The Arches on the Minto Bridge are Huge!

Mostly the new Minto Bridge and path is fabulous. But one detail I keep returning to is that the arches are big and even clunky. I don't find them, or the whole of the bridge, as graceful as I hoped they would be. For me this diminishes the landscape and vista a little. I had hoped it would be a more interesting architectural grace note, complementing and complicating the view. Instead, I find that it dominates the view, and is too big and obvious for the setting. Maybe you feel otherwise, but here's why.

Minto Bridge on May 4th, via Travel Salem

Because we approach the bridge on the paths, the arches are foreshortened, and while the original bridge approvals were done using a profile view, such a profile is not the "natural" way the bridge is experienced by a person using it and viewing it. There is a procession with the connecting paths, and this procession creates the primary view and sense of the bridge as an experienced object in space. In this procession, the arches are tall and narrow, not low and wide. With the side elevations only, the action and experience of procession was absent, and an important dimension of the bridge design missing in deliberation.

Those profile views make it look low and wide. The plans called for a 50 foot peak, and it is possible that the arches are only 50 feet high. But I swear the arc shown here in the initial drawings is flatter than the arc as-built. If so, the peak may be more than 50 feet high. (There may be more to say on this later, as there are almost certainly engineering constraints driving the details, which we might instead want to consider primarily aesthetically rather than structurally.)

Original Council-approved concept drawing (2010)

The drawing showed a 50 foot peak - it looks too flat now

But even more than the curvature and height of the arches, it's the diameter of the arch tubing itself that is jarring.

The arches are much bigger than the person painting them

They're as thick as a half-size human is tall

It's huge. Yuge, I tell you!

The whole package just seems over-sized. In total, there are three details I find distracting:

1. The bridge splays out at top, with the arches angled and spread outward. (Wags have called it a "taco shell," the "taco bridge.")
2. It almost looks tensioned skyward, like a hand is pulling the arches up; it's taller than expected and dominates the skyline. Its energy is tensile rather than flowing.
3. It has huge diameter tubing that is stocky rather than graceful.

Here's an earlier project that OBEC might have used to inform those early project renderings. The footbridge over McLoughlin Boulevard in Sellwood for the Springwater Trail was completed in 2007.

Similar bridge over McLoughlin Blvd along Springwater Trail
OBEC, 2007

It seems to:

1. Span a shorter distance
2. Be pinched at top, the the arches closer together and actually tied
3. Use smaller diameter tubing for the arches
4. Require a lower arch peak (this may be an illusion because the pathway is positioned higher in the arch)

It's possible that once OBEC dug into the details for a later round of engineering, they found that they had to beef up the arches in order to provide the necessary strength and stability. (Again, there might be more to say later on this.)

Whatever may be the case, I now wonder if a plainer design might actually better feature the slough and wildlife and city skyline.

Eugene's Greenway Bike Bridge, completed in 1978

This is a counter-factual, and really is a fanciful outcome, it must be said. This is not a realistic criticism of Council or the City. Here's the information Council used in 2008-2009 to make the decision for a tied arch design. (From a December 2008 slide deck and work session. The new City site does not have the documents posted yet.)

The two low clearance candidates (December 2008)

There was only a projected savings of about $1 million, the tied-arch design avoided piers in the water and disturbing sediments, and it looked more elegant.

Based on this information, there is no real way to second-guess the decision. The tied-arch design was handsomer and better. Based on the information they had, Council made a good and wholly defensible decision.

Even so, now in hindsight, and as the design of the tied-arch evolved, it is possible to cast a backwards and wistful glance at the plainer, "precast concrete girder" design.

But again, you may disagree, and on this it is not possible to be dogmatic!

(The real lesson here: Bridges cost more than you think! The total cost for the Minto bridge was double the estimates here. If the SRC is estimated at $430 million, and you think that estimate is credible, think again!)

Walking and biking counts have averaged 5,000 trips per day since it opened, so people are using it. Salem's street classification identifies the mid-sized "collector" street as designed for 1,600 to 10,000 trips per day, and the "minor arterial" for 7,000 to 20,000 trips. Right now, anyway, the bridge is a "collector" and nearly a "minor arterial"!

What is your opinion of the bridge and path? How do you experience the bridge design and its procession of natural and architectural forms?