Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[BlackArcher101]

Should give it the arc of an artillery shell.

[Jedi Ninja]

I predict that it will look like a chinese finger torture trap.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

You're right. They should have just made it like this:

Originally Posted by fotze

Sort of like this I am guessing, but red and spanning the river.

Not much different IMO

[CaptainCrunch]

And this couldn't have been designed by a Calgary based firm?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And this couldn't have been designed by a Calgary based firm?

Honestly, not really.
Calgary based firms get the vast majority of Calgary architecture projects out there, and the results speak for themselves....boxy, conservative, and mostly of poor, contrived imagination. I wouldn't worry about them, they'll have their chances on other projects, and most of the will continue producing the same crap.

Not to say there aren't good local architects (S2, Jeremy Sturgess for one), but honestly, it's much easier to get better results if you look outside of the city. There's a reason why most creative types from the city end up going to Toronto, NY, London....the city doesn't really support/appreciate their industry, so they in the end abandoning it, and you get left with 2nd tier talent which ends up building lackluster things. It's a bit of a vicious circle, but that's the way it is.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Not much different IMO

That is not a Calatrava. The difference will be there.

[Bigtime]

You like S2 Table 5? Perhaps I'm not familiar with some better work that they have done. I'm thinking of their stuff like Vantage Pointe and the Stampede casino.

Sturgess though, he is the man. I'm hoping he takes a crack at the 2nd pedestrian bridge in the east village. I was also surprised he didn't work with any of the bidders for the Cantos project.

[Rerun]

I'm totally against spending this much money on a pedestrian bridge. Total waste of money. Taxes are too high as it is and this extravagent usage of our tax dollars makes me want to puke.

Some people in city council are going to end up paying for this by not getting their jobs back in the next election. People will remember.

[CaptainCrunch]

Nobody has been able to prove to me that tourists are going to come to town to view a pedestrian overpass.

While its nice to have projects that make the city prettier, I find it wrong that its happening at this time.

I have this horrible view of a bright red slinky going over the river.

I just don't see the point of this.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nobody has been able to prove to me that tourists are going to come to town to view a pedestrian overpass.

While its nice to have projects that make the city prettier, I find it wrong that its happening at this time.

I have this horrible view of a bright red slinky going over the river.

I just don't see the point of this.

Tourists will not come here to see the bridge on its own if that is what you mean...just like no one comes here to see the Calgary Tower on its own. It doesn't mean that the Tower is not a tourist attraction though?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I'm totally against spending this much money on a pedestrian bridge. Total waste of money. Taxes are too high as it is and this extravagent usage of our tax dollars makes me want to puke.

Some people in city council are going to end up paying for this by not getting their jobs back in the next election. People will remember.

RABBLE ... RABBLE RABBLE!



I find it hilarious that people decide to use THIS expense to complain about use of taxes.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

You like S2 Table 5? Perhaps I'm not familiar with some better work that they have done. I'm thinking of their stuff like Vantage Pointe and the Stampede casino.

Haha, actually, no, no i don't! I totally made a mind fart, and I meant to say Eleven Eleven. Something about confusing numbers....

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by nik-

I find it hilarious that people decide to use THIS expense to complain about use of taxes.

No kidding. People are totally cool with spending millions on some random interchange on the edge of town that they will never ever use, but something in the middle of downtown that is accessible to everyone is apparently bad just because you know about it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nobody has been able to prove to me that tourists are going to come to town to view a pedestrian overpass.

Actually, this is a great time for the city to build stuff like this. Construction materials and trade costs are at their lowest when things are bad, so why not take advantage? When things are booming again, this thing will be twice as expensive to build. This goes for other infrastructure and city projects too. Another bonus is that something like this puts people to work who otherwise would be collecting unemployment.

Just because the optics are bad now, doesn't mean that long term it doesn't make sense.

[burn_this_city]

An interchange is just as accessible as a pedestrian bridge. One could argue the people in the edge of the city will use their overpass many more times than someone living downtown will use that bridge. Of course some people will walk to work or ride a bike ect ect but overall an overpass will be used by many more people. Most peoples complaint lies in the fact taxes have been rising rapidly and they arent seeing good value for their money in this project.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Slava

Tourists will not come here to see the bridge on its own if that is what you mean...just like no one comes here to see the Calgary Tower on its own. It doesn't mean that the Tower is not a tourist attraction though?

Yeah, I think it's part of developing an amazing waterfront, something that should be a priority for Calgary's tourism spending; the river (clean, safe, beautiful, full of fish) is one of the best assets that we have. Taking a city like Portland as an example (often a good comparable for Calgary), people may not go to Portland because of their waterfront, but people who do go to Portland usually spend a lot of time and money at the businesses along there. I think it's unfortunate that almost everywhere, we have a row of housing or a traffic corridor between the river and the business locations (Inglewood, Bridgeland, Kensington), but pretty much the whole stretch of communities through there benefit from a better waterfront.
Now, I'm not totally on-board with this particular project: the timing wasn't great, and the optics of it were so poorly managed, and I'm not totally sold on the location, either. But I can appreciate the idea behind it and the importance of projects like this in an overall vision for the city.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

An interchange is just as accessible as a pedestrian bridge. One could argue the people in the edge of the city will use their overpass many more times than someone living downtown will use that bridge. Of course some people will walk to work or ride a bike ect ect but overall an overpass will be used by many more people. Most peoples complaint lies in the fact taxes have been rising rapidly and they arent seeing good value for their money in this project.

And arguments can be made for the requirement for either one. So people just need to get off the Taxes soapbox. Infrastructure costs money, but when it comes to a piece of infrastructure crossing our river and used by tons of people, don't build a concrete block.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

An interchange is just as accessible as a pedestrian bridge. One could argue to the people in the edge of the city will use their overpass many more times than someone living downtown will use that bridge. Of course some people will walk to work or ride a bike ect ect but overall an overpass will be used by many more people.

What? How can you say that something that is in downtown (a place where most Calgarians visit frequently) will be used less then something that is used by some community in the deep south that, at best, only 5-10% of the city ever visits?

How many citizens/visitors are in Prince's Island Park every day? How many people ride to work downtown and can use this bridge to do so? This could be the world's ugliest bridge, and in the end it would still be used by more people than the most spectacular bridge in the deep south. There are valid arguments against this bridge, but yours is not one of them.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Table 5

What? How can you say that something that is in downtown (a place where most Calgarians visit frequently) will be used less then something that is used by some community in the deep south that, at best, only 5-10% of the city ever visits?

How many citizens/visitors are in Prince's Island Park every day? How many people ride to work downtown and can use this bridge to do so? This could be the world's ugliest bridge, and in the end it would still be used by more people than the most spectacular bridge in the deep south. There are valid arguments against this bridge, but yours is not one of them.

I guarantee many more cars would pass over and under an overpass than people would walk that bridge on a daily basis. Especially over the deerfoot or another highway where the majority of overpasses are constructed.

[tvp2003]

I just hope Mr. Celebrity Architect factored in Calgary winters when he designed the damn thing... imagine the reaction if the red slinky snapped in half...