Toronto CityPlace Puente de Luz Bridge | ?m | ?s | Concord Adex | Francisco Gazitua

The manner in which the ramps were handled spoils both the aesthetic and utility of the bridge. Sure they couldn't lower the bridge to ground level because of the rail corridor but then why not raise the ground to the bridge instead? A subtle grade incline to a grass hill would have been preferable and would have allowed access to the bridge from all sides. Instead, the concrete ramps and generic railing ruins the architectural intent of the bridge.
 
Is it fading or am I just getting used to it? When I walked by tonight it didn't seem as vibrant as it originally did. Or maybe it's just coated with dust and dirt.
 
PinkLucy said:
Is it fading or am I just getting used to it? When I walked by tonight it didn't seem as vibrant as it originally did. Or maybe it's just coated with dust and dirt.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed, but if it is faded it is probably from diesel exhaust from all the trains.
 
Automation Gallery said:
And how are they even going to run a new sidewalk on the southside of Front street with that in the way:confused:
Click to expand...

It's not in the way. The ramp is in the rail corridor and takes up no space on Front Street.

As for the bridge looking faded... still looks the same to me.
 
^^ That's why I wondered if I was just getting used to it. It seemed so YELLOW at first. Now, not so much.
 
The execs at Concord told their contractors to buy the cheapest mis-tint they could from the discount paint store, so yeah, it's faded.
 
They should really have built ramps AND stairs. Ramps, especially looooong ones, are a real waste of time for many people.
 
publicartlady said:
Stairs would have been much easier (and less costly!) but they don"t work on the universal accessibility side- people in wheelchairs or with other mobility issues cannot use stairs. Perhaps you can start to get a sense of all the things that went into just the planning and ultimately the design of the piece. Land ownership, accessibility and then the actual capacity of the site to receive this "thing"...weight, loading on retaining walls.....and so on.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the ramp. If it's required, so be it, but would adding stairs to the south side of the bridge make the load so much heavier it won't be able to handle it? As for ownership of the land, I think the city should have talked to concord to get their okay to overstep a bit to add in stairs. If it really is impossible, I would even settle for a vertical ladder going up.

BobBob said:
The point is to connect Portland St. with Dan Leckie Way. The bridge provides a shortcut to the lake for people going down Portland St. For people going east to Spadina or west to Bathurst, well, they can just go to Spadina or Bathurst along any of the many east-west streets north of the tracks.
Click to expand...

So the bridge is built for people heading south. What about providing services for people heading north to Portland while they're at it? Put in a bit more effort. It's only a small modification.
 
Last edited:
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
They should really have built ramps AND stairs. Ramps, especially looooong ones, are a real waste of time for many people.
Click to expand...

So what are the people to do who use scooter, heart condition, walkers, bikes and etc supposed to do to use the bridge??

Its the law now to have ramps under the ODA act.

Yes there should had been stairs, but not in the cards due to cost and safety condition on Front St. As for the south side, yes should had happen.
 
drum118 said:
So what are the people to do who use scooter, heart condition, walkers, bikes and etc supposed to do to use the bridge??

Its the law now to have ramps under the ODA act.
Click to expand...

He said both ramps and stairs, not just stairs.

Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
They should really have built ramps AND stairs. Ramps, especially looooong ones, are a real waste of time for many people.
Click to expand...
 
The bridge should have been built, with stairs, on the original alignment of Portland St, with a view terminus of the lake, not running into the dumb wall of the concord building, and with ramps extending eastward on the north side, and westward on the south side, to link up with the future trail system extending under the Bathurst Bridge.

But the execs at Concord don't give a **ck and opted for the quick and dirty, after attempting to weasel out of building it at all.
 
I really believe that the bridge was aligned so that the ramp bases met grade at portland st. and that the height was determined by GO. And that Concord execs weren't going to spring for extra sets of steps. And I also don't believe that the column location lengthwise along the track is nearly as critical as some here insist it is.

The bridge is the half-assed brainchild of a bunch of people who don't give a damn about the bridge but were obliged to build it.
 
A lot of what has to do with the bridge location is due to the sightlines along the rail tracks. There's a poster here (who escapes me at the moment) who is a train driver and talked about this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top