Safe Trestles

Design Competition to Create Safe, Low-Impact Access to Trestles

Overview

Guidelines

Resources

Phase 1 Results

View the results Phase 1: the finalists, semi-finalists, honorable mentions, people’s choice winner, and the founders’ and fellows’ award.

View all Phase 1 Entries.

Phase 2 Schedule

June 04:
Design Development Begins

June 04 – June 15:
Information + Question Period

June 18:
Meeting with Stakeholders + Finalists

June 23 – June 28:
Safe Trestles Exhibit at Surf America Nationals (at Trestles)

June / July:
Community Meetings, dates TBD

July 21 – July 23:
Design Progress Review

July 04 – August:
Safe Trestles Exhibit at US Open of Surfing, Huntington Beach

August 16:
Community Meeting – San Clemente
download the meeting summary
watch the introduction
watch the discussion

August 30:
Phase 2 Submission Deadline

August 30 – Sept 13:
Stakeholder Design Review

September 13:
Safe Trestles Exhibit –
San Clemente Community Center
All are welcome 7:30pm – 9:30pm

September 12 - 18:
Safe Trestles Exhibit at Hurley Pro

Press Room

See who’s been talking about us.
Media inquiries: press@architectureforhumanity.org

Competition Details

Host: Architecture for Humanity

Phase 1: Complete

Phase 2: Design Phase Complete.
Design Review.

Fundraising: Phase 1 entry fee of $20 raised $1k for Architecture for Humanity, San Onofre Foundation, and Surfrider Foundation (each)

Jury: Check out our phase one jurors.

Award: Five finalists were chosen from Phase 1 to receive a $5k stipend to develop their designs in Phase 2.

Feedback

Questions, comments, suggestions? Contact us.

Additional Resources

Phase 2 Guidelines v1

Phase 2 Model Guidelines v2

Contour Map v2 (.dwg)

Contour Map v2 (.dxf)

CA State Parks Accessibility Guidelines

CA State Parks Accessibility Guidelines - Summary

Rail Crossing References

Additional Resources

Phase 2 Cost Estimates

A huge thank you to Davis Langdon – San Francisco for donating their time to provide cost analyses and comparisons of the five Phase 2 solutions.

Phase 2 Designs

Anyone can view and comment on the proposed solutions. What should we do to protect Trestles for future generations?

Safe Trestles Transect: a journey through a coastal landscape
Design Team: Lager Raabe Skafte Landscape Architects, Inc., Philadelphia (PA)

Easy*Safe*Dry
Design Team: kola+kle, Berlin (Germany)

The Wave
Design Team: CO-LAB design office, Los Angeles, CA (USA)

Unveiling the Natural
Design Team: ERGO4, Heilbronn (Germany)

The Long Trail
Design Team: Ken Smith Landscape Architect: WORKSHOP WEST, Irvine, CA (USA)

Phase 2 | Guidelines

Program Requirements

The design should serve both surfers and visitors to the area, restore and protect the coastal environment that has been damaged by foot traffic, provide view points and educational opportunities related to the past and present conditions as wells as protecting its future.

Railroad Crossing
Designs should include 2 schemes for the railroad crossing – at and below grade.

Accessibility Guidelines
All portions and elements of the proposal should be accessible to all users. Indicate 1 accessible parking space, and 1 van accessible space.

Educational Component
Solutions should include wayfinding, signage, literature, and/ or interactive display/s.

Material Selection
Proposed material choices should be durable, and environmentally friendly.

Additional Facilities
Proposed solutions should include alternatives to the current porta-potties, integrated waste receptacles, and bicycle/ surf board racks.

Phase 2 | Scope of Services

Site + Community Involvement
1. Site Visit – meet on site with Stakeholders + Finalists June 18
2. Community Meetings
3. Project Outreach

Required Presentation Materials
1. Design Book
2. Presentation Boards
3. Physical Model

Required Supporting Documentation
1. Site Plan/s
2. Enlarged Plans
3. Site Sections
4. Enlarged Sections
5. Construction Details
6. Photographs of physical model
7. Computer generated model
8. 3-dimensional renderings
9. Documentation of Educational Component

Suggested Supporting Documentation
1. Project Video
2. Website
3. Innovative Solutions that represent designs.

Discuss this item

Safe Trestle? When was it in trouble?:Hana Lima Surf

Mon, 2010-02-22 21:08

Here we go again. Whoever wants this safe crossing for everyone to use, must be tied into the toll road extension. This will just take the adventure away and whole surfing experience. If it's too much work to make the walk, this must be for the lazy and unwanted. Next you'll probably see a gondola ride at Blacks. I can see the mouths drooling already at who's going to get the contract. Trestles has been doing just fine for decades. We've staved off the toll road and now some kooks want to put in a safe crossing? This place isn't for kooks. Don't mess it up.

Lately I haven't heard of anyone getting killed but I guess because of the whining snivelers in Capo and SC that the train whistles are too loud, some poor sole that's never been to trestles just might end up face down because he had his I pod on to loud. If you're that stupid not to look both ways or cross in a safe area, you probably had it coming.

I only sometimes surf at Lower's because I long board but I know how short boarders feel so I never hog the waves, I always share. I'll paddle from the first San O' parking all the way up. No big deal but if this safe path goes through, guaranteed there'll be a lot more long boarding, beginners, SUP's, 909er's etc.. Yeah put it in, I'm sure this will be a hit with the locals. Who's bright idea was this, he must be out of work. Do yourself a favor and leave it alone!

An open process:Cameron Sinclair

Tue, 2010-02-23 12:42

Having read your response I sense your are bringing some baggage into the debate. The issue has to do with life/safety and the environmental impact on the trestles area - that is all.

Additionally it is an open process with a blind jury. ie. the jury does not know the names of the entrants - and anyone can enter, from 8 to 80 yr olds.

The jury consists of stake holders, users of the trestles and building professionals.

The aim of the competition is to create safe access along pathways defined by the community. If you read the brief or any of the supporting documents you will see that, while we expect sublime to crazy ideas, the most pragmatic solution will be developed.

Also if you know the issue the lease on the land will be up soon and by providing a vibrant place for the community it allows State Parks a stronger hand in renewing the lease or making it permanent - as supported by Reagan and Nixon. Yeah, I went there.

Your last point hits the nail on the head. Who has access and who has the right to surf trestles. I'm sure this is a debate that will go on for decades but most agree that we all should be allowed safe access to Californias' coastline.

Cheers
Cameron Sinclair
Co-founder, Architecture for Humanity and resident kook.

preservation folks:Alex James

Mon, 2010-03-01 14:57

Whatever the motivations, I don't think that building a parking lot and fortified path, or attracting more traffic to a wetlands is going to preserve the environmental condition there; or that there is any REAL safety concern based on the lack of injury/death statistics for that section of track.

Trestles has become so popular because of what is already there, and because of what is not there, and I hope we can preserve those qualities.

No one is building a parking lot:Omei Turnbull

Tue, 2010-03-02 17:26

From the design requirements:

"No new parking should be provided, except those spaces required for accessibility"

common interests:alix ogilvie

Wed, 2010-03-03 13:55

Hi Alex -

To truly preserve the area, human access would have to be eliminated entirely. And so, the competition aims for a balance - a way that humans can enjoy continued and sustained use of the area with minimal damage to the environment.

The program asks that 4 spaces be reserved for handicapped persons and calls for a low-impact path that will lead visitors from the existing parking area to the beach. Part of this path involves crossing an active railroad corridor - so yes, human safety is a real concern. Our goal is to prevent any railroad-to-person collisions and to restore and protect the coastal habitat before it is gone. I also want Trestles to remain popular. It is a special place - it would be a shame to lose it.

Thanks for your thoughts as well as promoting an open/ active dialogue.

alix
Design Fellow
Architecture for Humanity

Balance? Defense of a disapointing result and competition:Vvimmer

Sat, 2010-05-08 16:42

For the safety there is no need for a Competition. In Europa or Japan there are more trains and people crossing the trails, and they do it safe. ( i.e. train-stopping mechanism when the crossing is blocked )

The discussion comes out of a total failing of the Jury by selecting Highway Concepts. Having made some hundreds competition in my life, let me tell you the competition failed. I participated because it sounded an interesting task, I would have liked to see more participants to go beyond common knowledge, but it ended up in a Kindergarten-competition, there is no salt and pepper in it. Yes Californian like wood, we know this, they like Highways, we know this, so why we need to demonstrate this?

so wrong:handsoffplease

Mon, 2010-05-10 11:32

The reality is that the ONLY time Trestles cannot be accessed by all is when companies like Nike6 and Hurley get to take over the beach and the surf to run their contests. Their 2 and 3 story high media towers and green rooms block off 50% of the beach and the contest area effectively prohibits public access to more than just Lowers, pushing surfers out of much of Middles and 5'0's as well.

Contrary to what Steve Long and the San Onofre Foundation would have us believe, safe access for all exists currently at Trestles at both the north and south ends of the beach, via the dirt road that intersects old HWY 101 at both Uppers and at the lifeguard headquarters, which go under the trestles and allow visitors, including the handicapped, full access to the sand and the dirt bike path leading to Lowers in either direction. If the shortcuts which have been carved out are damaging to the habitat, the park can look to other conservation success stories, such as the Newport Upper Back Bay, for the least-intrusive way to preserve them without the use of construction, concrete, elevated skywalks and/or non-native materials.

Anyone who truly understands anything about Trestles knows that there will be "baggage" brought into any debate about it, especially this one. The stakeholders who cherish Trestles didn't fight tooth and nail to keep a toll road out of the park just to see your organization partner with a private corporation like Nike to become self-proclaimed guardians of "life/safety" at Trestles. The backing of your competition by the San Onofre Foundation, which generated initial support by misrepresenting its goals to the public, and Surfrider, doesn't give the effort any more credibility, either. No matter how you try to position this competition/design as an open effort to improve access and restore habitat, you cannot disguise its primary purpose to exploit Trestles for special interests.

You say "The aim of the competition is to create safe access along pathways defined by the community" but where is the community's involvement? Your jury certainly doesn't represent it. None of us who surf or bike or hike there everyday have been consulted about this. There were more architects and builders on that jury than environmentalists and conversationists. In fact, with the exception of Coastkeeper, environmental and wildlife groups were noticeably absent from your jury.

Trestles is ALREADY a "vibrant place for the community", without elevated concrete paths or skywalks so thanks but no thanks - we don't need your help in assuring renewal of the land lease. The birds, plants, wildlife and ocean left in their natural state are what make it vibrant, as it is the only remaining beach in Southern California that hasn't been Disney-fied.

You claim that the debate that will go on for decades is "Who has access and who has the right to surf trestles"? You're missing the mark here, Cameron: the real debate is "Who has the right to exploit Trestles and our state parks for commercial gain and/or profit?".

Trestle:computerman

Wed, 2010-02-24 10:45

Now I can see both sides of the issue. Yet as a surfer I think that bringing tons of people and an "education" center will only bring further problems, more people most likely will bring trash, rude people who do go off the paths and distory things for fun, its going to cost money so they will soon start charging for parking or some other type of fee. I have researched the issue and I can see that many people who dont surf would want an easy way to get there. For people who have been making the journey, which even after a full day of surfing is not that impossiable of a climb if your really a nature lover then this should stay as close to nature as possiable. Now not all surfers try and save the wet lands but with limited exposure it is more likely to be less impaced. I have to agree that whoever came up with this was part of the 241 expansion that southern california citizens fought off to save it. SAVE trestles leave it alone.

Pathway not a center.:Cameron Sinclair

Wed, 2010-02-24 22:23

Hi,
The competition is for a safe pathway, not an education center. If you read through the design criteria it notes the opportunity to educate not only on the environment but on the history of the land and those who use it.

There are certainly many views on the use of the Trestles area but we are focused on hosting a competition to explore the various options and solutions for safe access.

Thanks.

Failing the purpose of an Competition:Vvimmer

Sat, 2010-05-08 16:19

And you disagree yourself in your wording. The understanding of the jury did not go beyond this of an Highway Level and is far of finding solutions. But this is the general problem in America and specifically in California, - lost to be open minded - and all your defense will not help to correct this picture. Sad for the Sponsor.

Trestles:KUSALAdzign

Thu, 2010-02-25 10:28

Having lived in HB for the last couple of years, and surfed at Trestles only a handful of times, I can understand both sides of the debate. As a professional Industrial Designer, I will be participating in the design competition, and would like to make both the least impact on the environment, and the least impact on the traditions of Trestles. I am finding that designing for these two extreme perspectives is very difficult. Functionally, there are many easy solutions, but when you gauge these to the test of time, I foresee implications that may impact the traditons in the future. One thing that I am uncertain about is why there now has to be disabled access; not that there should'nt be, but why would this need to be in effect when it was un-needed in the past? Does this have to do with State Park legislature? Is it inevitable for the park to have to follow these guidlines? What would be the outcome of both sides? I guess it just seems like there is an underlying plan that makes designing for, difficult.

More accurate topograhpy...:theoryshaw

Tue, 2010-03-09 10:00

other than this survey: http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/system/files/USGS%20Survey.pdf

Is there any more accurate data on the existing topography of the site?

Thanks, Ryan

site plan:alix ogilvie

Fri, 2010-03-26 18:58

Hi there -

We have developed a site plan with 5' contours based on the USGS survey and with some educated assumptions. You can find the cad version of the Site Plan here: http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/competitions/trestles#research

Additional Resources:architectureforeveryone

Tue, 2010-03-16 08:58

Will DWG or DXF format survey drawing be provided? So far there is only DWG section provided. The topographic survey is so small.

site plan DWG:alix ogilvie

Fri, 2010-03-26 19:01

Hi -

We have developed a site plan in cad with 5' contours based on the USGS survey and with some educated assumptions.

See: http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/competitions/trestles#research

Direction Train:Stefan.Jeroen

Fri, 2010-03-26 10:31

Is it a oneway railroad? So, in which direction is the train heading?
Or is the train going in both directions?

single corridor:alix ogilvie

Fri, 2010-03-26 18:54

The trains travel in both directions.

Site Section DWG file:kpolzin

Sat, 2010-04-03 16:56

It appears the Site Section DWG file leads you to "Page Not Found" within the OAN site. Will this be available again soon or has it been moved?

Site Plan DWG file works just great, could you please check on the link for the Site Section DWG file or post the new location?

Thanks!

-Checked the Site Section DWG link at the top under Drawing Updates and that one works. The link for Site Section DWG under Available Research doesn't work, FYI.

Idea competition:simbiotekdesign

Thu, 2010-05-20 19:15

I thought this was an idea competition? Somehow I don't think the concept was grasped by the second round jurors that the Info Nodes project produced bio-fuel from the naturally growing algae in the wetlands for park services because most innovative went to a project that had a mechanism that collected rain water that was splashed on passer byers. The other thing I don't understand is if your going to push names like Ingel and Joachim as the jurors then why not make them the second round jurors and not the first round? I mean had teams known that in the end the projects that were selected would come down to a majority of laymen that voted it would have shifted they're perspective on the design. Safe Trestles could have SAVED themselves alot of trouble and just handed this project to the city planner. Guaranteed he/she would have done what the "first" place project did (no big ideas, straight shot, no educational element, no energy producing/ saving element, etc..). WOW.

Hi - Just want to clarify:alix ogilvie

Fri, 2010-05-28 12:28

Hi -

Just want to clarify that it was the first round of jurors that selected the honorable mentions based on the voting criteria.

Also, it is very important that "laymen" are encouraged to take an active role in the future of their communities. Through a community-based design process, architects, landscape architects, and planners can provide a visual backdrop for discussion and ideas building. While there were many clever and innovative solutions, the program calls for a low-impact path from point A to B, one that safely directs humans to Trestles and allows the environment to stand out as something worth preserving.

ADA-accessibility requestment ?:florentjalon

Wed, 2010-07-28 03:28

was the ADA-accessibility requestment not so important ?
i was surprised to see "the wave" made it to the final run while without dealing whith it - since it was 1 of 5 goals set in the first competition run..
how come ?

Someone will make money from this:erikhaha

Thu, 2010-08-12 08:07

Leave Trestles the F alone. I guaran-damn-te you that Nike will use this as a free advertisement, or someone else invilved will will proffit from this.

Also, I looked at the statistics for injuries and deaths per state from the
"Operation Lifesaver" web site and here is their data for the ENTIRE state of California:

Xing Collisions = 111, Xing Fatalities=30, Xing Injuries=30, Trespass Fatalities=61,Trespass Injuries=42

I would be curious to see a comparison as to the amount of injuries/deaths of people due to your so called "Un safe crossing" versus injuries/deaths due to surfing trestles that have occured since people started surfing here.

I bet that there are more injuries due to surfing rather then crossing the tracks.

Look, if you want to keep people out of the woods and marshlands there put up some type of barrier/ fence, but please do not build some modern architectural bullsh1t that only attracts more people therefore ruining everyones surfing experience.

Let people experience surfing as it was intended to be, without built pathways and signs to lead you to your destination.

Thanks for your comments. At:alix ogilvie

Fri, 2010-08-13 11:11

Thanks for your comments. At this point we're only asking questions and exploring ideas to create a safer place for visitors and one that protects the natural environment. It is important to remember that this is a CA State Park and is open to all members the public. The world is growing and changing beyond our control and Trestles is, for better or worse, no longer a secret. It sounds like this is more a question of access and a concern over an already over-populated wave. We're just trying to keep people from getting smooshed and from smooshing one of the last remaining natural environments in southern California.

The design goals state clearly that any trail improvements should serve not just surfers but ALL visitors to the area, while restoring and protecting the coastal environment that has been damaged by foot traffic. Please explore the design solutions currently in development -- http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/competitions/trestles#phase2. While none of them are barriers or fences as you suggest, they do encourage folks to use one path only, significantly reducing the impact on the marshes and ultimately allowing Trestles to be even "wilder" than it is today. Not sure why that's a bad thing or impacts the surfing experience -- which is in the water anyhow.

Competition Details

Name: Safe Trestles
Host: Architecture for Humanity
Type: Public
Registration Deadline: April 17, 2010
Submission Deadline: April 17, 2010
Entry Fee: $20 USD
Award: up to 5 Finalists: each awarded Phase 2 design stipend of $5,000.00+
Contact: alix ogilvie
Status: Phase 2

About Our Partners

Partners

San Onofre Foundation is a charitable organization whose mission is to provide education, protection, and preservation for the California State Parks at San Onofre and San Clemente State Beaches.

The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's oceans, waves and beaches for all people, through conservation, activism, research and education.

Architecture for Humanity is a charitable organization that seeks architectural solutions to humanitarian crisis and brings design services to communities in need. We believe that where resources and expertise are scarce, innovative, sustainable and collaborative design can make a difference.

Rebuild is the San Diego chapter of Architecture for Humanity, providing solutions to problems that face communities on a local and global level through participation in design competitions, initiating their own projects, and working together with other humanitarian and non-profit organizations.

Sponsor

Nike 6.0 defines innovation and embodies the creativity of youth, united by action. Nike 6.0 delivers footwear and apparel to support the new generation of action sports athletes who are changing the worlds of surf, snow, ski, BMX, wake and moto. Their unlimited potential and contagious energy deliver the future through performance and lifestyle.

Open Architecture Network

Safe Trestles

Phase 1 Results

Phase 2 Schedule

Press Room

Competition Details

Feedback

Additional Resources

Phase 2 Cost Estimates

Program Requirements

Discuss this item

Competition Details

About Our Partners

Who's online

Host Your Competition Online