Portland State Magazine Spring 2019

24 Schnabel posed to his students the questions, “How do you make a bridge that meets the needs for right now? What role does it play post-earthquake? How do you design a structure that is at once functional, beautiful and iconic?” County officials asked for innovative designs that will accommodate cars and transit vehicles as well as improve the experience for cyclists and pedestrians, says Schnabel. “The students also looked at how to integrate the bridge connections with the green spaces on either side in order to enrich that bike and pedestrian experience.” Because the county is still determining what type of bridge to use, the students’ proposals ranged from operable to fixed bridge designs, keeping in mind how these would impact users. For those who went with a fixed bridge option, they had to address the height needed for water traffic. Others chose a movable bridge, with a vertical lift or a double drawbridge; with this option, students had to contend with potential interruptions to road traffic. Some of the students designed dramatic light features in their bridges that could act as beacons, while others incor- porated digital art panels that could convert to emergency messages. Creating access to water-based transportation was an important part of students’ designs as well. The idea of a bridge that serves multiple functions was particularly compelling. One such proposal suggested that the bridge could be used as scaffolding—extending alongside the unreinforced masonry buildings at the ends of the bridge and providing structural support. That same scaffolding would also create temporary market space on either end beneath the bridge, and places for emergency services to be offered. Throughout the design process, students presented their design proposals to bridge engineers and officials at Mult- nomah County and got their feedback. County officials didn’t always agree with the students’ proposals—financial and practical constraints meant that sometimes their designs were nixed. “But that was really the best part of the studio—there was a dialogue,” says Schnabel. “Naturally, the county representatives were open to new ideas, but they had a clear perspective on their needs for the bridge, and as a result the students confronted more criticism than they would get in a traditional academic set- ting,” adds Schnabel. “But pedagogically that was a valuable experience. They had to come up with brilliant ideas that would also resonate with the client and meet their practical requirements.” The students’ designs were recently shared with the public in an open house, where the county encouraged community input.  Written by Karen O’Donnell Stein, communications and student services coordinator in the PSU School of Architecture.