Burns Bridge Update: Environmental Waivers (?) and Design Elements

There was an article about the meeting I liveblogged in yesterday’s Telegram.

You may recall that there was previously an article about how the state had requested some sort of environmental waiver, as well as an editorial decrying this waiver request.

So one might think that a reporter would ask a question about these environmental impact waivers.

Sadly, this blogger had to ask about the waivers, and was told that the Telegram article had no basis in fact.

And this is what John Monahan reported:  “[Project Manager Michael O’Dowd] said the request is not called a waiver, but was a request for a categorical exclusion from further environmental reviews.”

So, not only was there no apology, amplification, or clarification on the original Monahan article, but there was also no explanation for what the heck a “categorical exclusion from further environmental reviews” means, and how that differs from a waiver.

I don’t expect that someone will get everything right all the time (goodness knows I’m not), but I do expect that if someone is wrong that they will clarify their previous reporting.

The meeting presentation for Wednesday’s meeting is available on the web.  I suggest downloading the (rather large) .pdf rather than opening it in a browser.

In the liveblog, I mentioned that all of the designs for the ends of the bridge were ugly.

This is not an opinion.  This is fact.

The designs begin on page 37 of the large .pdf.

Option 1:

Option 1, night view from the other end of the bridge:

In short, Option 1 looks as if it came out of the set of Kismet; I’m half-expecting Howard Keel to pop out of a second-floor balcony and start singing “Stranger in Paradise.”

Option 2:

Option 2 is supposed to look like sails, but it screams “You are entering StarFleet Command in San Francisco circa 2355” to me.  Beam me up, Scotty!

Option 3, which is Option 2 with crossed oars:

Remember, these options were instigated because this bridge was too boring and not distinctive enough. I have no idea why anyone thinks prefab concrete pillars are going to make this bridge a “signature bridge”, or why we think some generic-looking prefabbed monstrosities are going to scream “Worcester”, “Shrewsbury”, or “Lake Quinsigamond.”

The problem is that we continue to approach making a bridge unique by using prefab ideas.

I would much prefer that we construct the bridge without them (that is, plain and perfectly serviceable) and have a competition — or two, one for the Worcester side and one for the Shrewsbury side — for the design elements on the end of the bridge.

Why aren’t we using the artists in our own community to create designs that uniquely reflect our community?

These pillars are absolutely unacceptable. If you feel as I do, you should use the comment form to let MassDOT know.

[I should note that I do like those glowy blue triangular obelisk things near the bumpouts. They are kind of cute.]


6 thoughts on “Burns Bridge Update: Environmental Waivers (?) and Design Elements

  1. Option 1 reminds me just a bit of Union Station. I’ve got nothing for the other two.

  2. On second look, I really like the light traffic and the beautiful weather. It looks like someone’s driving the wrong way on the bridge in the night shots, though.

    It looks very wide. Is it going to be wider than the current bridge?

    • Joe says:

      The current bridge is 2 lanes each directions with (maybe) 6 foot sidewalks.
      The new bridge will be wider- 3 lanes in each direction, plus more generous sidewalks.
      the extra width will be to the south of the current location. It will line up better with Belmont street which jogs to the left pretty severely eastbound just before getting on the bridge.

      There is extensive information on the plan linked from Nicole’s other posts on the subject.

  3. jmstewart says:

    option one seems inspired by the original White City

  4. Sprout says:

    They’re all hideous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s