Bike bridge designs wow Palo Alto commissioners | News | Palo Alto Online |


Bike bridge designs wow Palo Alto commissioners

City's planning and architecture boards struggle to pick a favorite from three distinct visions

In order for all area residents to have important local information on the coronavirus health emergency, Palo Alto Online has lifted its pay meter and is providing unlimited access to its website. We need your support to continue our important work. Please join your neighbors and become a subscribing member today.

One cries for attention with its prominent red arch and a row of changing lights. The other is an understated ribbon that tries blend into the Baylands. The third in inspired by a kayak, even though it's meant for bicycles.

The designs offer starkly different visions for Palo Alto's "iconic" new bike bridge, the subject of a recent design competition, but the city's Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board both agreed this week that each is spectacular in its own way.

"I think it's hard to go wrong with either of the choices," Commissioner Michael Alcheck said during Wednesday's discussion of the new bike bridge.

"I think we have three awesome bridges here," concurred acting commission Chair Adrien Fine said at the end of the discussion. "Palo Alto would be lucky to have any of them."

The three finalists were chosen out of a pool of 20 proposals that the city received as part of its design competition for a bridge that would span Highway 101 at Adobe Creek, giving south Palo Alto residents year-round access to the Baylands. With an estimated budget of $10 million, the bike bridge is a one of the most ambitious and expensive components of the bike and pedestrian master plan that the City Council approved in 2012.

On Dec. 17, a jury chose as the winner the boldest and loudest of the three -- the arch concept proposed by HNTB Engineering, 64North, Bionic Landscape Architecture and Ned Kahn. The jury agreed that this design comes the closest of the three to achieving the City Council's stated goal of creating a prominent landmark structure that would serve as a gateway to the city.

The final choice will be made by the council, which will consider the jury's recommendation in late February. This week, both the planning and commission and the Architectural Review Board discussed the options and offered generally positive feedback about the starkly different designs. Neither body voted on its preference, though several individual members made a case for one option or another.

In the Wednesday night discussion, the planning commission waxed ecstatically about all three designs, though members refrained from taking strong stances in favor of any of the three. Instead, the general consensus was that despite their stark differences, any of the them would make for a proud addition to Palo Alto. Only Alcheck expressed an opinion about his preferred choice, giving the nod to the subtlest of the three proposals: the ribbon-like bridge designed by Moffat and Nichol, Steven Grover and Associates, Lutsko Associates, JIRI Strasky and Mark Thomas and Co.

Fine, who last week was elected vice chair and who ran the meeting in the absence of newly elected Chair Greg Tanaka, offered words of high praise for all three proposals. He was a bit puzzled, however, by the kayak shape of the design proposed by Endrestudio, OLIN, SBP and Biohabitats.

"It might not come across as a bike bridge – the fact that it's imitating a kayak," Fine said. "It's nice to know a bike bridge is a bike bridge."

Roy Snyder, a bicyclists and birder who lives in the Palo Verde neighborhood, made a pitch for keeping things simple and focusing on the bridge's function rather than the frills. The overcrossing, he said, "is the means, not a destination, nor the attraction itself."

"Nor should it be a distraction from the natural Baylands environment," Snyder said. "The Baylands are where the action is. The Baylands is where we want to go. We want to get there as expeditiously and easily as possible."

Commissioner Mark Michael expressed similar leanings. He called all the designs "impressive" but wondered if the HNTB design, known as "Confluence" is a little "too grandiose" and suggested that there might be a benefit to having a bridge that is simpler and has a lower profile.

"I do like the arch but i'm worried that it's gonna be quite the landmark," Michael said.

Despite his misgivings, Mark Michael calling both the arch and the Moffat and Nichol proposals "impressive and inspiring" and concluded that they'd "both be terrific for different reasons."

"It's a shame there has to be a winner and someone who doesn't win," Michael said. "But whoever gets the second place, maybe that bridge should be considered for the span between Town and Country and Paly."

The debate over the bridge's "iconic" status re-emerged Thursday morning, when the architecture board took up the subject. Board member Catherine Ballantyne made a case for keeping things subtle near the Baylands, a part of the city that she said is marked by a "low-profile elegance" and that should "speak for itself." While she acknowledged the arch bridge to be "definitely iconic," she wondered if that should really be the deciding factor.

"Does 'iconic' really need to be an attribute, or is it just a product of Palo Alto's ego?" she asked.

Board Chair Randy Popp and Vice Chair Robert Gooyer both went over the tradeoffs inherent in each of the proposals before stating a preference arch concept over the other two. Gooyer said that the choice should come down to which attribute the council values most: an "iconic statement" or a "subtle, low-keyed and delicate" structure.

The kayak bridge, which finished third during the jury's deliberations last month, retained its underdog role, though Popp called it "beyond beautiful" and praised its "exceptional design." The problem, he said, is that it doesn't seem to be very compatible with the freeways beneath it. The trucks and the diesel exhaust will "override the beauty of that in a very short period of time," Popp said.

He wasn't the only one who struggled to pick a favorite. Judith Wasserman, a former member of the Architectural Review Board and chair of the jury that selected the arch proposal, said she was "blown away by how beautiful and poetic all of these were." The decision, she said, was very difficult to make.. Ultimately, the jury went with the arch so as to best comply with the council's hunger for a prominent icon. The subtlest design finished second in the voting and the kayak third.

"That's what most people who preferred the arch said -- that you will see this more than the other bridge," Wasserman said. "The other bridge was very elegant, structurally amazing, and looked like it was self supporting. We looked for sky hooks and didn't se them."

But much like the planning commission, Wasserman had nothing but love for all three bridges.

"I personally felt that you can close your eyes and throw darts and come out good," she said.

Popp made a similar point on Thursday and praised the city for going along with the design competition that netted these three finalists.

"It's really remarkable what we got here today," Popp said Thursday. "I think we're really on a spectacular path to having something amazing added to the fabric of our city."

Related content:

Design contest set for new Palo Alto bike bridge

Jury takes a bold stance on new Palo Alto bike bridge

We need your support now more than ever. Can we count on you?


10 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:56 pm

Why isn't there any mention of the cost of any of these bridges or the length of time it might take to build them?

The subtlest design is by far the best. It is a bridge and it should be invisible to drivers as they shouldn't be distracted by any imposing design.

Lastly, was there any mention of a suicide barrier, or is that not a pc thing to ask?

9 people like this
Posted by pedestrian
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jan 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm

Don't drag the construction process out any longer than necessary. Just built it and people will come. The existing path is closed right now and the detour over Hwy 101 at San Antonio Road is a death trap, especially during the evening rush hour.

8 people like this
Posted by Prefer low-key
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 14, 2015 at 11:42 pm

Lots of imaginative and creative designs. But I don't care for the huge arch, it is so grandiose for a short bridge, and a dangerous distraction to drivers below. We have enough look-at-me structures in town.
I vote for restrained, low key elegance.

Like this comment
Posted by citizen
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 14, 2015 at 11:55 pm

I would rather see us buy the Fry's space and turn it into a park and maker space, or buy the Maybell orchard. (Can you believe the meeting to show people what will go there is going to be across town at Cubberly since there are no city buildings over there, right in the middle of all those schools.) Of course, the city council then could have gotten the Maybell orchard for free. Because of that, this thing is just a slap. Where are our priorities? What of the public safety building?

Like this comment
Posted by Commenter
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 15, 2015 at 6:27 am

I initially agreed with most other commenters and preferred the low-profile bridge from solely the 3 images posted here. But from seeing other angles and point-of-views (Web Link) I now prefer the cathedral bridge. The low-profle bridge isn't actually simple and minimalist in the details - there's a lot going on in the design and may feel dated in the near future. Although, I am wary of the shimmering art pieces on the cables of the cathedral bridge and possible distractions to drivers it can cause.

4 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2015 at 7:15 am

Just build it already. Undercost estimates.

6 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2015 at 7:25 am

Will the city ask for bids on all three designs? Shouldn't cost be part of the decision? In fact, shouldn't a "plain" design also be submitted for bid?

I do not this to turn into the Jerry Brown / Willie Brown Bay Bridge fiasco Part II.

9 people like this
Posted by Simple is better
a resident of Palo Verde School
on Jan 15, 2015 at 8:17 am

I liked the simple sweeping nature of the second place entry.

The bridge should join and melt the two sides of 101 together.

The arch is way too gaudy.

The kayak is inscrutable...more like WTF than poetry.

My humble opinion.

2 people like this
Posted by Jean
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 15, 2015 at 8:59 am

I really like that the arch bridge has some sections along the bridge that separate bicyclists from pedestrians. Some pedestrians may have large groups, such as school kids on a field trip to the Baylands, and having some points along the bridge route where pedestrians can enjoy their time without having to worry about their safety of passing bicyclists seems to be a positive.

4 people like this
Posted by green space
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 15, 2015 at 9:27 am

Pity no one thought to emulate "The Garden Bridge" Web Link This would be the perfect location for a similar enterprise and in keeping with Palo Alto's "green credentials"

7 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 15, 2015 at 10:35 am

Liz Kniss's vision seems to be coming to fruition. I wonder what she would have done if she were spending her own money. Build a bridge if you must - and there are good reasons for doing so - but show a little restraint. Go for function over glitz. Even better, start over with a smaller budget and see what you get. It may be really nice!

8 people like this
Posted by What are the costs?
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 15, 2015 at 10:54 am

I love how articles like this never mention the comparative costs of the alternate designs but hey, we're Palo Alto where spending and ever-increasing costs. fees and taxes are no object.

13 people like this
Posted by Ellen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jan 15, 2015 at 10:57 am

I'd hate to think the Jury was being carried away on a tide of pomposity. The arch would look ridiculous and pretentious in the middle of a freeway from Silicon Valley to San Francisco. Palo Alto isn't the "gateway" to anywhere. The public should have a say in this - but first we need to know the costs and the time it will take to build.

7 people like this
Posted by Not biking but walking
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2015 at 10:59 am

Why do we need a design contest for a simple bike bridge? What are the costs for each? Is the bicycling community paying for any of this, raising any money? Of the three the simple ribbon looks best, very elegant.

2 people like this
Posted by Judith
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 15, 2015 at 11:00 am

I don't know if this will reassure anyone, but there is a budget: $7.2 million for construction, $10 million total project cost (includes contingency, fees, permits, etc). This is money in hand, BTW, from budgets earmarked for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

All the designs met the budget at the very early design stages of the submittals. There was not request for a "simple" bridge; this was a design competition initiated by the City Council.

The submittals went to the Architectural Review Board for comments this morning; it will come back as a real project when the council decides on Monday Febraury 23rd.

The bridges will go to the Palo Alto Art Commission on Thursday the 22nd at 7pm and to the Parks & Rec Commission Tuesday the 27th at 7pm. Please come and chime in at those public meetings - all are welcome.

However, if you want to sound smart, go to the city website and read up first! Web Link

4 people like this
Posted by What Are the Costs?
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 15, 2015 at 11:03 am

$10,000,000 now, how much later since the City never brings a project in at or under costs?

Are the taxpayers paying for all of this or were there grants, contributions, etc.?

10 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2015 at 11:37 am

Which one is the least expensive in total cost of ownership throughout its lifetime?

I have to think it is the conventional one that was the second choice would be less expensive to design, build and maintain. I like that one, it is simple, not distracting, and in fitting with everything else on 101 and in Palo Alto.

Why do we need to be number 1 in bike bridges ... how about number one in Internet or something useful that we can all be proud of?

6 people like this
Posted by Jo Ann
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 15, 2015 at 11:43 am

Maybe we need a contest on fixing the Town & Country traffic lights.

Think that would move things along there? it's been how many hears and how many THOUSANDS of complaints?

6 people like this
Posted by Not wowed by arch
a resident of Mayfield
on Jan 15, 2015 at 1:50 pm

To me that arch looks like the back of a dinosaur. Do we really want something like this here? Let us keep it simple please.

Like this comment
Posted by Gary Ruppel
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 15, 2015 at 1:55 pm

I could get really excited about the new bike bridge over 101 if it were not for the fact that I have to look at (I live very close to it) the ugly weathered pink bike bridge over Matadero Creek on Bryant street. Perhaps the City could spare a few bucks and paint it (not pink, thanks...) and refinish the wooden siding. Oh, well, we can spend millions on a new bridge to make a "statement" while we continue to make a somewhat opposite "statement" for the last twenty years or so on an existing bridge.

4 people like this
Posted by Abitarian
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 15, 2015 at 2:04 pm

It feels rather pretentious to require an "iconic" design for a bicycle / pedestrian crossing at this location. Sure, I love a good suspension bridge like the George Washington or the Golden Gate, but we are talking the 101 freeway here. In my opinion, "understated elegance" would be a more fitting approach to the Baylands.

It's a lot of money and it would seem responsible to choose a less costly option and divert some of the budget to more pressing needs. Given the way that government funding is allocated, however, it is unlikely that the City could just transfer some of the dollars to another project.

1 person likes this
Posted by BothAreGoodDesigns
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 15, 2015 at 2:06 pm

I attended the ARB meeting this morning. Here are some of my answers to some of the previous posters. Meanwhile, go here to get answers to almost any question you have Web Link

Resident - there is plenty of information on the city web site. The total budget is $10 million, but the number $7.2 million was mentioned several times this morning, which may be just the bridge structure.
As to'suicide barrier' - CalTrans has stringent requirements and whatever bridge is built will have to get approval from them.

Arch vs Low-key: This will be, I think, the key to the decision, assuming construction estimates are realized. I personally am taken by both. The arch design does a good job of integrating the CalTrans required barrier with the structure; the low profile will require something 'sticking up' on both sides that is not (clearly) shown in the renderings. The arch would result is minimal closure of 101 and provides a clear span offering the most flexibility for the freeway in the future. The low profile, however, is more conventional in its construction and might cost less. The arch provides physical separation between bicycle and pedestrian routes in parts of the bridge; the low profile does not, but is (IMHO) more flexible in handling large groups of people (for example, crossings to see 4th of July fireworks). A pro/con matrix is being developed and a *preliminary* version was in the packet this morning.

Citizen: the money for the bridge comes from restricted funds (Stanford settlement with Santa Clara County) so cannot be used for functions such as you mention.

Crescent Park Dad: good question! The 'portage' design (#2) is not being considered for the freeway crossing. I believe that pretty detailed cost *estimates* for both designs will be a part of the decision process to pick one. After that there will be actual construction *bids* from contractors.

Green Space: thanks for the link to the Garden Bridge - what a great ides. My suspicion is that the possibility of earthquake + crossing a freeway (instead of a river) would make the costs >> the budget.

What are the Costs: this was discussed in the meeting, and all agree that preliminary estimates put both options in budget at about the same cost.

Ellen: I was at the jury meeting as well, and there was no "pomposity". Have you seen the Mary Avenue bridge across 280 in Cupertino? Look here Web Link. Go visit it, either on foot or drive under it. It is wonderful.

CrescentParkAnon: lifetime costs were part of the requirements.

These comments are mone, not in any way official.
Thanks to Judith who provided additional information about the $7.2M and $10M and the date for discussion by the City Council.

2 people like this
Posted by Need that year-round connection--iconic or not
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jan 15, 2015 at 2:27 pm

Let's just get it built. We needed this bicycle/pedestrian bridge years ago. It's long overdue. I can't wait to use it for bike commuting south and recreational visits on foot to the baylands!

Like this comment
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2015 at 2:28 pm

>> CrescentParkAnon: lifetime costs were part of the requirements.

1. OK ... what were the costs given. Is there a link to the projected TCO? Any numbers ?

2. Did anyone do a reality check to make sure the numbers weren't just fudged?

Like this comment
Posted by BothAreGoodDesigns
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 15, 2015 at 2:36 pm

to CrescentParkAnon and others:

Here is a link to the ARB page Web Link

Here is a link to the bridge design packet from today's meeting Web Link There is lots of great information there.

The project manager is Elizabeth Ames,

3 people like this
Posted by CrecentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2015 at 2:39 pm

i think Abitarian hit the nail on the head when (s)he said "


>> It feels rather pretentious


>> I love a good suspension bridge like the George Washington or the Golden Gate,
>> but we are talking the 101 freeway here. In my opinion, "understated elegance"
>> would be a more fitting approach to the Baylands.


I agree with the understated natural look in the Baylands. I said earlier that if we
really think the Baylands are that great, then we ought to be putting the money and
effort there. It stinks and it is full of airplane noise. Clearly our care for our waterfront
property is a mile wide and a centimeter thick to mix units.

Let's take that pride and use it to make the Baylands a park where people
want to hang out. Where they don't get hearing loss of gag from the sewage

I like the bridge around the 280/85 intersection, but face it, it is a much more scenic
area, a longer span and there are different design criterion for it.

Just because Cupertino did it does not make it a competition or keep up with the
Jones' kind of thing, besides, it's already done, it's a sunk cost ... if someone
wants to hang that out as an example of something you have to do some kind of
analysis as to how much it cost, why it was built, who likes it, was it worth it, etc,
but it doesn't mean we need one.

2 people like this
Posted by Marianne Mueller
a resident of Professorville
on Jan 15, 2015 at 5:05 pm

The Cathedral Gateway might be good for a regional bridge but it doesn't ring true for Palo Alto. IE Palo Alto is not exactly the gateway, since, gateway to what? Silicon Valley? Stanford? Wallace Stegner Book Clubs and Hiking Socieites? Happily and it's why I love Palo Alto, we are very Baylands. The ribbon understated is clearly the gateway to Baylands.

5 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 15, 2015 at 6:37 pm

From a story over 2 years ago -- Web Link -- long story short, the county got a concession of $10.4 million from Stanford, instead of accepting Stanford's proposal to build their own trails.

Seems our original idea to use the money was as follows:

"As Palo Alto Online reported Friday, the joint grant application requests funds for five projects — $4 million for the proposed bike bridge at Adobe Creek; $4.5 million for new trails between El Camino Real and the Stanford Dish and along Junipero Serra; $200,000 to create the city's second "bike boulevard" on Park Boulevard; $1.5 million for a new bike-and-pedestrian trail along Matadero Creek, which would link Bryant Street and Greer Road; and $200,000 to enhance a trail along Arastradero Road, between Foothill Expressway and Purissima Road in Los Altos Hills."

I must have blinked, and missed where this bridge came to gobble up the entire amount.

Like this comment
Posted by jm
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 15, 2015 at 8:10 pm

When the agreement with Stanford was made for dividing up the GUP money between several area projects, I am fairly certain the council decided on a budget for the bike bridge of $10 to be split three ways. $4 million of the GUP money, Palo Alto taxpayers footing their part of the bill to the tune of $3 million, and the balance of $3 million expected to come from a VTA grant. Does anyone else remember those numbers?

8 people like this
Posted by Melvin
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2015 at 9:55 pm

Please, go with the simple cost effective design. I for one am not interested in a giant monument to bloated egos for a bike bridge. Yes judges, it's just a bike bridge over a highway, nothing more.

I couldn't help notice the design with the large tall arches with all the wiring strung like a net. A 'green' feature of that design was what could be old CD's or frozen metal OJ can tops suspended from the wire netting all across the span so birds see them twisting in the wind and don't fly into it. Duh, remove the remove the stylish arches, no need for wire net, no bird fatalities. Honesty. The 'solution' is to not build it.

5 people like this
Posted by Prefer low-key
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 15, 2015 at 11:07 pm

I don't know what the ARB had to say but since they have approved monster buildings time and again, it needs to be said clearly here.

No "statement" bridges. No museum pieces. No Hall of Fame entries wanted. This is a bridge to nowhere. Let it be simple and in good taste and low cost.
If we build a huge ostentatious sparkly McBridge to nowhere we will become a laughing stock.

3 people like this
Posted by slap-in-face or sign of change?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 16, 2015 at 5:56 am

@Prefer low-key
The ARB also approved The Cheesecake Factory for University Ave, etc, etc.
Concern for design,aesthetics, scale in this City has been absent,non-existent,low priority, secondary consideration since CAKE over ten years ago. Ugliness is washing over the entire City and its streetscapes. This is the reality of PA which residents and visitors confront and experience every day in their faces. In this context the sudden emphasis on the design of this bridge is a slap-in-the-face. But with the new Council and Mayor Holman's calling out of design review as needing revamping, and this bridge and this process is actually the sign of a new beginning, new emphasis,
new sensitivity, then this is positive. This needs to carry over beyond
the bridge.

1 person likes this
Posted by Alan
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jan 16, 2015 at 11:27 am

After seeing all three of proposal's videos, I still like submission C the best - which is the minimalist design, but don't mind the one that won. The winning proposal seems to separate bikes from pedestrians the best and I like that.

Now that a choice has been made lets's just get this thing built.

1 person likes this
Posted by George
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jan 16, 2015 at 12:09 pm

Hard to tell which design allows the easiest traverse for bicycles. I agree with earlier statement that function is more important than form.

Like this comment
Posted by city beat reporter should check spelling
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jan 16, 2015 at 12:47 pm

Gennady, if you are quoting someone, could you kindly take care to spell his/her name correctly? Journalism 101...

Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 16, 2015 at 12:50 pm

@jm, thanks for the reminder. I also recall now that only part of this bridge was supposed to come from the general use permit funds, and part from our own pockets. So what's the progress on the other $6.4 million of bike and pedestrian trails? Haven't heard much lately.

Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

@resident of Palo Alto High School, I give up, can't find the error.

1 person likes this
Posted by Midtown
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 18, 2015 at 5:08 pm

This is a pure and simple $10M (or more depending) waste of money since there is already an underpass at that very spot that can be used 99% of the time (when it is raining hard it floods). Simply ego aggrandizement. I love the smell of burning money in morning.

1 person likes this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 19, 2015 at 9:43 am

Please....I agree with the Crescent Park Dad, how about something a little more basic. I assume that the schematic Designers can come up with something a little less artistic, a little less costly and if decision is to build get at least three bids from prequalified bidders.

There is certainly the need, but let's use a little common sense and save some money to be used elsewhere; such as street, or utility repair???

2 people like this
Posted by parent
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jan 19, 2015 at 11:25 am

Just build it already. All these delays are just adding to the cost.

2 people like this
Posted by Matt Austern
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Jan 19, 2015 at 8:11 pm

I also found it striking that (at least going by the article) none of the commissioners wanted to know which design would be easiest to build and which would be likely to be done soonest.

I don't know whether most voters agree with me on this, but I value time to completion of this bridge far more than aesthetics. I want a way to get across 101 that doesn't close in the winter. I'd far rather have an ugly utilitarian structure that can be completed in winter 2015 than a beautiful iconic span that gets built in 2019.

4 people like this
Posted by MP Resident
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jan 20, 2015 at 11:41 am

Speaking as a bike commuter who might actually use this bridge - please build something that:

- Is safe in all weather conditions
- Has good lighting
- Requires minimal ongoing maintenance
- Can be built sooner rather than later
- Is a proper ride-on/ride-off design

It doesn't need to be artistic. It doesn't need to be unique or special. It needs to be safe, well engineered, and built yesterday. It should be reasonably attractive of course, but I'm sure that can be done with a standard, off the shelf design.

1 person likes this
Posted by Biker Jack
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jan 23, 2015 at 7:40 am

Does the vernal pond resemble a latrine ? Brown water injection...not a good idea for our precious ecosystem. Smells bad enough already over there. Keep the design simple and in concert with the ecosystem...we do not need a leaning looking structure that will maker people riding bikes dizzy and be more of a sore thumb on a toilet handle. Pick the runner up !

Like this comment
Posted by Midtown
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 23, 2015 at 12:33 pm

The only reason it is closed in the winter is someone locks the gate regardless if it was raining hard enough to cover the ramp. In the last four years maybe 2 days it really needed to be closed. What a waste of $10M!

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay up to date on local coronavirus coverage with our daily news digest email.

Food Safety and Coronavirus: A Comprehensive Guide
By Laura Stec | 11 comments | 29,991 views

These local restaurants are donating meals to Bay Area residents in need. Here's how to help.
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 10,911 views

Coronavirus: Plan ahead now for a big outbreak
By Diana Diamond | 18 comments | 3,966 views

Will the Coronavirus Save Lives?
By Sherry Listgarten | 29 comments | 3,762 views

How COVID-19 Affects Communities
By Jessica Zang | 10 comments | 1,069 views



The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by April 10, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category. Sponsored by Kepler's Books, Linden Tree Books and Bell's Books.

Contest Details