Historic Districts Review Board designates Shelby Street footbridge contributing and approves stone-faced replacement plan

The Historic Districts Review Board voted in July 2025 to designate the Shelby Street footbridge as a contributing structure to the downtown and East Side historic district and to approve a conditional demolition and replacement plan that requires the new structure to closely match the existing bridge’s appearance.

Staff recommended the contributing designation after noting the footbridge, built in 1968, now meets the 50-year threshold for local review and contributes to the parkway’s character. Lanny, the board’s staff presenter, told members that "staff recommends contributing status for the Shelby Street footbridge" and that the bridge "helps to establish and maintain the character of the downtown and East Side historic District." The board adopted that recommendation in a roll-call vote.

The board also considered a separate application asking to demolish the existing bridge and a reconstruction application with two design options. An engineering evaluation from Wilson and Company, summarized in the staff report, concluded the bridge is "structurally deficient with its excessive damage and functionally obsolete" and recommended demolition and replacement. Lanny read the evaluation aloud: "it can be determined that the bridge is both structurally deficient with its excessive damage and functionally obsolete...it is recommended that this bridge be demolished and replaced with a new structure." The bridge has been closed since 2022 because of holes in the walkway and rusted reinforcement.

Nicole Ramirez Thomas, who said she is assisting the Parks and Open Space Division on the project, told the board the city requested a noncontributing determination originally because that would avoid creating a "false sense of history" within the National Register site. Ramirez Thomas said the division nonetheless anticipated public preference for a stone appearance and presented two designs: a modern metal-and-stucco option and a stone-faced option that emulates the existing bridge. She said the city would prefer to reuse original stone where feasible but described technical constraints that may require a stone veneer rather than heavy, load-bearing stone.

Parks and Open Space Director Melissa McDonald described budget and schedule constraints. "The stone option is coming in anywhere between $750,000 to a million dollars to build that bridge," McDonald said, and added the city is seeking state funding that would be jeopardized if work is not under contract before the legislature’s deadlines. Board members repeatedly raised scheduling and materials concerns; several asked for the final stone treatment and details about railings and deck material to return to the board.

Public commenters urged the board to retain the bridge’s appearance. Jerry Richardson said, "I've always loved it and thought it added a lot of charm to the town," and several neighbors and preservation advocates urged a stone replacement that matched the original character.

After discussion, the board approved demolition with a condition that the replacement "match the existing bridge in appearance and reuse the existing stones of the bridge" where practicable. The board then denied the modern metal option and granted conditional approval to the stone-faced design (design option 2) on the following terms: final plans must show materials and detailing that emulate the existing bridge’s massing, pattern and texture; artificial stone facades are prohibited; the city must salvage and reuse existing stone where feasible; any deviations to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act or engineering requirements must be the minimum necessary; and final plans must be submitted to staff for approval or returned to the board if staff is uncertain they meet the board’s direction.

Board members and staff noted that the rail height and width must meet current accessibility and safety standards. The applicant’s packet described increasing the span from 37 to 42 feet, widening the deck from 4 feet to 6 feet and raising the rail from 18 inches; staff later indicated the minimum rail height must meet code (42 inches). Project engineer Tyler Ashton explained the increased length would allow new abutments to be placed behind the existing limestone channel lining to minimize disturbance.

The board’s actions were driven by two competing goals: preserving the parkway’s historic character and meeting contemporary structural, flood and accessibility standards. Melissa McDonald told the board the city is committed to rebuilding quickly: "it’s the city's commitment to try to rebuild this bridge quickly because it's been, not in repair for 2 years." The board’s conditions direct the applicant to produce detailed final drawings and material samples showing how the stone, mortar joints and railings will match the existing character; staff may approve those details or bring them back to the board.

The board voted separately on (1) status designation (adopting staff’s recommendation that the bridge be designated contributing), (2) the demolition request (approved with the condition that reconstruction match the existing appearance), and (3) the reconstruction (denying the modern metal option and approving the stone-faced option 2 subject to the conditions above).