Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Claeren · 09-19-2009, 10:04 AM

Seems like most are going to forget that the Calatrava bridge:

1) Is only $25M. While it seemed a lot at first, looking at these other bridges it may be the cheapest bridge proposed out of all of them.

2) It was designed with the engineering in mind (and in house). I am not sure any of these other bridges are.

3a) It did not have (and was not allowed to have) pillars in the water over a very long span.

3b) It did not have (and was not allowed to have) pylons up in the air to suspend the bridge off of.

(3a + 3b is a significant engineering and cost and design issue all of which was successfully addressed by Calatrava's design)

4) Anyone who thinks Calatrava's design will not stand the test of time did not see these other horrible looking monstrosities. Most are at best gimmicky and at worst hideous.

I am kind of concerned if that is the best of the bunch.

Claeren.

09-19-2009, 10:04 AM	#5
Claeren Franchise Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Section 218 Exp:	Seems like most are going to forget that the Calatrava bridge: 1) Is only $25M. While it seemed a lot at first, looking at these other bridges it may be the cheapest bridge proposed out of all of them. 2) It was designed with the engineering in mind (and in house). I am not sure any of these other bridges are. 3a) It did not have (and was not allowed to have) pillars in the water over a very long span. 3b) It did not have (and was not allowed to have) pylons up in the air to suspend the bridge off of. (3a + 3b is a significant engineering and cost and design issue all of which was successfully addressed by Calatrava's design) 4) Anyone who thinks Calatrava's design will not stand the test of time did not see these other horrible looking monstrosities. Most are at best gimmicky and at worst hideous. I am kind of concerned if that is the best of the bunch. Claeren. Last edited by Claeren; 09-19-2009 at 10:15 AM.