Anyone think the monstrosity of a bridge being constructed should have a roof cover over it ... obviously the the not very good architect has built a monument to him/her self with absolutely no regard for ped comfort. A good architect would provide some form of shelter from the elements. this is not a short dash. its a hike even for the fittest.
I work in Architecture, and this is an unfair statement.
Architects design what they get briefed to design.....If Qld transport/QR wanted an all weather bridge, then that’s what they would’ve gotten if they had asked. We’re not really allowed to vary the scope and do the opposite of what they asked for because it’s what we feel like.
By all means, we can suggest how we think it should be done, and what would be better for users, but in the end it’s the clients call.
It’s not as if QT/QR ring up and ask for a bridge, and it’s a lotto wether its wood/steel/covered/uncovered/travlator/a flying fox over the road etc depending on how the architect was feeling that day. Particularly working with Government, they are often pretty prescriptive in what they want.
Obviously, the primary goal of the bridge is to stop stuff being thrown off (Rather than hail protection), and it probably doesn’t have a roof because no other freeway footbridge I know of has a roof either. (I mean, if you are walking to the station, the majority of the way would be exposed anyway)