Each finalist presented distinct solutions but addressed similar pressing issues. In each design, safety measures dictated a need for more activity along the bridge and outside areas. According to public policy professor Sarah Coffin, Ph.D., increased activity will reduce crime and encourage public transportation usage. How activity will be increased, though, is a question each losing finalist answered differently.

In contrast to the winning Harvard group, another Harvard group, called “Aurora,” proposed to resurrect the grid system, encouraging markets to grow below the bridge. The design’s science was not “precise and as well thought-out” as its winning contender, Coffin said. Aurora proposed the creation of a biotech research, development and entrepreneurial center that represents Saint Louis University’s interface with the local biotech industry.

The Columbia group “+20” approach was what Coffin considers “the outlier.” Coffin was surprised that the group utilized an approach that urbanists deemed “a bad idea a long time ago. Divorcing pedestrians from the street will never work.” The group did not see any solutions to the current bridge and rail, permitting construction around the current structures but still encouraging preservation of green space.

Berkeley, on the other hand, realistically aimed to re-establish the neighborhood and “knit the bridge back into the fabric of the city and make it blend back in,” said Coffin. “[The group named Weave] looked at Grand Avenue as a primary connector and suggested secondary connectors,” including between the Frost and Health Sciences campuses. Weave reinforced the vision of a community developed around transit and other urban amenities.