The only real negative against the Calgary Tower I find is it's height. Could have a bit more standout and colour in the night sky as well. But it should be the highest building in the city, and clearly is not the case anymore. Buildings are starting to block it's view from certain angles, and this will continue in the long term future. It's not a problem now, but the tower should get a height extension when more skyscrapers surrounds it. So it can be a dominate and most noticeable sight on the skyline once again.
^^^ I agree. The Calgary Tower and the saddledome are the two building landmarks that define Calgary. The saddledome is going to get replaced eventually so that will leave us with only the tower. The tower should be the highest building. Unfortunately raising it will never happen.
I do like the new bridge though. Can't wait till it's finished.
Or the third one, we look at the chinese finger trap and thank god that Bronco and the rest of the city council are unemployed, then watch the bright red paint slowly fade to pink because maintaining just isn't worth it, then one day we look at this pinkish huge tubular shape and remark that it looks like a huge . . .
This "third option" is encompassed by the second. "Overwhelming acceptance" does not mean "accepted by each and every citizen" and thus leaves room for the tiny segment that, say, 10 years from now will still bitterly look upon it and refuse to acknowledge that there might be a shred of good that came from it. This tiny segment currently makes up a portion of those that see the bridge, in and of itself, as a huge travesty and the single biggest issue in a municipal election.
Now, in an older thread, CaptainCrunch, you and I were more or less in agreement on the fact that this bridge does have issues surrounding it, many of which go far beyond the single example of the bridge. I am not ignoring that fact with my comments, and they are important. That said, most of your comments regarding the bridge, and in particular, its design (including the latest of many Austin Powers "it looks like a huge... ") come off as rather bitter. While there's no accounting for taste (including taste in bridge designs) or discretion in the overuse of decade-old pop culture references, I'm mostly taking issue with the way you state them. This is especially true in your lack of regard (in past posts, not necessarily this one) for the significant design and engineering challenges this project presented, and how they were solved. Calling it a "lazy" undertaking, as you have a few times before, is ignorant, to put it bluntly.
Speaking of the design, phallic forms aren't exactly new to architecture (bridges, buildings, monuments or otherwise). Look at almost any tower in any downtown. A shining example is the Calgary Tower. Hell, the Calgary tower actually has two smaller, square-formed buildings proposed for either side of it that have been colloquially been referred to by those in-the-know as "the nuts," "the balls," or "the testes." I'd say more than half of large architectural pieces could have the penis reference leveled against them. It's the nature of the beast. A covered bridge that is much longer than it is wide, or an upright building with similar proportions just might come out looking sort-of like a penis. Amazing to think.
By the way, my offer from a previous thread still stands:
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
If you break it down equally for all Albertans, we all pay about $7.00 for the bridge, amortized over the lifespan of the bridge, 80 years (this is a common way of accounting for the costs of capital infrastructure projects).
If you PM me your address, I will send you $0.10 every January 1st for the next 80 years. Please indicate in your message if you would like a dime or a combination of nickels and pennies.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
^^^ I agree. The Calgary Tower and the saddledome are the two building landmarks that define Calgary. The saddledome is going to get replaced eventually so that will leave us with only the tower. The tower should be the highest building. Unfortunately raising it will never happen.
I do like the new bridge though. Can't wait till it's finished.
Not happening because it's not possible? Or not happening because it's not feasible due to cost? If latter, it can be raised up. About 90 meters higher if I recall correctly.
I have never thought of the tower as a skyline symbol, more of just a relic that has passed its time.
That's how I think of it as well. That said, spending a few mill giving the tower a facelift could be money well spent in the interest of sprucing up the downtown. It's a little... concrete-y, but slap a coat of makeup on her, and she'd be good to go!
This "third option" is encompassed by the second. "Overwhelming acceptance" does not mean "accepted by each and every citizen" and thus leaves room for the tiny segment that, say, 10 years from now will still bitterly look upon it and refuse to acknowledge that there might be a shred of good that came from it. This tiny segment currently makes up a portion of those that see the bridge, in and of itself, as a huge travesty and the single biggest issue in a municipal election.
I have no bitterness towards the bridge, its an inanimate object. I have problems with the look of the bridge, I have trouble with how it came to be, I have trouble with the cynical after the fact naming of the bridge. I have trouble that we're building something thats suppossed to encourage environmental friendliness, yet we're building most of it overseas, shipping it across the ocean and then driving it across the country.
To me the whole process and the bridge itself smacks of hypocrisy.
I think its a silly looking design, and it does nothing for me. I've seen some Calavtra bridge designs that I really admire, this isn't one of them. And I don't see myself as a tourist visiting a town because of a bridge.
I think that a lot of Calgarians are going to view this bridge as a monument dedicated to the arrogance of City Hall, and one more thing that this city failed to handle in a proper manner. I do feel that when everything is said and done this bridge will probably end up over budget just like everything else that this council has handled.
I don't deny that this city deserves nice things, but to me this bridge is ridiculous, and forgive me if I find that the design looks lazy and accidental.
Isn't the point of a bridge like this to impress, maybe give a little awe, maybe stir something in your chest. This doesn't do that for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
Now, in an older thread, CaptainCrunch, you and I were more or less in agreement on the fact that this bridge does have issues surrounding it, many of which go far beyond the single example of the bridge. I am not ignoring that fact with my comments, and they are important. That said, most of your comments regarding the bridge, and in particular, its design (including the latest of many Austin Powers "it looks like a huge... ") come off as rather bitter. While there's no accounting for taste (including taste in bridge designs) or discretion in the overuse of decade-old pop culture references, I'm mostly taking issue with the way you state them. This is especially true in your lack of regard (in past posts, not necessarily this one) for the significant design and engineering challenges this project presented, and how they were solved. Calling it a "lazy" undertaking, as you have a few times before, is ignorant, to put it bluntly.
We have a difference of opinions, but to me this looks like the designer laid a used towel roll across to piles of books separated by a difference slightly smaller then the towel roll drew some lines on it and yelled Eureka.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
Speaking of the design, phallic forms aren't exactly new to architecture (bridges, buildings, monuments or otherwise). Look at almost any tower in any downtown. A shining example is the Calgary Tower. Hell, the Calgary tower actually has two smaller, square-formed buildings proposed for either side of it that have been colloquially been referred to by those in-the-know as "the nuts," "the balls," or "the testes." I'd say more than half of large architectural pieces could have the penis reference leveled against them. It's the nature of the beast. A covered bridge that is much longer than it is wide, or an upright building with similar proportions just might come out looking sort-of like a penis. Amazing to think.
By the way, my offer from a previous thread still stands:
I know that a great deal of architecture is phallic in nature, I'm not new. Who hasn't snickered when it Washington when you see the Washington Monument.
I find the Austin Powers thing amusing, because everytime I see pictures of this bridge design I have flashbacks to those scenes.
Oh and I don't want money or bribery, I'm interested in seeing what the final election results are and how this bridge factored into peoples voting decisions.
Its too late to send the bridge back and get our money back. We as Calgarian's have to live with it. Its done, its just too bad that we got something that IMHO is so underwhelming.
I look at Calatrava bridge designs, and I just think that this thing looks lazy.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
How would they raise the tower keeping the proportions the same? They'd have to raise from the base no? Doesn't seem possible to me.
I don't have an exact linked reference I can, but there have been studies that has shown that the tower can be extended without altering the base, or at least isn't a task that requires a lot of magic.
Checking wikipedia, there was a Calgary Herald article in 2001 talking about the tower and it's height extensions possibilities.
Quote:
A study was conducted in 1982 that proposed building an additional 85 metres (279 ft) shaft on top of the existing pod that would feature a second observation deck. The plan was never seriously considered, however, and the owners of the tower remain satisfied with its height.
Ah, so that would drastically change the shape and proportions of the top then.
Something that IMO shouldn't be messed with. Unless the base can be raised and extended outwards to keep the angles the same, leave it be.
Not happening because it's not possible? Or not happening because it's not feasible due to cost? If latter, it can be raised up. About 90 meters higher if I recall correctly.
Because of feasibility. It would cost a lot and I'm not sure it would give any profit. It would be hard to find someone to invest in such a project. With today's technology I'"m sure the latter isn'"t as big of a problem.
I have trouble that we're building something thats suppossed to encourage environmental friendliness, yet we're building most of it overseas, shipping it across the ocean and then driving it across the country.
And if it was constructed locally, at much greater expense, I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about the cost.
Quote:
And I don't see myself as a tourist visiting a town because of a bridge.
The town of Hartland, New Brunswick derives almost all of its tourism revenue solely because of a bridge.
That said, I doubt anyone would visit Calgary just because of one bridge, but hopefully things like the Peace Bridge and The Bow mark the beginning of a trend towards more unique architecture in the city, replacing the decades of "functional but boring" designs that have come before. Eventually, Calgary could become a tourist destination for those who seek to admire architecture. It won't happen overnight, of course, but the city has to start somewhere.
And if it was constructed locally, at much greater expense, I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about the cost.
Sure if it went over budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
The town of Hartland, New Brunswick derives almost all of its tourism revenue solely because of a bridge.
Sure, because its a historic bridge built over a century ago and holds the record as the longest covered bridge in the world.
But you can't point to a town of under a thousand people and compare its tourism industry to a city like Calgary which has already has a thriving tourism industry because of events like the Stampede, and is linked to the Rocky Mountains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
That said, I doubt anyone would visit Calgary just because of one bridge, but hopefully things like the Peace Bridge and The Bow mark the beginning of a trend towards more unique architecture in the city, replacing the decades of "functional but boring" designs that have come before. Eventually, Calgary could become a tourist destination for those who seek to admire architecture. It won't happen overnight, of course, but the city has to start somewhere.
Sure, I have no complaints about building unique structures, I have problems with the way this bridge came about, and I don't think that this bridge is awe inspiring enough to get someone to plan a trip with the intent of seeing it.
I would go and see the bridge in Heartland because in its time and up until today its a record holding bridge and a marvel of construction in its own time, but I wouldn't make it the focal point of my trip.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I have never met anyone who has ever made a bridge a focal point of any trip. Golden Gate Bridge even.
Honestly, if it were my town I would be concerned about 2 things mainly.
1. Will it look nice or will it be an eyesore?
2. How much did the dumb tits blow on it?
I don't think anyone except major nerds go somewhere to see one piece of architecture. It's more about starting somewhere and building a portfolio so that people actually make a point of staying in town, spending some time here, and not just using it as an overnight layover on the way to Banff.
The Following User Says Thank You to yads For This Useful Post:
