12_10_23
I have concerns about the design of the new Pedestrian Bridge in the lower Piedmont Park and would recommend replacing the existing bridge as-is
Piedmont City Code
The new bridge design does not meet the city’s laws regarding land use. Chapiter 17 repeatedly requires that new structures preserve the city’s heritage, ensure the excellence of design, and comply with the Piedmont design guidelines.
The new bridge fails to meet the city’s design guidelines.
Section 4.01.01 requires the preservation of historic structures and resources as well as adaptive re-use of structures.
Section 5.01.01 Compatibility.
The proposed new bridge fails to physically fit and integrate into the local environment. It looks more like a freeway overpass bridge than a quaint wood bridge in the forest.
The scale and massing are out of proportion with the environment. The new bridge is double the length of the exiting bridge. Scale can kill charm. Especially in relation to this tiny creek tributary that is dry almost all of the time.
The material and design of the bridge are not integrated with the environment. The steel and pressure treated materials proposed are industrial in appearance. The bridge has not been designed and the photos from the recommended manufacturer’s websites are mostly ugly. A steel bridge could work if it has wood elements and the parts are properly proportioned. In order to get the least expensive solution, the design is left to the lowest bidding contractor. In my 30 years’ experience as an architect and builder, the cheapest builders typically build ugly structures.
Replace as-is
1. Most certainly this would be less expensive. I measured all wood parts of the bridge and priced each part. Lumber costs are approximately $7k based on the enclosed quote from Economy Lumber. Labor for 3 guys for 5 days at $75/hour would be about $10k. I would like to re-build this bridge with The Piedmont service crew in fall 2024 at no cost to the city.
2. Replace as-is appearance is more appropriate to the local environment.
3. Existing foundation appears to be in excellent condition. This is visible from below and above.
This can be substantiated for re-use by a licensed structural engineer.
4. Bridge is failing due to rotting wood, not for any other reason.
5. This creek tributary is dry almost all of the time. The soils engineer “did not observe significant evidence of recent or incipient… slope instability”. Visual inspection indicates that there is no current slope instability at the foundation.
I spoke with the soils engineer, Ben Pappas, who said that repairing the existing bridge was not considered and his soils report applies to the proposed new bridge. Given that the creek is dry most of the time and underlain by rocky soils, he stated that the likelihood of the bridge falling into the creek with a person getting hurt would be a low probability.
New Bridge
1. Appearance. The existing bridge is cute and charming. This is from the material, design, and scale. The proposed bridge is 28’ while the average length of the existing bridge is 14’. The proposed bridge is twice as long as the existing. The proposed bridge is out of scale with the creek and local environment.
2. The design of the new bridge is based on low cost. The design of the new bridge is not specified, only the type of structural system for the new bridge is specified. The actual design and detailing of the bridge is left to the contractor. Given these factors, I don’t expect the bridge to look good.
In my experience working with low-cost contractors, their goal is to make money, not spend time with concerns about appearances.
3. The material specified for the bridge is steel, which is commercial and industrial in appearance. I would expect this type of bridge at a freeway overpass. The wood decking for the bridge is specified as pressure treated (page 89 of the specifications). This wood is typically not used where it is exposed to view except for lower cost and lower quality projects. None of the finished wood at Dracena Park, the upper Piedmont Park tea garden, wildwood school, Beach school uses this as a finish material.
4. Cost. The lowest bid for the new bridge is $216,000. These costs include remove and replacing concrete pathway and fencing, new foundations, new steel bridge, craning in this bridge ( I don’t see how this is possible).
Rob Kelly, architect, Piedmont resident. 510
Name: Tom Gandesbery
Address: , Piedmont
Telephone: 510
RE: Piedmont Park Bridge over unnamed creek draining to Bushy Dell Creek Dear Mr. Muller:
I am writing in regard to the planned replacement of the bridge in Piedmont Park. I am now aware that the City plans to replace this small and quaint wooden bridge with a much larger steel bridge. I request that the City reconsider this approach and instead repair the existing bridge.
The cost of this new bridge will be far more than simply replacing what is there now with new wood. The bridge has been in that location for as long as I can remember – at least 20 years - and has functioned just fine. As you are no doubt aware, normal service life of a wooden structure such as this is typically assumed to be 15 years, so this little bridge has had a nice long life. As a result of extraordinary winter flow in the creek, the sides of the bridge were damaged by flotsam leading the City to execute a temporary repair to replace the railings. Thank you for responding to that so quickly!
The current design fits nicely with the scale of the environs and the footings appear to be in good shape. A steel bridge more than twice the length will not fit with the look and feel of this wonderful park and will cost far more than replacing rotten timbers and railings. Furthermore, construction will necessitate a longer and more disruptive construction window in this heavily traveled area. Please feel free to contract me if you would like to discuss this further. I know this bridge like it was in my own backyard as I walk over it nearly every day.