Montreal City Weblog

Kate 15:10 on 2019-06-18 Permalink Reply  

• CE 15:34 on 2019-06-18 Permalink

  Considering cable-stayed bridges all look pretty much the same, they would have had to build a completely different type of bridge to get something more interesting. The architect wants a park on the bridge but who would use a windswept park suspended between six lanes of traffic?

  “Certains architectes estiment qu’il aurait été plus beau d’avoir plusieurs sections haubanées sur le pont.”

  Do these architects not understand that the “sections haubanées” are purely functional? If they want more cables to make the thing look pretty, I hope they’re prepared to pay for them themselves.

• Kate 16:03 on 2019-06-18 Permalink

  Exactly. The last 2 paragraphs are about why there’s one suspended section, because it has to go over the Seaway. As you say, it’s not for decoration.

• Clément 16:35 on 2019-06-18 Permalink

  Yes, of course it would be better if it looked like the Viaduc de Millau. But like CE said, it’s all functional. The Viaduc de Millau has very (very) tall piles, so there was a cost benefit to keeping them much far apart. On the (shallow) St-Laurent, the piles are short and (relatively) inexpensive. The cost benefit was definitively in having more, closer piles thus avoiding the need to have long suspended sections.

  But then again, why would Quebecor praise a publicly funded project?

• Faiz Imam 00:06 on 2019-06-19 Permalink

  Armchair quarterbacking always sounds smart.

  Here is the announcement from 2013 where the architect was chosen: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/poul-ove-jensen-to-design-new-champlain-bridge-1.2447763

  The key line: “Federal Infrastructure Minister Denis Lebel said the government has decided to forgo an international design competition, which will mean the construction can begin three years earlier than planned. ”

  and we all know time means money. Given how decent the bridge already looks, how much extra is a “better” design worth?

• Tim F 05:44 on 2019-06-19 Permalink

  You can’t please everybody. In my circles I have family and friends who complain about how high-falutin’ it looks and how much extra that must have cost us as-is. Not too mention purely aesthetic details like the animated lighting.

• Bill Binns 09:07 on 2019-06-19 Permalink

  I gave up on this bridge as soon as they announced it would be concrete. The very last thing this city needs is more concrete. Time will tell if this was as terrible a decision for longevity as it was for aesthetics but look at what happened to the Turcot in 40 years. Regular inspection and careful maintenance done on time is critically important for concrete bridges and we all know how good we are at that around here.

• Blork 12:16 on 2019-06-19 Permalink

  Hopefully some lessons were learned from the old Champlain Bridge’s concrete problems.

  Whatever it’s made of, there will be problems. No project of this size is ever pulled off without some problems. What I am NOT looking forward to is the inevitable public and media displays of stupidity that will happen when small problems are found and the outcry is everyone throwing their arms in the air and yelling “SEE? THEY CAN’T DO ANYTHING RIGHT!”

  CTFD people. There will be problems. Hopefully minor. Most likely fixable.

• dwgs 12:29 on 2019-06-19 Permalink

  Isn’t it just the piers that are made of concrete? I thought the bridge structure was all steel. Most past problems with concrete bridges around here centred on improper drainage, causing rot.

• Uatu 17:28 on 2019-06-19 Permalink

  The difference is that sections can be removed and replaced unlike the old bridge where all that you could do was patch over the holes. I want those architects to do the yardwork necessary to maintain a green space in the middle of a bridge. Then we’ll see if they still think it’s good idea….