[COM] Torrens Footbridge | $40m

[Matt]

Politics, trees, cost debate and other nitpicking aside, just looked at the detailed plans and they look magnificent.

Really, really excited for this.

[Waewick]

for the life of me, I cannot get that pdf to open.

[believesinadsy]

Really looks incredible! It appears that one of the supporting pilons will be in the water though. shame it couldnt have been on land. that aside its 9.9/10 for me

[SRW]

Read them over too and the quality looks top notch. I'm somewhat disappointed about the inelegance of the southern landing plaza and terrace, but that's something that could be improved over time or altered without terribly much expense. The important bit, the bridge itself, looks great. I was initially skeptical when it was proposed, but I now think the design they've settled upon is appropriate and graceful.

[Adelarch]

Read them over too and the quality looks top notch. I'm somewhat disappointed about the inelegance of the southern landing plaza and terrace, but that's something that could be improved over time or altered without terribly much expense. The important bit, the bridge itself, looks great. I was initially skeptical when it was proposed, but I now think the design they've settled upon is appropriate and graceful.

Agree about the finishes - according to the document they include, among other things, glass cladding, glass balustrades, stone paving and LED lighting – not in themselves a guarantee of success but we could certainly do a lot worse!

Personally I like the detail of the stepped water feature on the south side and the presence of an interactive water feature will probably help draw people to the area more frequently.

Anyway here are the renders from the document:

[Waewick]

that looks great, thanks for the pics.

[Wayno]

apparently $320k per year to maintain the bridge!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6586831408

[Waewick]

how annoying is that article.

my favorite part.

ADELAIDE City Council ratepayers face a $320,000 annual bill to maintain the $40 million footbridge planned for the Adelaide Oval upgrade.

Evidence given to State Parliament's Public Works Committee today revealed the council had "insisted" on ownership of the bridge once it is built, so the Government also intends to make them pick up the full annual maintenance cost.

Member for Adelaide Rachel Sanderson - who made a statement to the committee condemning the bridge as a "waste of taxpayers' money" considering there are five nearby river crossings - said ratepayers would be shocked to learn they face the bill. -

Well no shit Rachel, but if the Council had of kept its mouth shut it wouldn't be an issue, so whose fault is it now?

I agree with Rod on this, it is a work of art, it is an addition to the "postcard" photo and it needed to be "extravagant". It looks fantastic and something Adelaide should be excited about.

[stumpjumper]

Waewick, the pdf in

http://ncapps.adelaidecitycouncil.com/a ... hments.pdf

is locked with password by the author, not against being opened but against printing etc. Try upgrading to Acrobat X from the usual sources and you may find it will open. It's 40Mb so it takes a while.

As I said in my previous post, I like the bridge and I'd like to see it even more dramatic, but there are a few points to consider:

1. We're broke. As a priority, I think sick kids etc come first. After all, we've just shouted ourselves the new oval. Why not go and enjoy a beer in the SACA members' bar and have a look around. The beers are $7 a schooner, so take some cash. I think Rachel Sanderson is being responsible rather than a spoilsport. This is not a good time to have politicians who fling borrowed money around. We've had that federally for a few years and look at where that's got us. We are not a sandpit for Rod Hook and co to build their dreams at public cost. So I respect Rachel's attitude.

2. Why couldn't they have been honest and upfront? Trying to sneak the bridge in among the carports and clotheslines in Schedule 1A of the regs to the Development Act looked dodgy, as does the Ministerial DPA. Why bullshit about the necessity for the bridge as a safety issue, no other option etc, and why not mention the casino? Why not just say it's a great idea, it's not essential but it is very cool, and charge a $2 toll for crossing it?

3. Why are the design fees so high? I design stuff for a living and I've never scored fees like the fees for this bridge.

4. Why is Rod Hook happy to compensate the Festivakl Centre Bistro which will be vclosed for at least 6 months, but not the Popeye proprietor when the river is blocked for 6 months or more?

5. At the Public Works Committee this morning, Rod Hook said that the footbridge traffic would arrive on the south bank at RL30 (ie one level beneave at the basement level of the Festival Plaza. This will beb entirely covered when the cAsino extension is built, so that exiting oval patrons, up to 20,000 of them, will have a choice of continuing in a tunnel to the rail platforms or going into the casino. The casino will have another 600 poker machines, btw, so there will be plenty for everyone to do.

I am wondering where these 20,000 people will go while the casino extension is being built. There is no easy access to the railway platforms for that period from the southern landing of the bridge.

[crawf]

The bridge looks really good, but what about lighting?

This is an expensive project for a footbridge. Though for an iconic location like this, it needs to be a stunning piece of architecture with high quality features. The last thing we need is a cheap nasty proposal that will destroy the postcard look and become an eyesore.

[stumpjumper]

There's fancy strip lighting under the handrails, crawf. Probably LED array. The drawings with the DAP agenda aren't construction drawings, so it's hard to be sure.

As to looks, I'd ditch the coloured panels (which are to be red, yellow and blue, yawn) and have a shimmering, metal clad bridge and I'd continue the bridge past the waterfall to land again at Elder Park.

Now there's an icon. A bridge that's about 300 deg of a circle, about 8m wide and about 100m in diameter, like one of those rim only frisbees but with a bit missing.

If we could afford it.

[crawf]

There's fancy strip lighting under the handrails, crawf.

I'm no expert, but will that will be enough lighting for people using the bridge at night?

[stumpjumper]

You'd want about 300 lux at your feet for safety. For comparison, a supermarket is generally lit to about 750 lux, and a kitchen work bench should be about 400 - 500 lux.

[Matt]

SJ, what were these coloured panels and where were they going?

I must have missed this. By the sound of it, I wish the designers had done too.

[SRW]

I didn't read them as being coloured either?