Here's an interesting article on a Calatrava bridge in Dallas, Texas. I don't like the bridge, but the piece offers an interesting perspective on the limitations of building such a monumental structure without any real regard to its context. I'm mainly sharing the link, however, because there are some excellent photos at the end of the article.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2017/03/24/great-white-hoop-five-years-margaret-hunt-hill-bridge
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I didn't see any great shots of the bridge in that article.
I know you (and almost everyone else) like to pick on Calatrava and his excesses, but he sure produces some great photo opportunities. I got these shots in a 4 hour period in 2012.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=77136894%40N00&sort=date-taken-desc&text=dallas%20Texas&view_all=1
I hope this link works on your site.
Thanks for those. This is my favourite from the article: https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1490418839-bridge-sshow-010.JPG?w=724&h=500&auto=format&q=60&fit=clip. With Calatrava, everything is about the geometry, nothing is about the context, and I like the photos that emphasise that quality.
An arch is a clever way of supporting the cables, however I couldn't really see what the cables were doing. They look like they form a net at the top of the arch, but that's most likely an optical illusion. A successful structure should allow you to see how its supporting the loads. Maybe as I got used to looking at it I would be able to see it more clearly? It's a very 3 dimensional structure with the transverse arch supporting the longitudinal cables.
I agree that Bridge Ink did a better job of capturing the structure. For one thing I could see how ordinary looking the approaches were. Wouldn't it have been nicer to repeat the arch shape in some way for the bents? There is too much of a contrast between the extraordinary cable span and extra ordinary approach spans!
Post a Comment