Bill Russell Bridge | North Washington St.

Patrick Winn said:
To me it looks indistinguishable from the renders. More importantly, its great for people like me who have to cross the bridge every day. But I'm still heartbroken it's not up to your expectations.

View attachment 57401
Click to expand...
You can be snide all you want but please don’t be blind. The sides of the bridge in the model you show are smooth. The sides of the bridge in reality are completely exposed. Others have said that the architectural finish is being installed later but I have seen no proof of that.
 
Jeremi said:
You can be snide all you want but please don’t be blind. The sides of the bridge in the model you show are smooth. The sides of the bridge in reality are completely exposed. Others have said that the architectural finish is being installed later but I have seen no proof of that.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7146.JPG
    IMG_7146.JPG
    4.8 MB · Views: 187
  • brbr.PNG
    brbr.PNG
    847.9 KB · Views: 182
Jeremi said:
You can be snide all you want but please don’t be blind. The sides of the bridge in the model you show are smooth. The sides of the bridge in reality are completely exposed. Others have said that the architectural finish is being installed later but I have seen no proof of that.
Click to expand...
I don't have any special insight into this project, but decorative panel installation is likely the lowest priority activity for the completion schedule of this bridge. And they cannot be easily installed on the west side of the bridge until the temporary bridge is removed next spring.

Right now the focus is on getting the bridge deck completed to allow full opening for traffic.

The final cosmetic additions would be the last stage of the project, likely next spring, and the side panel work on both sides would typically be competed at the same time, since you only want the installation crews and materials to be on site once (you don't want panels like that sitting around getting damaged).
 
Patrick Winn said:
To me it looks indistinguishable from the renders. More importantly, its great for people like me who have to cross the bridge every day. But I'm still heartbroken it's not up to your expectations.

View attachment 57401
Click to expand...
The smooth panels on the sides of the bridge are notably missing, as pointed out by many, but I'm hoping they end up getting installed.
 
What I still don't understand is why the decorative feature is so small compared to the total visible bridge span. All the renderings seem to be just of that center portion. It looks very dinky and cheap compared to the Zakim bridge.
 
I think the better question, given that the bridge is very much still under construction: what evidence do you have that the final product won't have finishing panels on the sides?

As for the size: yeah that's always been my main thing. It's a cool design but in perspective of the entire span feels small.
 
bakgwailo said:
I think the better question, given that the bridge is very much still under construction: what evidence do you have that the final product won't have finishing panels on the sides?

As for the size: yeah that's always been my main thing. It's a cool design but in perspective of the entire span feels small.
Click to expand...
The evidence I have is that the scaffolding is gone from the east side of the bridge and the architectural finish is nowhere to be seen.
 
As of 11/16. Looks like something is being added to the Eastern side of the bridge. Also they are working on the western sides road bed.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7271.JPG
    IMG_7271.JPG
    5.1 MB · Views: 141
  • IMG_7272.JPG
    IMG_7272.JPG
    2.9 MB · Views: 134
  • IMG_7274.JPG
    IMG_7274.JPG
    3.8 MB · Views: 139
  • IMG_7275.JPG
    IMG_7275.JPG
    5.1 MB · Views: 156
  • IMG_7276.JPG
    IMG_7276.JPG
    4.3 MB · Views: 155
  • IMG_7278.JPG
    IMG_7278.JPG
    5.9 MB · Views: 158
  • IMG_7280.JPG
    IMG_7280.JPG
    5.3 MB · Views: 150
Was the intention to mimic a cannon port? (Photo by Beeline)

Untitled 1.png
Untitled.png
 
as02143 said:
I thought the idea was to not "compete" with the Zakim.
Click to expand...
Bingo. To make the decorative steel longer you need to make it taller (it's already a pretty shallow arch as is). This will make it more prominent and "block" the view of the Zakim. I'm ambivalent to whether or not they should have made the decorative feature longer and higher, but I think AS02143 is right about the intent of the existing design.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Bingo. To make the decorative steel longer you need to make it taller (it's already a pretty shallow arch as is). This will make it more prominent and "block" the view of the Zakim. I'm ambivalent to whether or not they should have made the decorative feature longer and higher, but I think AS02143 is right about the intent of the existing design.
Click to expand...
Also, I think the inverted triangle concrete piers are meant to pay homage to the Zakim without getting in the way. I think they will be much more architecturally prominent once all the construction stuff is out of the way and the fascia is installed simplifying the visual complexity of what's above.
 
dhawkins said:
Was the intention to mimic a cannon port? (Photo by Beeline)

View attachment 57881View attachment 57880
Click to expand...

Whatever it is it appears to line up with what Stlin posted.

Stlin said:
Why is everyone getting bent out of shape with the truss work? We're complaining that an unfinished bridge looks unfinished. The phase we're in, the drawing I've seen shows it looking exactly as seen in the posted photos, as the plans only show the "architectural screening at fascia" as part of the final build condition, after which the sidewalk trusses are tucked well in.

View attachment 48441
View attachment 48442
Click to expand...

It looks like its only there on the part with the arch.
IMG_1300.jpeg

IMG_1301.jpeg
 
I thought I was making that blatantly obvious by the giant circle and saying it lines up with what stlin posted, that I was talking about the bracket for the fascia, but apparently not. On the blueprint it shows that at the point of the bridge with the arches the fascia sticks out a lot farther, so it has this extra support we are seeing. In the blueprint above that the fascia is much closer to the bridge and more vertical so it doesnt have the extra support. So what we are seeing in real life lines up exactly with the blueprints that Stlin posted, hence the comment “it appears to line up with what Stlin posted” and the giant circle pointing to the part that matches what we are seeing in real life…
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top