How to remake the L.A. freeway for a new era - Michael Maltzan SR 134

[andy3175]

An article in the LA Times speaks of ways to improve freeway aesthetics, with the example cited as the SR 134 bridge over Arroyo Seco. The LA Times published two existing proposals, one for SR 134 and the other for the stub end of SR 2.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-cm-maltzan-freeway-20160629-snap-htmlstory.html

The proposals are meant to act simultaneously at the local and regional levels. Carefully tailored to their sites, they're also prototypes for a new way of thinking in Southern California about the relationship between the freeway and the public good.

The first comes from Michael Maltzan Architecture, a Los Angeles firm best known for the One Santa Fe apartment complex in the Arts District, the Star Apartments near Skid Row and the forthcoming Sixth Street Viaduct spanning the Los Angeles River. It will be followed by a proposal from Stoss Landscape Urbanism, a firm led by Chris Reed, associate professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, to remake the stub end of the 2 Freeway.

http://www.mmaltzan.com/projects/arroyo-seco-bridge/

The existing Arroyo Bridge is part of State Route 134 (the Ventura Freeway) at the western edge of Pasadena, California.  The bridge crosses the Arroyo Seco half of a mile from the mouth of the proposed 710 extension at the intersection of the 134 and the 210. Unlike the adjacent iconic Colorado Bridge, the Arroyo Bridge is a utilitarian highway designed to carry 10 lanes of vehicular traffic over the scenic Arroyo Seco landscape below.

The current condition of the 134 is at odds with its context, polluting the surrounding neighborhoods with noise and vehicle emissions and simultaneously eroding the Arroyo landscape  between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Los Angeles River to the south.  The bridge spans over both natural and built spaces including the Arroyo Seco Hiking Trail, Lower Arroyo Park, the historic La Casita Del Arroyo, and the former Desiderio Army Reserve Center that is being transformed into new parkland and Habitat for Humanity homes.

This area is a year-round resource for residents and visitors but the design of the existing bridge prioritizes traffic efficiency at the expense of the health of the delicate ecosystem of the valley corridor below.  But what if we ask more of the Arroyo Bridge without compromising the integrity of the existing infrastructural efficiency?  What if the bridge became an experiential and aesthetic asset for residents and visitors? What if we demand that the bridge do more?

[coatimundi]

An overhead canopy of photovoltaic panels and porous concrete "˜lungs' that utilize photocatalytic concrete to filter automotive emissions from cars on the bridge to improve overall air quality.

Is this for the bridge, or for the entire Los Angeles Metropolitan Area? Because it seems like just doing this for a bridge in the middle of Pasadena would do pretty much nothing to mitigate emissions.
In reading it, I'm not totally clear how the existing bridge is detrimental to the ecosystem below. It's not pretty from the bottom, but no bridge is going to be.
How about just not build the 710 tunnel and use the money to tunnel the 134 under Arroyo Seco?

[DTComposer]

In reading it, I'm not totally clear how the existing bridge is detrimental to the ecosystem below. It's not pretty from the bottom, but no bridge is going to be.

As far as freeway bridges go, this one never bothered me. Even from the bottom, at least they echoed the arches of the Colorado Street bridge.

How about just not build the 710 tunnel and use the money to tunnel the 134 under Arroyo Seco?

First, the elevation change is too steep - they'd have to start the incline/decline at least at the 134/210 interchange, meaning a total rebuild of that as well. Second, that's taking money from a problem that does exist (lack of I-710 connectivity) and giving it to a problem that doesn't exist.

From the pictures, I think the landscaped walls would be fine, but I wonder about the view from the houses on nearby hills. Would looking at a static thick ribbon of black solar panels really be an improvement over the (usually) flowing traffic?

[coatimundi]

How about just not build the 710 tunnel and use the money to tunnel the 134 under Arroyo Seco?

First, the elevation change is too steep - they'd have to start the incline/decline at least at the 134/210 interchange

This was a joke. Trying to poke fun at the freeway construction environment in LA right now. "We want a park, not a freeway."