QuoteSometimes when the fully restored, newly re-opened $82 million Bridge of Lions goes up, it just doesn't come down.
And when that happens, cars are stuck - for a few minutes or even an hour.
"There's an annoyance level in the community, and it's rising," said St. Augustine City Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline.
Sikes-Kline and other St. Augustine officials want answers from the bridge's contractor and from the state Department of Transportation.
Full article: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=157154&catid=3
What do you expect from a Government project.
I've been caught a couple times waiting in line because of malfunctions. I hope they get this figured out soon.
We should get BP to fix this.
As much as I like the fact ehy kept this bridge, they need to get this shit fixed, that is way too amny "malfunctions" in 3 months.
I know............lets form a "Committee" to explore options? Tax Dollars hard at work and this is what comes out of it......something is wrong with this picture! Makes me wonder it this is another "Low Bidder" winner!
uh, ok.
(http://perryknotts.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/20110315_117.jpg)
The Return of the Lions.
Quote from: buckethead on March 15, 2011, 11:01:56 PM
(http://perryknotts.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/20110315_117.jpg)
The Return of the Lions.
Are you blaming the Lions? ;)
No Lions is bad juju
lowest bidder and we're suprised????
Not blaming the Lions. I was among those who saw the building of a temporary draw bridge, the demolition (90%) of the old BOL, the rebuilding of the new BOL, and the demolition of the temporary draw bridge as a bit wasteful.
I was chided as lacking foresight.
Well the new bridge is pretty.
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-11-20/bridge-lions-called-one-nations-top-10
Quote from: British Shoe Company on June 09, 2010, 12:32:19 PM
What do you expect from a Government project.
This is who did the work: http://www.rsandh.com/
And I believe Enzo Torcoletti did the restoration of the Lions. He is an excellent sculptor from Italy, and also did the Mary Dillon fountain restoration in Klutho Park for the Springfield Woman's Club. At least his work stands up! :-) The restored lions are amazing.
I'm hoping to hop over there this weekend and get some shots.
I'm glad they're back!
I still think it was an unnecessary project. The reason they spent the better part of $100mm on a new bridge was because the old one often broke down requiring repair. Now $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.
or perhaps because the old bridge was strcturally deficient.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 16, 2011, 07:44:39 AM
I still think it was an unnecessary project. The reason they spent the better part of $100mm on a new bridge was because the old one often broke down requiring repair. Now $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.
In the South we call this .... Progress :)
QuoteNow $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.
Nowhere in the article does it say it is 10X worse. In fact... a subsequent article claims it is some kind of engineering marvel.
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-11-20/bridge-lions-called-one-nations-top-10
QuoteThe rehabilitation of St. Augustine's historic Bridge of Lions, led by facilities and infrastructure consulting firm RS&H, has been ranked fourth in the nation's Top 10 Bridges of 2010, according to Roads & Bridges magazine.
The old bridge was definitely deficient and in need of replacement. Fortunately for downtown St. Augustine, the replacement is visually similar to the original bridge. A lot of people fought very hard to make that happen. The original design would have been a very bad thing.
The Bridge of Lions project should be an inspiration for similar efforts on behalf of downtown Jacksonville. Imagine what the Acosta Bridge might have looked like, or Riverside Avenue through Brooklyn.
True, Dan.
Oh come on guys it wouldn't have cost $82mm to repour a roadbed and stabilize some cracks in concrete.
Sorry, but to the rest of us who aren't involved in planning, engineering, design, construction, etc., it was unnecessary.
And as I already pointed out, which point both Dan and Tufsu ignored, the new bridge has actually turned out to be FAR more problematic than the old one. So bad, in fact, that the state and city are considering suing the contractor and engineers over a seemingly absurd number of construction defects.
When you're 82 million in the hole and what you wind up with is worse than what you had, it's a waste in my book.
A nice Fuller Warren style bridge would have been much better.
Well...Most of Downtown St.Augustine has historic structures.. (Funny a small town like St.Augustine has preserved most of their landmarks , but just North of them in Jacksonville, comparatively, most of them are gone) ...so it makes sense in this instance to replicate the bridge. Sure a bridge like the FW would have eliminated the need for the drawbridge but it would stick out like a sore thumb in that spot. As to costs, I have zero idea but is it possible a FW style bridge would run the same $ or even more?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 16, 2011, 05:06:07 PM
Sorry, but to the rest of us who aren't involved in planning, engineering, design, construction, etc., it was unnecessary.
which is why you're not an engineer!
The choice was never between fixing up the old bridge or replacing it with a new bridge. The choice was between replacing the old bridge with a Fuller Warren type structure (no drawbridge) or replacing it with something that would look more or less the same as the old bridge.
At that location a high level replacement bridge would have been a catastrophe. I'm very thankful that they didn't do that.
Whatever the problems are with that bridge, those problems will be resolved within a year or two. On the other hand, the blight of a high level bridge at that location would have been forever.
If the Acosta Bridge was still a drawbridge, downtown Jacksonville would be more attractive today.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 16, 2011, 05:06:07 PM
Oh come on guys it wouldn't have cost $82mm to repour a roadbed and stabilize some cracks in concrete.
That project would have given us a nice new deck sitting on the bottom of the river.
The bridge structure was deficient.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 16, 2011, 07:59:06 PM
The choice was never between fixing up the old bridge or replacing it with a new bridge. The choice was between replacing the old bridge with a Fuller Warren type structure (no drawbridge) or replacing it with something that would look more or less the same as the old bridge.
At that location a high level replacement bridge would have been a catastrophe. I'm very thankful that they didn't do that.
Whatever the problems are with that bridge, those problems will be resolved within a year or two. On the other hand, the blight of a high level bridge at that location would have been forever.
If the Acosta Bridge was still a drawbridge, downtown Jacksonville would be more attractive today.
Not to steer the thread to the Acosta, but i vividly remember it being stated that the Old Acosta was "unstable" .. Not structurally deficient , just unstable. While I DO miss the span, it was outdated in terms of being able to keep up with the volume of traffic. I do remember sitting in the car on either approach to the span and , if a Semi came by , you could feel the vibration in the road. So in that respect, much like the Gilmore Street Bridge (current known as Fuller Warren), it was not likely designed for the large amounts of vehicle traffic , even though it was the original thoroughfare to Downtown.
I am not taking sides in regard to the Old Bridge of Lions but I would imagine it fell under a similar scenario. Certainly wish after so much was spent to replicate it ,that it was dependable. Maybe eventually they will get the bugs ironed out
I wish the Old Acosta Span had been spared and somehow incorporated into a new bridge or new location but it was , as is most of the older stuff in Jax , destroyed instead.
I'm not suggesting that the old Acosta Bridge should have been preserved, or that a drawbridge would have worked at that location. But drawbridges do have an aesthetic advantage over high level bridges, and I do feel that the new Acosta Bridge was built for more traffic than it is ever likely to carry.
The modern bridge spans that replaced the Acosta and the Fuller Warren are ...bridges alright... just not very attractive.
The drawbridge span WAS supposed to be spared (and placed in another area) that never came to pass.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 16, 2011, 09:21:31 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 16, 2011, 05:06:07 PM
Oh come on guys it wouldn't have cost $82mm to repour a roadbed and stabilize some cracks in concrete.
That project would have given us a nice new deck sitting on the bottom of the river.
The bridge structure was deficient.
It was all fixable. Some rust and concrete cracks, big deal.
I'm guessing you're a transplant from somewhere else. I was born and raised in this area, and since at least the 1970s DOT has been claiming the bridge was about to fall in on itself unless we spent mega-money on a new one. Guess what, it never did. The City of Saint Augustine fought it for years, hiring independent engineers saying the DOT reports were basically bogus. Around 1999 there was hoopla over a bunch of conflicts of interest. This was nothing more than a money grab. And the allegedly improved replacement bridge has wound up being a disaster, hasn't worked properly since day 1.
look there are bridge inspections done every few years...a low score means it is structurally deficient, not that it is ready to fall down any day
Of course, the I-35 bridge in Minnesota was also "deficient"...do you want to take that chance when crossing water?
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 17, 2011, 06:31:14 PM
look there are bridge inspections done every few years...a low score means it is structurally deficient, not that it is ready to fall down any day
Of course, the I-35 bridge in Minnesota was also "deficient"...do you want to take that chance when crossing water?
^_^ Just a friendly visual reminder...
http://www.youtube.com/v/osocGiofdvc?fs=1&hl=en_US
There was a decision about replacing the bridge, and then there was a decision about the design of the replacement bridge.
I wasn't around for the first decision, but I'm very happy with the second decision.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 17, 2011, 06:31:14 PM
look there are bridge inspections done every few years...a low score means it is structurally deficient, not that it is ready to fall down any day
Of course, the I-35 bridge in Minnesota was also "deficient"...do you want to take that chance when crossing water?
You guys are missing what I'm saying. The bridge had 30 years' worth of deferred maintenance piled up because the DOT wanted from the beginning to replace it when there was no demonstrable need. The initial fight is they wanted 4 lanes which the original bridge wasn't wide enough to support, and the City smacked that down. Next they claimed they had to put in a highrise bridge, that got smacked down by public outrage. None of the residents actually wanted a new bridge, DOT basically tried for 3 decades to ram it down the City's throats. DOT lost a battle in the 90s when the City got it added as a historic landmark which foiled whatever asinine design they were pushing then. The strategy ultimately became demolition by neglect, the state stopped doing all but the most basic maintenance on it to keep the top deck visually looking OK. But I regularly went underneath in my boat, and the rest of the bridge was being allowed to fall apart. Then they used the self-created maintenance issues as justification to finally get what they'd been going for since the 1980s, despite the problems being fixable. Long history behind this one. But there was nothing unfixable about that bridge, and for a lot less than $82mm.
As a side note this is about the third time this weekend some transplant who moved down here recently has taken it upon themselves to school me on the past 30 years' worth of history that I was here for and lived through. It's getting kind of funny, must be the moon phase or something. This is about the one thing I ever see really annoy Stephen. Now I get why it bugs him. A classic moment was a bunch of people who had just moved in sandbagging him at a meeting telling him how he didn't know what he was talking about, and didn't understand the intent behind a particular zoning overlay. These idiots naturally didn't realize that he actually wrote that overlay 10 years before. This weekend I was drawn into an argument with a guy from Tampa about the A1A rec center in Daytona that's part of sun acres. What would I know, my family built the subdivision.
Surface corrosion, non-destabilizing concrete cracks, and the need to replace vestigal wood pilings with concrete;
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095512/00001
Big deal. A total renovation of the existing bridge would have cost $46mm vs. this $82mm piece of crap we have now.
Thing breaks twice a week it's ridiculous.
I have no idea , one way or the other on the Bridge of Lions. but I will concur with Chris that at the price tag of the replicated, current span, we certainly should have a perfectly working bridge ,at the very least.
It is funny that in a town the size of St.Augustine, public outcry actually accomplishes something and that they hang on to their landmarks, or at least replicate as best as possible when they do replace.
I wish more of the same were the case in Jacksonville.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 17, 2011, 09:43:08 PM
Surface corrosion, non-destabilizing concrete cracks, and the need to replace vestigal wood pilings with concrete;
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095512/00001
Big deal. A total renovation of the existing bridge would have cost $46mm vs. this $82mm piece of crap we have now.
Thing breaks twice a week it's ridiculous.
Chris - Thank you for posting that link. Thanks also for holding the fort here, while people like me were hanging around elsewhere.
I'll concede that maybe the old bridge could have been patched up, and that the decision to replace the old bridge may have been motivated by a misguided inclination to build a wide high level bridge in its place.
I'll also agree that $82m was a lot of money for the replacement bridge. For that amount, the new bridge ought to be way more reliable than it has proven to be so far.
But I'm still really glad that St. Augustine was successful in this fight. A high level bridge at that location would have been a disaster.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 17, 2011, 09:43:08 PM
Big deal. A total renovation of the existing bridge would have cost $46mm vs. this $82mm piece of crap we have now.
well at least now you're willing to admit that fixing the old bridge would be more than "a few" million.
so, basically, your issue here is the reliabaility of the new bridge and the additional $36 million...with those, I cannot disagree.
Bottom line: the new bridge looks like the old one. We need more bottom lines like that.
I live less than 5 minutes from the bridge and travel it somewhat frequently. As one that spends quite a bit of my leisure in Downtown St. Augustine I agree with the decision to rebuild/refurbish the bridge. Sure, things were a bit ugly during construction and there have been some mechanical issues along the way (although none that I have experienced lately), but I must say the "new" bridge is very attractive, fits the historic charm, and functions a bit more effeciently than it did before. The new approaches are better organized and structured allowing traffic to flow more smoothly. The crosswalks actually work, the pedestrian walkways across the bridge are wider, and the new bulkheads were sorely needed. The refurbished lions are an extremely popular photo op as well.
This bridge is a defining part of St. Augustine and will now last for many more years to come. Maybe it didn't need to be rebuilt just yet but with the stir of a 450th anniversary celebration coming up and the potential to showcase the city to a worldwide audience, I think the decision to rebuild/refurbish the bridge was a sound one.
Yeah, Dashing Dan, not only is $82mm a lot of money but $36mm of that figure was just an absolute out-and-out waste, when a total renovation of the existing bridge was actually $36mm cheaper than tearing it down and replacing it with what, much to DOT's chagrin, wound up being another drawbridge that's basisically a replica of the one they just tore down. We're not talking a patch job either, that much lower figure would have covered a full renovation, including the replacement of all worn structural components, and still saved $36mm.
And yeah that's exactly what DOT's motivation was, they've been on a campaign for quite awhile to eliminate drawbridges and replace them with hi-rise bridges. Fort Lauderdale has been at war with them for 20 years, since much of their economy is marine-related and DOT's silly plans for a bunch of fixed spans would have closed off the biggest boat show to any large sailboats and a lot of good sized yachts. A genius plan by DOT if ever there was one. They wound up replacing the bridge in question with a new drawbridge. Although at least that one cost the same, added two extra lanes, and actually works properly.
Regarding the bridge of lions, it's annoying to watch so much money get pissed away. And I certainly don't deserve any thanks just for being here, if I got to choose where I'd been born I'd be speaking Balinese lol. But I find for whatever reason that some people who got here yesterday want to teach me how things work, which is interesting since Florida, and the south generally, really have their own way of doing things. And Jacksonville-area politics and intrigue are like the short bus of the whole operation. And you can think of FDOT as the helmet-wearing passenger in the back drooling out the window. Look at their decisions in that frame of mind and you will have a much better idea of how to respond to anything the DOT comes up with.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 18, 2011, 08:19:53 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 17, 2011, 09:43:08 PM
Big deal. A total renovation of the existing bridge would have cost $46mm vs. this $82mm piece of crap we have now.
so, basically, your issue here is the reliabaility of the new bridge and the additional $36 million...with those, I cannot disagree.
Yeah Tufsu that's exactly what I've been getting at, I get annoyed when money gets pissed away like that.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 09:20:52 AM
And you can think of FDOT as the helmet-wearing passenger in the back drooling out the window.
Hahahaha! I lol'd hard at that one. Oh those poor things!
-Josh
Chris
The $46m was a preliminary estimate and the the $82 was an actual cost. We don't know what the actual cost would have been for the option that you had favored, so be careful about claiming that $36m was "wasted."
Also, although you do deserve credit for being here on the scene, I really don't think that Jacksonville is as different from other places as you might think. I've lived most of my working life in either Middle Tennessee or Northeast Florida, and there are a lot of eerie similarities between those two places. For example, the consolidated government of Jacksonville started out as a carbon copy of the metropolitan government of Nashville and Davidson County.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 18, 2011, 10:07:41 AM
Chris
The $46m was a preliminary estimate and the the $82 was an actual cost. We don't know what the actual cost would have been for the option that you had favored, so be careful about claiming that $36m was "wasted."
Also, although you do deserve credit for being here on the scene, I really don't think that Jacksonville is as different from other places as you might think. I've lived most of my working life in either Middle Tennessee or Northeast Florida, and there are a lot of eerie similarities between those two places. For example, the consolidated government of Jacksonville started out as a carbon copy of the metropolitan government of Nashville and Davidson County.
The loophole you're trying to squeeze through doesn't really exist, from the beginning even the DOT's own estimates of renovating the existing bridge were grossly cheaper their own estimates of the cost for replacement. The demolition and removal costs alone were astronomical. There are always cost overruns, but even the starting points were so far apart (about double the cost for one option vs. the other) that the more expensive option was obvious from the beginning. This was a total waste of money, even before cost overruns entered the picture.
And if you truly believe that things work the same around Jacksonville as everywhere else, then you have a bit of perplexion and consternation ahead of you. I guess I'd say come back in 10 years or so and look me up, and let's see if you feel the same way then. I'm sure Tennessee has its own set of backroom political operations I don't understand.
I'm not new here. I lived in Jacksonville before I moved from to Nashville in 1975.
Compared to what it was in the Seventies, the political life in Jacksonville is fairly tame these days.
So then it would be fair to say you weren't here when the events involving the DOT and bridge of lions were going on?
In any event, welcome back. I'm not trying to jump all over you or be a dick, just saying that when someone has a differing opinion based on facts other than those you originally considered, that doesn't make them wrong. A lot of times, I find I change my mind once I have all of the information, not just what was released for public consumption by an interested party. And when it comes to the DOT, their decisions are often political and influenced by business interests who either think they will get the contract, or think they will otherwise benefit commercially from the project. So we wind up with a lot of these situations, and there's another brewing with the proposed outer beltway right now, where a project that is wasteful or adverse to the interests of the taxpayers gets built over public objection anyway.
Timeline...
http://thebridgeoflions.org/b_home.html
Quote1974 Traffic study for bridge undertaken.
1974 November - Criticism of a projected bridge replacement that would have included a 7-lane toll plaza on Anastasia Island.
1975 Plan for a parallel bridge ruled out because of cost.
1981 Department of Transportation proposes four lane span - meet opposition.
1981 "Save Our Bridge" bumper stickers first appear, distributed by Friends of St. Augustine Architecture.
1982 Department of Transportation halts plans for a new four lane bridge.
1982 Bridge nominated to National Register of Historic Places.
1986 Lion statues moved about 40 feet west of their original location, aggravating cracks in the marble.
1990 Load limit of 15 (rather than 40) tons put in place to protect bridge.
1993 Four lane bridge is ruled out as an option. Only two lane structures are now being considered.
1995 DOT leaning towards restoration.
1996 April 13 - St. Augustine Record reports "replacement now serious option/ Coast Guard wants wider clearance."
1996 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation suggests a variance to the new Coast Guard standards.
1996 St. Augustine City Commission votes to support restoration.
1997 Bridge included on list of "11 Most Endangered Historic Sites" by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
1998 July 4th - The Save Our Bridge Committee is formed - circulating Fact Sheets and Petitions.
1998 August 8th - "Spanning the Generations", an art show at the St. Augustine Art Association showcasing the bridge opens to record attendance.
1998 August 29th, Bill Wharton and the Ingredients awareness raising concert at the St. Augustine Art Association.
1998 Bridge of Lions appears on the cover of the 1999 Engagement Calendar of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
1999 February - FDOT issues its "Draft Environmental Impact Statement", launching a 90 day comment period.
2002 March 13 & 14 - FDOT holds three public meetings for the City of St. Augustine and surrounding areas impacted by the rehabilitation project.
2003 June 26 & 27 - FDOT holds two public meetings regarding the bridge design which is at 90% completion.
2003 July - The Final Environmental Impact Statement is released.
2003 October - A Record of Decision was signed by the Federal Highway Administration, finalizing the decision to rehabilitation the bridge.
2004 June 6 - Construction Contract awarded to Tidewater Skanska
2005 February - Marble lions are moved into storage. Work commences on temporary bridge
2006 May 17 - The Temporary Bridge is completed. Traffic is switched over at 7 p.m.
2006 May 26 - A ceremony is hosted by URS and the City of St. Augustine to officially close the Bridge of Lions. The rehabilitation begins!!
2006 June - Center draw span is removed.
2006 August - Steel approach spans start to be removed for rehabilitation.
2007 - All concrete piers are removed and re-poured. The towers are rehabilitated in place.
2008 Spring - The rehabilitated steel approach spans begin to return in the original Spring green color.
2009 July - New center draw span is put in place.
2010 January - Replicas of the original ornate metal railings and light fixtures begin installation.
2010 March 17 - The newly rehabilitated bridge is opened to the traffic with a ribbon cutting ceremony!
Other than the mischaracterization of demolishing the old bridge and building a new structure that merely looks somewhat like the old one as a "rehabilitation" instead of what is really is, a "replacement," then yeah that pretty much sums up my memory of the events.
About the Coast Guard, they decided the old bridge was grandfathered in under the standards that existed at the time it was constructed, so that ultimately turned out to be a non-issue. The rest of is pretty much exactly how I remember it happening.
By the time I returned to Jacksonville in mid-2004, the old bridge was nearly ready to be taken down.
I agree that the new bridge should work better, but I'm not ready to agree that ~$36m was wasted.
The new bridge does include several pieces of the old bridge. If they had started from scratch it might have been cheaper.
And if they had simply renovated the old bridge, like everybody actually wanted, they would have saved even more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_of_Lions
Even wikipedia refers to "rehabilitated", "reconstructed", and "renovation".
QuoteA "temporary" bridge was constructed adjacent to the original bridge and traffic was diverted to this structure while the original bridge was being rehabilitated and reconstructed to look like its predecessor.[5] After nearly 80 years of service, an official closing ceremony for the original Bridge of Lions was held on May 26, 2006. Isabella Heard, one of the young girls on the lead float in the opening of the bridge in 1927, was there, in a wheelchair, to tie the ribbon for its closing 79 years later.
Several components of the original bridge were either being rehabilitated or returned (as lost components) to the rehabilitated bridge. Primarily, the exterior or fascia steel girders are being rehabiliated along with the bascule tower piers. Once the rehabiliation of the original bridge is completed, at a total project cost of $80 million and 4 percent over budget,.[6] The temporary bridge will be removed and used as part of an artificial reef just offshore.[7] The two lions were in safe storage for the duration of the construction.[8]
Renovation work was completed on March 17, 2010 when it reopened for use.[9]. Following the removal of the temporary bridge (to an offshore reef), and landscaping, the restored Lion statures were returned after a 6 year absence, early in the morning of March 15, 2011[10], principally completing the bridge rennovation project.
Chris...Dashing Dan has noted that he's been back here since 2004 and I have been here since 2006 (in FL since 1994)...and you're "attacking" folks like us who aren't from here as not having valuable knowledge on many issues.
But arent you from Daytona originally...and since you just turned 30 and went to school at UF, how long have you lived here?
I just noticed this;
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 16, 2011, 11:30:17 AM
QuoteNow $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.
Nowhere in the article does it say it is 10X worse. In fact... a subsequent article claims it is some kind of engineering marvel.
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-11-20/bridge-lions-called-one-nations-top-10
QuoteThe rehabilitation of St. Augustine's historic Bridge of Lions, led by facilities and infrastructure consulting firm RS&H, has been ranked fourth in the nation's Top 10 Bridges of 2010, according to Roads & Bridges magazine.
Umm...yeah...well it's a 'marvel' alright...in a certain sense...
http://www.news4jax.com/news/23955121/detail.html
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2011-03-08/fdot-working-bridge-lions-problem
http://jacksonville.com/community/st_johns/2010-03-19/story/st_augustines_bridge_of_lions_reopened_after_drawbridge_problems
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-04-28/bridge-lions-broken-again
IMO, because the steel girders and lift bascules were reused after being completely refurbished, its the same bridge with new approaches, concrete surface, and paint. Just like rehabbing an old home, the main structure and architectural elements are kept and the rest is rebuilt with new material.
No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):
#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.
In a year or two, only #1 will be important.
Quote from: Jason on April 18, 2011, 01:50:25 PM
IMO, because the steel girders and lift bascules were reused after being completely refurbished, its the same bridge with new approaches, concrete surface, and paint. Just like rehabbing an old home, the main structure and architectural elements are kept and the rest is rebuilt with new material.
Lol, that might make some kind of sense if the bridge hadn't been built mostly of concrete...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Did you happen to see any of the removal of the old concrete structure? I watched a few bits being removed and could plainly see large chunks of concrete falling off into the water as they dismantled it. The internal rebar was almost completely disentigrated in the peices I saw.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 01:49:52 PM
I just noticed this;
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 16, 2011, 11:30:17 AM
QuoteNow $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.
Nowhere in the article does it say it is 10X worse. In fact... a subsequent article claims it is some kind of engineering marvel.
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-11-20/bridge-lions-called-one-nations-top-10
QuoteThe rehabilitation of St. Augustine's historic Bridge of Lions, led by facilities and infrastructure consulting firm RS&H, has been ranked fourth in the nation's Top 10 Bridges of 2010, according to Roads & Bridges magazine.
Umm...yeah...well it's a 'marvel' alright...in a certain sense...
http://www.news4jax.com/news/23955121/detail.html
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2011-03-08/fdot-working-bridge-lions-problem
http://jacksonville.com/community/st_johns/2010-03-19/story/st_augustines_bridge_of_lions_reopened_after_drawbridge_problems
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-04-28/bridge-lions-broken-again
I am sure we could have a cheaper Fuller Warren style bridge...
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 18, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):
#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.
In a year or two, only #1 will be important.
You're still misstating the facts...
Renovating the existing bridge was much cheaper even than the FDOT's initial proposal, let alone the actual finished product. You seem to think the de minimus additional costs involved in sticking some salvaged pieces of the old bridge onto the new one are somehow responsible for the cost increase, and that is simply wrong.
The cost difference was comprised mostly of the additional costs of having to demolish, remove/haul, and dispose of the old bridge, and to build a completely separate and up-to-code additional temporary bridge across the river to carry the traffic while the old one was demolished. They actually had to build a whole separate additional bridge to do it their way, which wouldn't have been necessary f they had just done what people wanted and renovated the old one. You do realize that the finished bridge only wound up being 4% over the initial project budget right? The better alternative, that the residents actually wanted, was almost a full 50% cheaper.
Quote from: Jason on April 18, 2011, 02:01:32 PM
Did you happen to see any of the removal of the old concrete structure? I watched a few bits being removed and could plainly see large chunks of concrete falling off into the water as they dismantled it. The internal rebar was almost completely disentigrated in the peices I saw.
Yes, and like every other bridge maintenance project, you just erect a temporary support and then remove and repour the damaged section according to the specs of the original plans, wash rinse and repeat until you've fixed all the damaged sections. Normally the bridge can even remain open during most parts of the process. This wouldn't exactly have been the first time in recorded history we've repaired a bridge, you know. If you haven't noticed, we tend to have a lot of them in Florida and almost all are reinforced concrete. Just the same, I'm sure you're probably right and NASA would have had to send a mission to have the aliens teach us how to repair some rusted rebar. ::)
FWIW, they just finished doing that exact process to the Ortega River bridge, that was built around the same time, with no fuss. I am not sure where they put up the concrete-repairing aliens while they were here doing the work, I didn't see any flying saucers. I'll ask around. Maybe that was the secret purpose behind that ridiculous dome they wanted to put on the new courthouse, flying saucer parking?
Please can the sarcasm, I can read and interpret quite well without it. I haven't been attacking you, just carrying on a conversation and relaying my opinion from my own observations. ;)
From what I've seen of the old structure I can't help but think that the actual condition of the bridge was much worse than anticipated. Concrete fascia crumbling from the edges, railings rusted through, piles that were failing... I just don't see how rehabbing would have bought much in the long term.
Do you suppose the load capacities could have been reinstated with a rehabbed bridge?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 02:06:20 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 18, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):
#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.
In a year or two, only #1 will be important.
You're still misstating the facts...
Chris - You can word Fact #2 and Fact #3 any way you want.
#1 is indisputable, and it's the only fact that really matters.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 02:06:20 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 18, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):
#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.
In a year or two, only #1 will be important.
You're still misstating the facts...
Chris - You can word Fact #2 and Fact #3 any way you want.
#1 is indisputable, and it's the only fact that really matters.
True. And thankfully. A Fuller-Warren style bridge would have, as Bridge Troll noted, been much worse.
Quote from: Jason on April 18, 2011, 02:42:20 PM
Please can the sarcasm, I can read and interpret quite well without it. I haven't been attacking you, just carrying on a conversation and relaying my opinion from my own observations. ;)
My apologies, I never realized you were offended by the use of sarcasm as a device to lighten up a conversation;
Quote from: Jason on April 06, 2011, 09:18:38 AM
Sounds like a buch of scientists with breast milk fetishes can't get it from their post menopausal wives anymore so they have to make their own. :) The funny part will be the YouTube video of them nursing on the cow...
Quote from: Jason on April 18, 2011, 02:42:20 PM
From what I've seen of the old structure I can't help but think that the actual condition of the bridge was much worse than anticipated. Concrete fascia crumbling from the edges, railings rusted through, piles that were failing... I just don't see how rehabbing would have bought much in the long term.
Do you suppose the load capacities could have been reinstated with a rehabbed bridge?
Well it was all fixable, and as the DOT even acknowledged, for only half the cost of replacing it with a new bridge. But they wanted what they wanted, and the taxpayers and DOT had a 30 year battle over it. Regarding the weight limits, I wouldn't see why that would be an issue, the renovation proposed for the original bridge wasn't adding any additional lanes, and semi trucks are banned from transiting the downtown Saint Augustine tourist district anyway.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 18, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 02:06:20 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 18, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):
#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.
In a year or two, only #1 will be important.
You're still misstating the facts...
Chris - You can word Fact #2 and Fact #3 any way you want.
#1 is indisputable, and it's the only fact that really matters.
True. And thankfully. A Fuller-Warren style bridge would have, as Bridge Troll noted, been much worse.
I don't want a FW type bridge. I and many others are pretty happy with the new/refurbished bridge. It will be an asset long into the future once the bugs get worked out of the replaced mechanisms. The writers and engineers of Roads and Bridges are pretty impressed with the unique work done.
QuoteWell it was all fixable, and as the DOT even acknowledged, for only half the cost of replacing it with a new bridge. But they wanted what they wanted, and the taxpayers and DOT had a 30 year battle over it. Regarding the weight limits, I wouldn't see why that would be an issue, the renovation proposed for the original bridge wasn't adding any additional lanes, and semi trucks are banned from transiting the downtown Saint Augustine tourist district anyway.
But my questions are would a rehabbed bridge be of the same structural integrity as what was just recently done? How much time would simply fixing the bridge have bought us? If the bridge were repaired, would we be having this debate again in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? Truth is, that bridge carries MUCH MUCH more traffic than the Ortega River bridge you used as a comparison. Throw in all the red tape involved with doing any sort of construction in the historic district, having to repair it again in the near future could offset the costs of doing what was done.
If the wood siding on your house is slowly rotting peice by peice do you replace it (repair it) as needed or do you knock it out all at once to save the trouble of multiple starts and stops and potential cost increases due to the smaller amounts of material and fluctuations in labor rates?
Furthermore, there are other hidded cost factors such as negotiated labor rates, negotiated material costs, fees, permitting, review boards, etc. that all play a big role.
With regard to the Ortega River Bridge, I would concur Jason. I think in days gone by, it probably carried substantial traffic.
QuoteWith regard to the Ortega River Bridge, I would concur Jason. I think in days gone by, it probably carried substantial traffic.
Do you or Ock have a picture of the old US 17 bridge, before they went to 6 lanes? I think I have seen an old ACL picture with the bridge in it, but I think it used to only be 4 lanes, and not as high as it is today.
The old US 17 Bridge over Ortega River? Doctors Lake? Black Creek ? all were US 17 Bridges.. and no I would not.. but Ock probably would.
QuoteThe old US 17 Bridge over Ortega River?
Sorry, yes over the Ortega River. The new US 17 bridge helps the Ortega Blvd bridge, for sure. You'd never see a semi over it, that I can remember.
I don't have a pic of it but remember it. OCK???? Paging OCK!!!
Chris .... careful, us old bridge huggers are still around to keep the record straight. I have refrained from weighing in until now but a man can only take so much ....
FDOT did not seriously consider a flyover bridge.
The bridge is a rehabilitation that has an estimated life span of 75 years. A "renovation" as you suggest would not have given the structure that kind of life span.
The temporary bridge was built to prevent the economic consequences for businesses of a lost town/beach connector during construction. The business community greatly feared your suggested "renovation" scenario because it would have created a nightmare of closures.
The temporary bridge material was mostly recycled including the lift span.
The community is highly sensitive to each and every opening/closing event of the bridge, malfunctions included. The malfunction rate has drastically declined in the later months of the first year of operation.
IMHO, I would much rather the FDOT and FHWA drop their dollars on a project like this, with a result like this, than building new roads and highways to suburbia, exurbia and ex-exurbia of Americana.
I've been around awhile, Nth, I've lived here all my life. My understanding was the FDOT initially wanted a highrise in the 1980s. I am not sure if it got to the stage of a formal proposal or not. Regarding the rest, I was around during construction, I know why they did the temporary bridge etc., no disagreement there. As to projected lifespan, there is room for differing opinions on that one. My thoughts are that if you can get 40 years for 1/2 of the cost of getting 75 years, and the end products would otherwise be comparable, then why not save the money? Assuming the funds otherwise invested would earn a normal rate of return, or at least would not accrue interest in the form of bond payments, and given the time value of a dollar, you come out ahead doing what is necessary but also least expensive. The economic aspect of it would be a different story if the costs were comparable, but that wasn't the case, one option was double the other.
That and the new bridge looks bland compared to the old one.
I liked the old Bridge of Lions, and I also like the new one.
The new Acosta Bridge looks good enough, but it's so high up in the air that it doesn't fit in with its surroundings.
What really annoys me about the bridges in downtown Jacksonville is that their approach ramps are designed like freeways. The rebuilt approaches to the Bridge of Lions are much much better.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 20, 2011, 05:45:08 PM
My thoughts are that if you can get 40 years for 1/2 of the cost of getting 75 years, and the end products would otherwise be comparable, then why not save the money? ...
Sure, "save the money" but put the community through
two periods of construction fatigue and more debate? Never mind the cost of inflation over 35 years. Not likely. When the FHWA got the project fully funded it was game over.
As far as the look of the bridge as it stands today, you are entitled to your opinion. I never liked those aluminum hand rails and light poles and was happy to see the barges float them away. And that the FDOT took the time to put back the original 1925 design handrails, gates, towers, light fixtures, etc.? A 1925 Florida Boom Era bridge brought up to today's safety standards. Wonders never cease.
Quote from: NthDegree on April 20, 2011, 09:16:29 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 20, 2011, 05:45:08 PM
My thoughts are that if you can get 40 years for 1/2 of the cost of getting 75 years, and the end products would otherwise be comparable, then why not save the money? ...
Sure, "save the money" but put the community through two periods of construction fatigue and more debate? Never mind the cost of inflation over 35 years. Not likely. When the FHWA got the project fully funded it was game over.
As far as the look of the bridge as it stands today, you are entitled to your opinion. I never liked those aluminum hand rails and light poles and was happy to see the barges float them away. And that the FDOT took the time to put back the original 1925 design handrails, gates, towers, light fixtures, etc.? A 1925 Florida Boom Era bridge brought up to today's safety standards. Wonders never cease.
I have not seen the current span but look forward to visiting to see it.. In Jax they replace classic and beautiful with REALLY UGLY.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 20, 2011, 05:45:08 PM
Assuming the funds otherwise invested would earn a normal rate of return, or at least would not accrue interest in the form of bond payments, and given the time value of a dollar, you come out ahead doing what is necessary but also least expensive.
how does government take tax money now and reserve/invest it for transportation projects 30+ years from now...oh wait, they can't...at least not without first creating the often-suggested infrastructure bank.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 20, 2011, 09:54:28 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 20, 2011, 05:45:08 PM
Assuming the funds otherwise invested would earn a normal rate of return, or at least would not accrue interest in the form of bond payments, and given the time value of a dollar, you come out ahead doing what is necessary but also least expensive.
how does government take tax money now and reserve/invest it for transportation projects 30+ years from now...oh wait, they can't...at least not without first creating the often-suggested infrastructure bank.
Well actually we do have both state and federal transportation trust funds, Tufsu. Additionally, even if those weren't in play, then money not spent that would otherwise be subject to interest in the form of bond payments is effectively a superior return.
Quoting myself:
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 16, 2011, 11:34:49 AM
The Bridge of Lions project should be an inspiration for similar efforts on behalf of downtown Jacksonville.
Metro Jacksonville should be holding the Bride of Lions project as the standard for all other major road and bridge projects in this region. Sure it costs extra for outreach and to figure out historic contexts, etc, but isn't that what MJ is all about?
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 21, 2011, 09:17:00 AM
Quoting myself:
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 16, 2011, 11:34:49 AM
The Bridge of Lions project should be an inspiration for similar efforts on behalf of downtown Jacksonville.
Metro Jacksonville should be holding the Bride of Lions project as the standard for all other major road and bridge projects in this region. Sure it costs extra for outreach and to figure out historic contexts, etc, but isn't that what MJ is all about?
Clap. Clap. Clap.
This site works for a lot of things, historic preservation (rather than replacement) being among the very top of the list. What happened with this bridge is akin to the SRG/Springfield situation, where historic houses were demolished and replaced with copies. And financially, preserving the existing structure was, even by DOT's own admission, much cheaper. So say what you will about your viewpoint, and I can certainly respect your viewpoint, but that doesn't change the (valid) points I've made. We paid double for a copy of what it would have taken to preserve the original.
But what's done is done, and in the end calculation I am just glad this did not wind up being another generic concrete bridge as the DOT has originally envisioned. Three decades' worth of efforts by the City of Saint Augustine and SaveOurBridge prevented that. The result is light-years better than it otherwise would have been, and if that is your point, then I can get behind that.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 21, 2011, 08:59:49 AM
Well actually we do have both state and federal transportation trust funds, Tufsu
read up on how those trust funds work and then get back to me
Here we go again, Tufsu and Chris. -shake head-
-Josh
Chris,
Actually the FDOT did preserve the structure. They just did not do it according to your standards. They used the standard of federal law: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Yes, a large portion of the materials are new but the character defining features of the historic bridge were kept and/or restored. What are the principle character defining features? Primarily, the towers. Secondarily, the steel arched girder spans. The towers are original, the steel arched girder spans are original.
So, you and I will not agree that it is "a copy." Further, you will not get agreement from FDOT, FHWA, U.S. Coast Guard, ACHP, ACOE, COSA, NPS, FSHPO, NTHP or any of the other involved agencies or organizations that recognize or are bound by federal law.
Ok, so I already stated that replacing a historical item with a copy that happens to use a few bits and pieces isn't my idea of preservation. You obviously have a different opinion. As far as ACHP goes, their guidelines are advisory at best on active transportation infrastructure, not sure why you even brought that up. Are you just trying to throw alphabet soup at everyone in the hopes that this causes the appearance that you've made a valid point? That generally doesn't work around here, FYI. I know you're new, but if you want to talk about standards in an agency publication, post the relevant section of the publication and we'll go from there. Dropping a bunch of acronyms without posting any data, or the relevant section of whatever agency publication relates to the debate, proves only that you know how to use google.
While you're at it, google "Ship of Theseus"...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 23, 2011, 06:17:26 PM
Ok, so I already stated that replacing a historical item with a copy that happens to use a few bits and pieces isn't my idea of preservation. You obviously have a different opinion.
actually it is the Interior Department that has a different opinion...and since they set the national standards on historic structures, I'm going with them
"Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP." Linked here: http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html
Agreed that ACHP is "advisory" but they were also a consulting agency (as per NEPA) by federal law on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They played an active and important role in the process and could not be left out of the acronym-soup-litany-of-involved-agencies.
I stand on the acronyms presented.
Edited to add: Ship of Theseus ... excellent and necessary discussion item! You're point?
I'm with Nth on this issue.
Quote from: NthDegree on April 24, 2011, 09:53:11 AM
"Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP." Linked here: http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html
Agreed that ACHP is "advisory" but they were also a consulting agency (as per NEPA) by federal law on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They played an active and important role in the process and could not be left out of the acronym-soup-litany-of-involved-agencies.
I stand on the acronyms presented.
Edited to add: Ship of Theseus ... excellent and necessary discussion item! You're point?
Yes, that's certainly the summary sheet available as the first google result.
However, as I asked before, where's the language in ss. 106 stating that replacing 90% of a historical structure is somehow still considered a repair vs. a replacement as long as you make sure to re-use a few visible pieces of the old one in your new copy? Because that's what your prior post was implying, and I haven't been able to find anything that would support your view. So I'll ask again, point to the language in the USC that supports your claim, rather than simply posting the acronyms for every preservation organization you can think of, most of which weren't involved in the process aside from one in an advisory capacity.
This is like me saying "That's illegal according to the FBI, NSA, NCIC, FDLE, JSO, CGIS, ATF, DEA, bla, blah, blah." It's laughable, I'm going to look like an idiot if instead of posting the statute number that contols the issue we're discussing, I just post the acronyms for every law enforcement agency that happens to show up on the first page of a google search. Post the language in the USC or whatever agency guideline was applicable, that you believe supports your point. Otherwise, with all all due respect, this is ridiculous. You cannot stand on acronyms, either point to the language in 16 U.S.C. 470 that supports your claim, or it just looks preposterous.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 24, 2011, 10:12:35 AM
I'm with Nth on this issue.
On which issue?
Making claims that aren't supported by 16 U.S.C. 470 and then dropping every acronym google can deliver to try and sidestep that problem? Or you mean the actual debate over the "renovation" vs "replacement" of the Bridge of Lions? Because, as I said earlier, that all boils down to a matter of opinion not a "right/wrong" type of issue. So while I respect your opinion, it is just that, the same as mine.
And IMO, I would have preferred repairing the original structure for half the cost vs. the Bridge of Theseus.
For the record, this is the complete language of ss. 106;
QuoteSection 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f)
The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.
So, as I stated before, ACHP is advisory-only on state transportation infrastructure projects, and even in that capacity they're limited only to a comment period, they have no actual authority or hand in the design process, and IME, they are routinely ignored. And I still can't find that section where replacing a historic structure is A-OK as long as you glue some pieces of the old one onto it. This is starting to sound like Preston Haskell's views on historic preservation, but that's definitely a topic for another thread.
And as a side note, see how much more effective it is to post the statute we're discussing, rather than make unsubstantiated claims about what it contains, and then pass off my argument to Chef Boyardee? But FWIW, he thinks I'm right too, he said so right here;
(http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-03-08/the-fed2019s-new-alphabet-soup/FeaturedImage)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 24, 2011, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 24, 2011, 10:12:35 AM
I'm with Nth on this issue.
On which issue?
Quote
I stand on the acronyms presented.
There are established procedures for designating and restoring historic structures, which Chris and certain others may choose to ignore. I acknowledge and support those procedures.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 24, 2011, 10:57:51 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 24, 2011, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 24, 2011, 10:12:35 AM
I'm with Nth on this issue.
On which issue?
Quote
I stand on the acronyms presented.
There are established procedures for designating and restoring historic structures, which Chris and certain others may choose to ignore. I acknowledge and support those procedures.
A straw man works no better than Chef Boyardee for carrying a defective argument, Dan...
I'm not ignoring any guidelines, quite the opposite. I've asked him repeatedly to post any federal or state statute, or any agency guideline, or any agency publication, that would support his assertions. He has failed to do so, and instead simply continues rattling off the acronyms for every preservation organization found on the first two pages of google, without actually posting any of the statutory language that he claimed supports his position. I had to post that for him. He also has failed to post any agency publication or agency guidelines which he claimed supported his position, by any of the agencies he listed in his post. I have asked for it repeatedly.
I am more than happy to discuss the actual guidelines, and I'm hardly ignoring them. In fact, I've asked him to post whatever language he believes supports his point several times now, without result. If anyone is ignoring any procedures or guidelines, it could hardly be me, now could it? This post makes the third time I've asked.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 24, 2011, 10:21:33 AM
"where's the language in ss. 106 stating that replacing 90% of a historical structure is somehow still considered a repair vs. a replacement as long as you make sure to re-use a few visible pieces of the old one in your new copy?"
I apologize, if you are impatient with my slow responses, please understand I do not have the kind of time necessary to answer your every request on this Easter Sunday morning. But I think I know what you you getting at so here's the way it worked.
The bridge is a historic resource listed on the National Register (kept by the NPS) and has "characteristics" that are unique to it and it alone (for example: the towers, draw span, steel arched girders, piers) Avoid diminishing the "integrity" of those "characteristics" and you have got a winner (expressed in an MOA).
So the basis or standard
WAS to retain the characteristics that makes the thing historic, i.e. "avoids adverse effects" and is still able to convey its significance. The basis
WAS NOT if it keeps a set percentage of original materials.
Below is what I use because I am a layman, not a lawyer, so I hope it doesn't offend you that it is a "Citizen Guide" instead of the actual citation and link to the law.
http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf
(see page 7)
SECTION 106: WHAT IS AN ADVERSE EFFECT?
If a project may alter characteristics that qualify a specific property for inclusion in the National Register
in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property, that project is considered to have an
adverse effect. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance, based on its location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Adverse effects can be direct or indirect and
include the following:
physical destruction or damage
alteration inconsistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties
relocation of the property
change in the character of the property’s use or
setting
introduction of incompatible visual, atmospheric,
or audible elements
neglect and deterioration
transfer, lease, or sale of a historic property
out of federal control without adequate
preservation restrictions
I hope this helps Chris. ACHP did consult, it did sign the MOA, it was not ignored on this bridge, so argue if you will about it relevance in general.
1: I wasn't being impatient. I originally asked you for the language you felt supported your position a day or two ago, and you've since been back to explain that you "stand on" your alphabet soup while feeling no need to post the actual language which, you insisted, supported your viewpoint, but which you wouldn't post. Rather ridiculous, and certainly not an issue of my impatience.
2: Whether ACHP signed off or not is irrelevant, their entire structure is advisory and non-binding. If they hadn't signed off on the project, then it would simply have progressed according to plan anyway. What they did or did not do is hardly dispositive, where they have no authority anyway. This is like pointing out that President Obama's housekeeper was in the room when he signed legislation. So what?
In this case, FDOT gave up the 4-lane highrise, and they agreed to keep certain visual cues on the new bridge, and ACHP threw them a bone. This hardly means the design complied with the standard applied to registered landmarks, because as a state transportation project, it wasn't subject to the restrictions other than a comment period.
3: Regarding the basic guidelines you posted, you continue to avoid the issue, as those basic guidelines you posted only reference the actual guidelines here;
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_8_2.htm
Which, you'll note, do not comport with what happened at the Bridge of Lions. The very first item states;
QuoteA property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.
Additionally the very second requirement states;
Quote2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
Additionally;
Quote5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
And;
Quote6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
And;
Quote9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
The Bridge of Lions, by FDOT's own admission, was repairable. Indeed, it was cheaper by half to repair rather than replace. Under these circumstances, what happened at the B.O.L. clearly does not comport with the national guidelines for registered properties, regardless of whether the ACHP threw them a bone in elation at FDOT's concession to stick some pieces of the old bridge onto the new one. The guidelines were clearly not followed, where repair was not only possible but quite feasible, and they chose to go ahead with a virtual total replacement anyway. Moreover, under the guidelines, such a replacement or "rehabilitation" should not be a copy of the destroyed historic item, which this is. Obviously you have eyes, you can see the issues with this project under the guidelines.
And, again, isn't it much easier to have a meaningful discussion when I substantiate my position with the language in question, rather than passing my argument off to Chef Boyardee?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JVej7pyr7Ak/TG3Jgheg6PI/AAAAAAAABn0/zqkmgosRy8I/s320/realtor-success-alphabet-soup%5B1%5D.jpg)
And then there is always Section 4(f), which came into play and gave teeth to ACHP's "advisory" recommendations ... http://www.doi.gov/oepc/handbook.html
Please provide your proof that the BOL is a "virtual total replacement" with "90%" new material.
Note: edited to include link above
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 24, 2011, 11:09:01 AM
A straw man works no better than Chef Boyardee for carrying a defective argument, Dan...
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
Quote from: NthDegree on April 24, 2011, 11:58:41 AM
And then there is always Section 4(f), which came into play and gave teeth to ACHP's "advisory" recommendations ... http://www.doi.gov/oepc/handbook.html
Please provide your proof that the BOL is a "virtual total replacement" with "90%" new material.
Note: edited to include link above
You already acknowledged the concrete was removed and rebuilt, so this is hardly complicated. Other than the bascules and metal deck trusses, what was the entire thing built from? Concrete. Lol...ridiculous.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on April 24, 2011, 01:34:22 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 24, 2011, 11:09:01 AM
A straw man works no better than Chef Boyardee for carrying a defective argument, Dan...
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
The straw-man was your statement implying our disagreement somehow stemmed from my ignoring the preservation guidelines, when in reality I'd asked NthDegree to post them 3 times and he refused. And the Chef Boyardee statement refers to NthDegree's acronym-dropping in an attempt to sidestep posting the actual preservation guidelines that we were discussing, probably because those guidelines completely contradict his point. This can be seen above, after I took the time to post the relevant ones despite my moral objection to having to document his own argument for him.
So, with that explained, hopefully we're all on the same page now. ;)
That there are generally accepted guidelines for historic preservation that we all should follow?
Chis,
Your 90% conjecture (and I will call it conjecture since it is yours to prove) is irrelevant. The issue is as I stated above: character, integrity and avoidance of adverse effects on the historic bridge. The acronym agencies agreed under the federal law. So its not your standard, or your interpretation to make. If you disagree, take it up with them, not me.
Oh and I forgot to include HABS/HAER in the agencies involved who agreed to the rehabilitation.
Quote from: NthDegree on April 24, 2011, 06:47:12 PM
Chis,
Your 90% conjecture (and I will call it conjecture since it is yours to prove) is irrelevant. The issue is as I stated above: character, integrity and avoidance of adverse effects on the historic bridge. The acronym agencies agreed under the federal law. So its not your standard, or your interpretation to make. If you disagree, take it up with them, not me.
Oh and I forgot to include HABS/HAER in the agencies involved who agreed to the rehabilitation.
The percentage is irrelevant, under the guidelines no historic material at all should been replaced where it was repairable. And as FDOT acknowledged from the outset, the old bridge was indeed repairable, and for half the cost of the new one. Game over.
For the second time, the standards you claim were met, were not met. You, not me, originally brought up the ACHP and the national register. You can keep throwing however many additional agencies into this that you want, the only preservation agency that really had anything to do with the design was ACHP, and as I already pointed out they had no authority to enforce the guidelines and no design input other than a non-binding comment period. Moreover, the preservation guidelines that you brought up but refused to post (now I see why) were clearly not followed, where they call for no historic building material to be replaced at all where it was repairable, which FDOT acknowledged from the outset was the case.
So, I've already posted 16 USC 470 ss. 106 for you, which did not contain anything close to the language you claimed it contained. I've also posted the Secretary of the Interior's preservation guidelines for properties on the national register, which you brought up but refused to post, probably because they completely contradict your position. If there is anything else you'd like to discuss, post the applicable standards, USC, state statute, or agency publication or guidelines involved and we can go from there.
Out of the agencies you've rattled off while avoiding acknowledging that the standards you originally brought up completely contradict you, only two (USCG and ACHP) really had anything to do with the design of this project, and one had no authority, and the other only sets the standards for how wide drawbridge spans must be to accomodate boat traffic. Which has nothing to do with historic preservation.
So as I said, if there is some other standard you'd like to discuss, post it. Otherwise, at least according to the standards you originally brought up, your argument is out of gas. Just because the thing got built does not mean the preservation guidelines were followed. And they clearly weren't. And I guess I can use your logic and say the Secretary of the Interior and USDOI agrees with me, since they publish the standards. Notwithstanding the fact that, like every agency you've listed except two, they had little or nothing to do with the design of this project. And actually, since Federal generally trumps state, and a cabinet department certainly trumps advisory boards and nonprofits, I guess that means I win in the acronym-dropping battle?
Seriously, if you have some standard or agency guideline you'd like to discuss, then post it. Continuing to claim an alphabet soup of agencies agreed with you, without posting anything supporting that, and after you've already made similar claims about 16 USC 470 ss. 106 and the USDOI preservation guidelines which completely exploded and wound up contradicting you, just looks foolish. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it after that.
Quote from: NthDegree on April 24, 2011, 11:58:41 AM
And then there is always Section 4(f), which came into play and gave teeth to ACHP's "advisory" recommendations ... http://www.doi.gov/oepc/handbook.html
Having finished reading through all of that DOJ advisory on ss. 4(f), and reading up on it generally, there were no uniform guidelines for the preservation of historic bridges under 4(f) until 2008 (written 2007, effective 2008), nearly two years after the original Bridge of Lions had already been destroyed. Prior to that, the USDOT and DOI were split on whether 4(f) even applied to most bridges.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/25-25(19)_FR.pdf
Under the current guidelines, it appears questionable whether this project would have been approved. In order to replace rather than renovate a registered landmark bridge, the applying party must now show the bridge's design geometry is incurably deficient to handle projected traffic flow, or that any damage or defects are irreparable. The BOL, while in need of repair, was never argued to represent an incurably deficient design, nor by DOT's own admission was any damage or decay irreparable.
Under the current rules, the original Bridge of Lions would probably not have been replaced. Whether you could get around this by calling a replacement a rehabilitation or not is questionable, but that would seem unlikely under the guidelines where the original pier designs were unique, and where there is now a stated preference for the repair of historic materials vs. replacement except in the case of design insufficiencies or incurable defects, neither of which was ever alleged to be the case here.
I suppose it's a moot point, since these requirements didn't yet exist when the B.O.L. replacement happened. Also, since at this point I have to conclude that you and/or Dan must have some personal involvement in the project, given your defense of it in the face of all evidence to the contrary, I'll say again: I LIKE THE NEW BRIDGE! I think it is quite a feat to have a new bridge that looks like an original 1920s Florida drawbridge. I wish they built every bridge like that.
I was never banging a preservation drum, this whole thing was your giant side-track to my original point, which was only that replacing a repairable bridge cost the taxpayers an extra $36mm by DOT's own admission, and the only possible justification for the additional expenditure would be if the finished product was more reliable and required less maintenance than it otherwise would have. My issue was that, despite going the extra mile, the new bridge has proven less reliable than the old one. We don't seem to be getting the benefit out of the extra investment, which makes one wonder whether we wasted $36mm.
Chris,
To the heart of the issue between us, as I understand it. Your position is that the bridge was "replaced" rather than "repaired." My position is that neither of your stated terms apply (replaced, repaired) as per the standards and terms that all local, state and federal agencies use (acronym agencies). Further, the Standards of Rehabilitation were applied in total and correctly.
I have excerpted from the Final Environmental Impact Statement below (link provided). FDOT, FHWA, ACHP, SHPO and SOB all committed to the MOA. All done according to law.
(http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/bol_old/homepage/FEIS%20vertical%20small.jpg)
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/bol_old/index.html
Section 7. Final Bridge of Lions Environmental Impact Statement
RECOMMENDATION
COMMITMENTS
The Florida Department of Transportation is committed to minimizing construction impacts to the historic Bridge of Lions, the lion statues, and the Bridge of Lions Park, as indicated in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among FHWA, FDOT, The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the SHPO. Steps to ensure this will be taken throughout the construction phase, and delineated in detail during the final design phase of this project. Such steps may include the following:
Recordation of the Structure: The FHWA and FDOT shall ensure that the appropriate recordation measures are carried out and accepted by the SHPO prior to any demolition, alteration, or rehabilitation activity affecting the Bridge of Lions or the marble lion statues. Plans, photograph documentation and written narrative must be consistent with the Level 2 documentation standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER).
Conservation of the Lion Statues: FHWA/FDOT will develop a restoration plan of the Lion statues in consultation with the SHPO. The plan will include a technical plan and information regarding the professional qualifications of the conservator, and stipulations for removal of the two Lion statues will prior to construction.
Archaeological Monitoring: FHWA/FDOT will ensure that particular care is taken during construction to avoid affecting any archeological remains that may be associated with the Trolley Station Archaeological Site (8SJ3312). Suitable arrangements for monitoring will be made in consultation with the SHPO prior to construction. Monitoring will be conducted by an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology ad will include recording and reporting major features or artifact concentrations uncovered and the recovery/duration of a sample of uncovered remains where practical. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered, the contractor will cease construction in the immediate area and proceed with consultation under 800.13 (b)(3).
Project and Design Review: FHWA/FDOT shall ensure that the project design for rehabilitation of the Bridge of Lions and all associated new construction are compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of the structure and are consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR Section 67.7, Revised 1990), and that the design plans and documents for the project are developed in consultation and with and submitted to the SHPO for review and comment.
Project Review: FHWA/FDOT shall ensure that design documents and other appropriate representations for the rehabilitation of the bridge are provided to the SHPO for the review at the completion of 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% stages of the construction plans and documents.
top.gif (238 bytes)
RECOMMENDATION
As a result of the public hearing, environmental studies, and interagency coordination, the alternative recommended for Location/Design Concept Approval is Rehabilitation Option 1A. Option 1A will renovate major portions of the bridge in an attempt to minimize impacts to the historic nature of the structure. By maintaining the existing “charted†horizontal navigational clearance of 23.2 meters (76 feet), the existing bascule piers will be retained, thus allowing the bridge to remain listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition to rehabilitating the Bridge of Lions, improvements will also be made to the bridge approaches. The bridge’s east approach will incorporate a northerly shift in the substandard horizontal alignment of Anastasia Boulevard. This modification would make the roadway curve approaching the bridge less sharp and thus safer for vehicular traffic. The intersection reconfiguration would involve creating intersections at St. Augustine Boulevard and Anastasia Boulevard, at St. Augustine Boulevard and Oglethorpe Boulevard, and require the permanent closure of access to Flagler Boulevard from Anastasia Boulevard. This improvement will increase safety, simplify traffic operations, and reduce motorist delay.
The use of a temporary bridge is required for the Preferred Option 1A to maintain traffic during construction. The temporary bridge's east approach will require temporary closure of access to St. Augustine Boulevard, Oglethorpe Boulevard, and Flagler Boulevard due to the tight horizontal alignment in relation to the existing streets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I appreciate all the work you have done to research the law on this. Its how issues like this are settled. Knowing the process is time consuming but, it is the agreed upon law that binds us.
Thanks for the link to Joe Pullaro's study. He really keyed in on some of the difficulties associated with the decision making process for rehabilitation on historic bridges. He would know. He was a consultant on the BOL for the FDOT.
Ah, I just noticed this post;
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 23, 2011, 08:56:26 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 23, 2011, 06:17:26 PM
Ok, so I already stated that replacing a historical item with a copy that happens to use a few bits and pieces isn't my idea of preservation. You obviously have a different opinion.
actually it is the Interior Department that has a different opinion...and since they set the national standards on historic structures, I'm going with them
Gee-willikers, Tufsu! I'm so glad I have you here to educate me on this whole Dept. of Interior historic registry thingy, I'd never even heard of it before you were nice enough to clue me in. I mean, I might never have understood the criteria for listing or the guidelines for preservation, if it weren't for you taking the time to educate poor little ignorant me! You'll just have to forgive my awful ignorance, after all, what would I possibly know about this anyway?
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk137/chriswufgator/44e9fd98.jpg)
::)
Quote from: NthDegree on April 25, 2011, 09:53:00 AM
Chris,
To the heart of the issue between us, as I understand it. Your position is that the bridge was "replaced" rather than "repaired." My position is that neither of your stated terms apply (replaced, repaired) as per the standards and terms that all local, state and federal agencies use (acronym agencies). Further, the Standards of Rehabilitation were applied in total and correctly.
I have excerpted from the Final Environmental Impact Statement below (link provided). FDOT, FHWA, ACHP, SHPO and SOB all committed to the MOA. All done according to law.
(http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/bol_old/homepage/FEIS%20vertical%20small.jpg)
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/bol_old/index.html
Section 7. Final Bridge of Lions Environmental Impact Statement
RECOMMENDATION
COMMITMENTS
The Florida Department of Transportation is committed to minimizing construction impacts to the historic Bridge of Lions, the lion statues, and the Bridge of Lions Park, as indicated in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among FHWA, FDOT, The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the SHPO. Steps to ensure this will be taken throughout the construction phase, and delineated in detail during the final design phase of this project. Such steps may include the following:
Recordation of the Structure: The FHWA and FDOT shall ensure that the appropriate recordation measures are carried out and accepted by the SHPO prior to any demolition, alteration, or rehabilitation activity affecting the Bridge of Lions or the marble lion statues. Plans, photograph documentation and written narrative must be consistent with the Level 2 documentation standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER).
Conservation of the Lion Statues: FHWA/FDOT will develop a restoration plan of the Lion statues in consultation with the SHPO. The plan will include a technical plan and information regarding the professional qualifications of the conservator, and stipulations for removal of the two Lion statues will prior to construction.
Archaeological Monitoring: FHWA/FDOT will ensure that particular care is taken during construction to avoid affecting any archeological remains that may be associated with the Trolley Station Archaeological Site (8SJ3312). Suitable arrangements for monitoring will be made in consultation with the SHPO prior to construction. Monitoring will be conducted by an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology ad will include recording and reporting major features or artifact concentrations uncovered and the recovery/duration of a sample of uncovered remains where practical. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered, the contractor will cease construction in the immediate area and proceed with consultation under 800.13 (b)(3).
Project and Design Review: FHWA/FDOT shall ensure that the project design for rehabilitation of the Bridge of Lions and all associated new construction are compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of the structure and are consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR Section 67.7, Revised 1990), and that the design plans and documents for the project are developed in consultation and with and submitted to the SHPO for review and comment.
Project Review: FHWA/FDOT shall ensure that design documents and other appropriate representations for the rehabilitation of the bridge are provided to the SHPO for the review at the completion of 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% stages of the construction plans and documents.
top.gif (238 bytes)
RECOMMENDATION
As a result of the public hearing, environmental studies, and interagency coordination, the alternative recommended for Location/Design Concept Approval is Rehabilitation Option 1A. Option 1A will renovate major portions of the bridge in an attempt to minimize impacts to the historic nature of the structure. By maintaining the existing “charted†horizontal navigational clearance of 23.2 meters (76 feet), the existing bascule piers will be retained, thus allowing the bridge to remain listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition to rehabilitating the Bridge of Lions, improvements will also be made to the bridge approaches. The bridge’s east approach will incorporate a northerly shift in the substandard horizontal alignment of Anastasia Boulevard. This modification would make the roadway curve approaching the bridge less sharp and thus safer for vehicular traffic. The intersection reconfiguration would involve creating intersections at St. Augustine Boulevard and Anastasia Boulevard, at St. Augustine Boulevard and Oglethorpe Boulevard, and require the permanent closure of access to Flagler Boulevard from Anastasia Boulevard. This improvement will increase safety, simplify traffic operations, and reduce motorist delay.
The use of a temporary bridge is required for the Preferred Option 1A to maintain traffic during construction. The temporary bridge's east approach will require temporary closure of access to St. Augustine Boulevard, Oglethorpe Boulevard, and Flagler Boulevard due to the tight horizontal alignment in relation to the existing streets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I appreciate all the work you have done to research the law on this. Its how issues like this are settled. Knowing the process is time consuming but, it is the agreed upon law that binds us.
Thank you for posting that, I appreciate it.
I have never said the project was illegal, just that it did not appear to comply with the preservation guidelines in replacing much of the original structure when the original bridge could have been repaired economically. It would be hard to say anything was done improperly, as the regulations concerning the preservation of historic bridges had only been adopted two years after the original bridge was already taken down, so there was no guideline to violate. I suppose the other thing that caught my attention here is that I feel the word "rehabilitation" in this case really meant "replacement" of virtually everything except the towers, lions, and apparently some of the steel arches, although those look slightly different than the originals to me, I guess they could be original but modified.
Anyway, given the choice, my personal preference is to repair what is there rather than build a copy, however nice a copy it may be. And this one, I completely agree, is a very nice one. It was just a bit mind-boggling to me, not being involved with this project, that doing what we did wound up being double the cost of fixing the original. Usually when you make the decision to gut a historic structure and start from scratch, it's because repairing the original is cost-prohibitive. But in this case, it was the reverse, keeping the original was cheaper by half. That combined with the seemingly endless series of reliability issues with the new machinery, had me thinking this might have been a waste of money.
I think we agree on the facts, we just disagree on the interpretation. I would have preferred the cheaper option to the taxpayer, and retaining an original historic structure (in that order), and you view this as an investment that will pay off with reduced maintenance costs and an extended future lifespan. So far that hasn't been the case, but I suppose they'll eventually get the kinks worked out and it will be fine. In any event, what's done is done, and I like the new brdge much much much better than what DOT originally proposed in the 1980s, which was a generic 4-lane concrete eyesore.
The steel arched girders are rehabilitated, or to use your term, repaired .
Early on the FDOT had said they were going to be replaced, which prompted the original claims that the rehab-ed bridge was going to be "90%" new materials. Later they determined that the spans could be rehab-ed.
They were trucked in segments to Plant City, restored and returned. It was quite a sight to behold, those spans being trucked away.
http://www.thebridgeoflions.org/art46.html
Here is what I was referring to; 36 CFR 67.7;
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title36/36-1.0.1.1.32.0.1.7.html
Quote(2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
and;
Quote(3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
And;
Quote(6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
And;
Quote(9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
And most importantly;
Quote(d) In certain limited cases, it may be necessary to dismantle and rebuild portions of a certified historic structure to stabilize and repair weakened structural members and systems. In such cases, the Secretary will consider such extreme intervention as part of a certified rehabilitation if:
(1) The necessity for dismantling is justified in supporting documentation;
(2) Significant architectural features and overall design are retained; and
(3) Adequate historic materials are retained to maintain the architectural and historic integrity of the overall structure.
Here, we had a registered landmark that was economically repairable, but instead was demolished and certain sections were salvaged and reincorporated into the new structure. The prerequisite for any rehabilitation work of this nature is that repair, rather than a rehabilitation that replaces significant portions of the original structure must be economically infeasible, or in the case of a bridge after 2008, the structure must be a deficient design. Neither was the case here, where the cost of repair was half that of replacement.
So, given the scope of the work, wherein nearly the entire structure was replaced, I was understandably having a difficult time figuring out how the guidelines coukd have possibly been followed, where they mandate that repair be economically infeasible before undertaking this scope of work on a registered landmark, and where repair was not only feasible, but was ackniwledged by DOT to be half the cost of replacing most of the structure, as is what happened.
Surely you can read the language in 36 CFR 67.7 and see the same issues I do. I get that the engineers and architects believe it complied, and I get that the ACHP signed off on it. But when you know the history and the scope of the work, and then compare that to the guidelines, there really seems to be a discrepancy in what happened here.
Quote from: NthDegree on April 25, 2011, 12:34:46 PM
The steel arched girders are rehabilitated, or to use your term, repaired .
Early on the FDOT had said they were going to be replaced, which prompted the original claims that the rehab-ed bridge was going to be "90%" new materials. Later they determined that the spans could be rehab-ed.
They were trucked in segments to Plant City, restored and returned. It was quite a sight to behold, those spans being trucked away.
http://www.thebridgeoflions.org/art46.html
I don't favor the word "rehabilitated" because it is intentionally generic enough to encompass everything from replacing rusted rivets or repainting something to a complete demolition and replacement. The drafters of 36 CFR and 16 USC 470 really took the easy way out by selecting that term, instead of using commonly defined words. It would have been better for everyone had the line been a little brighter, But that certainly isn't your fault.
Regarding the arches, that's great they saved those, is it just me or did they lengthen those stanchions that stick off to the sides on the arches where the light poles were mounted?
Hope this helps answer some of your questions Chris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5YQn-PXjs&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: NthDegree on August 30, 2011, 09:33:14 PM
Hope this helps answer some of your questions Chris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5YQn-PXjs&feature=player_embedded
Well the time-lapse segment beginning around 2:00 certainly shows exactly how much of the historic material they left, doesn't it.
please do not question the attorney when it comes to engineering
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 31, 2011, 08:07:10 AM
please do not question the attorney when it comes to engineering
or transit 8)
It all looks okay to me.
They built a new bridge beneath the old one.
The new bridge does the work and the old one is what people see.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 31, 2011, 12:19:18 AM
Quote from: NthDegree on August 30, 2011, 09:33:14 PM
Hope this helps answer some of your questions Chris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5YQn-PXjs&feature=player_embedded
Well the time-lapse segment beginning around 2:00 certainly shows exactly how much of the historic material they left, doesn't it.
Yes, it is the deck where most of the new material is. Dashing Dan is spot on.
Quote from: NthDegree on September 04, 2011, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 31, 2011, 12:19:18 AM
Quote from: NthDegree on August 30, 2011, 09:33:14 PM
Hope this helps answer some of your questions Chris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5YQn-PXjs&feature=player_embedded
Well the time-lapse segment beginning around 2:00 certainly shows exactly how much of the historic material they left, doesn't it.
Yes, it is the deck where most of the new material is. Dashing Dan is spot on.
Well, they removed almost all of the original concrete pilings and supports, and pretty much every other component except the original two towers, the lion statues, and arches. I wouldn't call this spot-on, as I've already demonstrated by posting and comparing the federal guidelines to what occurred on this project. The video is simply additional proof that what I've said all along was accurate, not that we really needed any more. Watch that vid again and tell me with a straight face that most of that bridge wasn't replaced vs. restored, according to the DOI guidelines.
Once again, it's a nice bridge. I like it. Not sure what we're arguing about, since what's done is done.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 31, 2011, 08:07:10 AM
please do not question the attorney when it comes to engineering
I had nothing to do with the design, I'm just pointing out the relevant law and comparing that to what actually occurred on this project. There was clearly a mandate that original materials be maintained unless doing so was economically infeasible. In this case, it was half the price of replacing it with a new bridge, which was actually done. So pardon me for pointing out that, in that sense, and a few others, the project did not meet the guidelines. Moreover, two years later, and one can only wonder whether some of it may have been in response to this project, the USDOI set forth new guidelines for historic bridges, under which this scale of project on that bridge would never have been approved. Not that this is Nth or Dan's fault, the guidelines weren't passed until 2 years after it had already been done. It was much more ambiguous when the project was being contemplated than it is now, in fact I will admit that pre-2008 it was far more ambiguous than I thought it was before we had this debate. So I learned from it also.
And sorry for the belated response, but I don't normally read this section often and missed the replies until today.
This one's for you Chris
http://www.achp.gov/docs/Section106SuccessStoryLionBridgev3.pdf