Quote:
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.
|
The valid arguement is simply against the added expense of hiring Calatrava over local or more cost-effective options. My opinion now is that since the bridge has already been designed we might as well finish it as a good chunk of the frivolous expenditure has already been spent. Then it can stand as an example of either:
A) How improving the design quality of architecture can capture the imagination of Calgarians and push future projects to be more creative and thus improve the look and feel of Calgary and its residents.
OR
B) A colossal ugly waste of money that reminds Calgarians everyday as they drive, walk, or take the C-Train to work downtown of what happens when you elect people into municipal government who are both out of touch with the people of the city and can't work with numbers.
My bet is that the ultimate answer is that this project's legacy will be
both A and B depending on where you're coming from.