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
I didn't see any great shots of the bridge in that article.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteAn 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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!