Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse & rebuilding thread

[Busy Bee]

If I had to find a gripe - which I often challenge myself to do - it would be the sort of generic nature of the tower design as that look is nearly identical to a half dozen other US bridges of the past decade. I also wish American civil engineering would pay more attention to the lack of gracefulness that girder transitions and styleless, utilitarian pier designs can have on a bridge. So often the artistic "flairs" like striking concrete formwork are value-engineered out of expansive public civil works projects to "conserve" public money, even though those elements rarely represent substantial cost differences - or at least not enough to justify sacrificing beauty for utility. I often think about the amount of iconic civil works projects of the early 20th century that would have much less design significance under that way of thinking.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

If I had to find a gripe - which I often challenge myself to do - it would be the sort of generic nature of the tower design as that look is nearly identical to a half dozen other US bridges of the past decade. I also wish American civil engineering would pay more attention to the lack of gracefulness that girder transitions and styleless, utilitarian pier designs can have on a bridge. So often the artistic "flairs" like striking concrete formwork are value-engineered out of expansive public civil works projects to "conserve" public money, even though those elements rarely represent substantial cost differences - or at least not enough to justify sacrificing beauty for utility. I often think about the amount of iconic civil works projects of the early 20th century that would have much less design significance under that way of thinking.

There’s but only so many ways you can design the main towers of a cable-stayed bridge this size. H-type, I-type or A-type, so there’s going to be innate similarities in main towers design.

This is also an emergency replacement design-build project. Baltimore didn’t have the luxury years of planning and nitpicking architectural design for the most aesthetically pleasing bridge. It needs to be built yesterday so everything is going to be designed with simplicity, efficiency, and or speed of construction.

That said, I do agree that American engineers largely throw aesthetics out the window when it comes to pier protection systems, pylon/girder designs or transition points for structural elements.

[mrnyc]

i know, who didn’t see this coming? but still, jinkees —


Costs more than double to rebuild vital Baltimore bridge destroyed by cargo ship

ByMichelle Watson
UPDATED 1 HR 46 MIN


The expected price tag to rebuild Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge – the overpass that collapsed and left six dead – has more than doubled and is expected to be completed later than what authorities previously said, according to a release on Monday.

The Maryland Transportation Authority on Monday said in a release the updated cost estimate is now projected to be $4.3 billion to $5.2 billion, with an expected opening in late 2030 – a two-year delay from the earlier estimate.

That price tag is more than double the previous expected cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion, that the Maryland Department of Transportation previously confirmed to CNN.


more:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/17/us/baltimore-key-bridge-rebuild-cost-doubles

[Notonfoodstamps]

MDTA posted the PDF for their November 25th board meetings which included the Key Bridge. A boat load of renders and schematics for the new bridge

https://mdta.maryland.gov/Meeting_Schedules/MDTA_Board_Meeting_Schedule.html

The pier protecction specs on this bridge are wild.

- Each main pylon foundation is 176' x 102' x 20' and has 13,000 cubic yards (23,000 tons) of reinforced concrete.

- Each main pylon pier protection is 374' x 214' x 20' and has ~41,600 cubic yards (83,000 tons) of reinforced concrete.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

If I had to find a gripe - which I often challenge myself to do - it would be the sort of generic nature of the tower design as that look is nearly identical to a half dozen other US bridges of the past decade. I also wish American civil engineering would pay more attention to the lack of gracefulness that girder transitions and styleless, utilitarian pier designs can have on a bridge. So often the artistic "flairs" like striking concrete formwork are value-engineered out of expansive public civil works projects to "conserve" public money, even though those elements rarely represent substantial cost differences - or at least not enough to justify sacrificing beauty for utility. I often think about the amount of iconic civil works projects of the early 20th century that would have much less design significance under that way of thinking.

Most cable-stayed bridges are ugly. For whatever reason it is impossible to convince a certain segment of the urbanist population that it's even possible for cable-stayed bridges to be ugly since they are convinced that they are all "sleek and modern". The first major cable stayed bridge in the United States broke ground almost 50 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge.

Now we've got one monochrome cable stayed bridge after another going up all over the United States. They're even worse than a plain deck girder bridge because the insinuate that there was some great mind behind the design, when there was not.

[mrnyc]

yeah all the new cable stay bridges are pretty cookie cutter.

[llamaorama]

While I respect the concern for aesthetics of big public projects, can we please come back to reality and remember this is replacing another utilitarian bridge that fell down after a ship hit it and that all the money had to get pulled out from somewhere in a hurry all during an era of inflation and government dysfunction.

I'm not from Portland but I've been on this forum long enough to remember around 2010 or whatever when there was a huge fluff over replacing the existing old bridge that carries I-5 over the Columbia river which might not be strong enough to survive a large earthquake. It got cancelled because NIMBYs didn't like the project. Now, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Then people are going to be mad and ask why it wasn't replaced by a modern bridge.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

While I respect the concern for aesthetics of big public projects, can we please come back to reality and remember this is replacing another utilitarian bridge that fell down after a ship hit it and that all the money had to get pulled out from somewhere in a hurry all during an era of inflation and government dysfunction.

I'm not from Portland but I've been on this forum long enough to remember around 2010 or whatever when there was a huge fluff over replacing the existing old bridge that carries I-5 over the Columbia river which might not be strong enough to survive a large earthquake. It got cancelled because NIMBYs didn't like the project. Now, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Then people are going to be mad and ask why it wasn't replaced by a modern bridge.

To be fair, you are correct about the new I-5 bridge dying a Nimby death. But you forgot to mention the extra stuff most people in Washington state did not wish to fund. including light rail tracks and bike trails. Oregon wanted the whole boondoggle, Washington didn't. And Washington state isn't immune to funding boondoggles on their own accord, so this boondoggle was a huge boondoggle.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Most cable-stayed bridges are ugly. For whatever reason it is impossible to convince a certain segment of the urbanist population that it's even possible for cable-stayed bridges to be ugly since they are convinced that they are all "sleek and modern". The first major cable stayed bridge in the United States broke ground almost 50 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge.

Now we've got one monochrome cable stayed bridge after another going up all over the United States. They're even worse than a plain deck girder bridge because the insinuate that there was some great mind behind the design, when there was not.

I mean, objectively they are minimalistic in design. Thats the point. Yes, there a lot of ugly examples but there is a good deal of beautiful ones.

Regard the the "monochrome" design the Gordie Howe looks nothing like the 181 Harbor Bridge which in turn looks nothing like the Francis Scott Key, which in turn looks nothing like the proposed I-10 Mobile bridge other than they are all "cable-stayed". Yes, they are all concrete and above a certain span size pylon design is going to be either A-type, inverse Y-type or H-type, but thats a byproduct of required engineering rather than aesthetic choice.

Cable-stayed bridges are no more monochrome than suspension, stone arch, continues truss, etc.. bridges.

That said, what the Key Bridge lacks aesthetics it will make up for in grandeur due to the nature of its construction.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Live stream of the Construction site. POV is from Dundalk Marine Terminal

https://www.youtube.com/live/2sv7SA2Ybgg?si=4NlelUB5LnAgKXLm

[Notonfoodstamps]

Production pile driving has officially commenced.

One down, 1177 more to go.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Foundational pile driving is well underway for the Key Bridge replacement.

It's wild to think each of those piles weighs as much as Boeing 787

[Notonfoodstamps]

[Notonfoodstamps]

Trestle work is expected to start in the upcoming weeks.

[Busy Bee]

I just wish those piers could be more aesthetically pleasing and cohesive with the rest of the design language. This utilitarian approach is unfortunately very common these days. Such a disregard for the mixed design of the bents and ackward "line" destroying girder transitions would have been untinkable 50+ years ago. What we need more of are brilliant architects and masterful engineers involved in bridgeworks and less traffic engineers leading principle design.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I just wish those piers could be more aesthetically pleasing and cohesive with the rest of the design language. This utilitarian approach is unfortunately very common these days. Such a disregard for the mixed design of the bents and ackward "line" destroying girder transitions would have been untinkable 50+ years ago. What we need more of are brilliant architects and masterful engineers involved in bridgeworks and less traffic engineers leading principle design.

Fancy art touches should only be incorporated into designs of bridges to announce economic power or set an artistic statement.
A bridge on a freeway bypass around downtown Baltimore is not the place for this expenditure.
Fancy is perfectly suitable if it can be done cheaply. I suggest reading books about Andrea Palladio, considered the first architect in modern history. His villas built for rich vineyards and merchants used stuccos instead of the more expensive masonry stones available in Italy. His art hid the use of cheaper building materials. He provide more with less expense.
This is a truth that has existed over 600 years, it will exist far into the future.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I just wish those piers could be more aesthetically pleasing and cohesive with the rest of the design language. This utilitarian approach is unfortunately very common these days. Such a disregard for the mixed design of the bents and ackward "line" destroying girder transitions would have been untinkable 50+ years ago. What we need more of are brilliant architects and masterful engineers involved in bridgeworks and less traffic engineers leading principle design.

While I understand this sentiment, the bridge is a) only 70% designed, and b) is miles away from any pedestrians viewing it up close. The bridge needs to be utilitarian from a cost/construction standpoint so nobody would even notice them, sans people on ships.

Drivers are going to be preoccupied staying in their lane, and or looking up at close to 400' of pylon looming over them.

[Busy Bee]

A cohesive pier architecture shouldn't be considered outlandish or unnecessary. Master bridge designers of the past like Othmar Ammann never would have inserted clunky utilitarian piers that did not communicate a cohesive "note" into a bridge's design to save a little time with formwork or in the larger scheme of things a few dollars in concrete.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

Fancy art touches should only be incorporated into designs of bridges to announce economic power or set an artistic statement.

I don't consider the gracefulness of bridge piers or the sweeping line of the deck structure to be "fancy art touches". Maybe you're thinking of Texas where they emboss their viaduct bents with ridiculous Lone Stars. That silly frill is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all elements of a bridge design looking and feeling integrated and interpreted as a single work of design. Is that too much to ask for? We used to know how to do this. See the many beautiful bridges of metropolitan New York.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

A cohesive pier architecture shouldn't be considered outlandish or unnecessary. Master bridge designers of the past like Othmar Ammann never would have inserted clunky utilitarian piers that did not communicate a cohesive "note" into a bridge's design to save a little time with formwork or in the larger scheme of things a few dollars in concrete.

Agreed 100%. What you described was in no way "fancy". The correct term is "presentable". It's the fashion equivalent of saying that a person is shallow and superficial for not wanting to walk around in baggy old sweatpants with a hole in the crotch. Writing off basic aesthetic considerations as being frivolous frills is why so much of North America has become ugly and charmless.