridge indeed looks nicer, they also want to stick the bike path in the middle of the two directions of traffic, just like the Glenn Jackson Bridge. I invite you to ride the Glenn Jackson sometime, just don't forget your earplugs. They need to go with the cable-stayed option, but at least give us a respectable bike path that's not sandwiched between nearly a dozen lanes of interstate traffic.

Charles MacEachen

Neither option is what I would call an attractive bridge, nor do I think it matters in this location. This situation is nothing like the Marquam. Also, I think 2% is a little disingenuous considering $3.2B is the total cost of the project, not the cost of the bridge itself. The difference in the cost of the bridges is around 18%. If you're going to tout "$40M less than the original design" as a reason to choose the cable stayed bridge, surely the fact that the composite deck option is $60M less than the cable bridge is a reason to choose the cheaper option. Furthermore, maintenance and upkeep costs for the cable option will be much higher.

As for the environmental impact, it seems pretty clear that a smaller footprint will have less impact and that the cables will become a hazard for birds.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors


Portland Architecture on Facebook

More writing from Brian Libby


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors