Bridge to Nowhere?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by nik-

This city needs to focus a bit on aesthetics now instead of purely functionality.

Public structures and spaces are what makes a city great. People like Ric McIvor are the reason we have a huge courthouse downtown that looks like every other office building instead of the great building it could have been.

Quite frankly I'd take a better standard of living and quality of life over having a couple of pretty $25 million pedestrian bridges. Assumbing Calgary has close 200,000 property owners that's an average cost of $250 per property owner just for these two stinking pedetrian bridges assuming no cost inflation due to typical city hall incompetance. If they built a series of bridges and improved pathways for that cash (Which I figure they could do for that amount), it would do a much greater service to our people and city.

I agree that making things look pretty can sometimes be beneficial and help the aura of the city, but not on the scale of cost of this proposal.

[octothorp]

I'm all for the city making sure that its infrastructure investments in the core are noteworthy and culturally significant, I just don't think that a footbridge that will service a fairly small number of people is a worthwhile investment. And again, I say that as one of the few people who will benefit. It would be different if it was linking a high-density residential area to downtown, or linking downtown to a semi-commercial neighbourhood (like Bridgeland). Lazy joggers who don't want to do the whole princess island / LRT bridge loop now have a shorter option. And I guess access the island for festivals will be improved slightly. But I'd rather this money be spent on bringing cultural significance to more important city buildings (such as building a world-class public library downtown).

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You sure got a lot of pre-packaged soundbites at the ready. Who's trying to "fix the problem overnight"? Nobody is "throwing money". All the city is trying to do is slowly and surely emerge from cultural wasteland status.

I find it appalling you consider this city a cultural wasteland. Do you honestly think spending $25 million on a couple goofy bridges is going to accomplish anything?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by octothorp

But I'd rather this money be spent on bringing cultural significance to more important city buildings (such as building a world-class public library downtown).

That's already happening as well...or atleast is in the process.

The thing is you hear a lot of noise from Calgary about how it's emerging as a player on the world-stage. Well, if that is truly the case, it's time to start comparing yourselves to world-class cities....and frankly, when it comes to culture, aesthetics and a depth of culture, it's really behind. It needs to go beyond utilitarian, because some the flash is what sells to the rest of the world.

If Calgary wants to compare itself to Edmonton, then sure, the status quo is fine. But if you are going to want to compare yourself to places like Toronto or Vancouver...time to step up, gentleman.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I find it appalling you consider this city a cultural wasteland. Do you honestly think spending $25 million on a couple goofy bridges is going to accomplish anything?

No, I bet the poster doesn't at all. But rather hundreds of billions on goofy everythings over the next 30 years should!

This is just step one.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I find it appalling you consider this city a cultural wasteland. Do you honestly think spending $25 million on a couple goofy bridges is going to accomplish anything?

Sorry Charlie, it is.

I went to art school in Calgary and was immersed in the cultural scene to a pretty good extent in the city (still have a lot of contacts back home). Virtually everyone i know there who wanted to advance further has left the city. Bright, talented people left because they had absolutely no way of flourishing in the city because there was just no support form city leaders, the business community, or people in general. Some of them tried for a few years, some of them are still trying, but when the majority of people think like you, why bother? It's much easier to leave and go somewhere where you can actually make a mark.

And I'm not talking hippie dippie art fags. I'm talking architects, musicians, designers, advertising execs...

Calgary needs to start developing itself in this regard. I think the amount of people who appreciate this kind of stuff is growing ( I mean no offense, 5 years ago 100% of this forum wouldbe been against this bridge). The city has done a great deal to put itself on the map in financial and business terms. Now its time to develop the rest of itself.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If Calgary wants to compare itself to Edmonton, then sure, the status quo is fine. But if you are going to want to compare yourself to places like Toronto or Vancouver...time to step up, gentleman.

Fine let's get to the 2 or 3 million population mark first. I dont' think blowing our load on estetics while either bankrupting the city or jacking up property taxes ever so higher will help our casue towards building a large enough population base to call ourselves a world-class city.

[JD]

Frankly I find the culture argument hilarious. How does a fancy expensive bridge change the culture? The culture of our city is suburbanite families taking their kids to hockey and participating in outdoor activities like camping, fishing, hiking, skiing, hunting, and the occasional world-class rodeo.

If that's not your kind of culture I guess you're in the wrong city!

Going outside of the country to get an expensive architect to design a gaudy structure doesn't seem culturally significant to me. Maybe I'm just out of touch.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Sorry Charlie, it is.

I went to school in Calgary and was immersed in the arts in the city. Virtually everyone i know there who wanted to advance further has left the city. Bright, talented people left because they had absolutely no way of flourishing in the city. Some of them tried for a few years, some of them are still trying, but when the majority of people think like you, why bother? It's much easier to leave and go somewhere where you can actually make a mark.

Thats probably the case with 99% of cities. Not every city can be a dazzling cultural beacon renown throughout the world.

[GGG]

I much perfer the bow bringing in a world famous sculpture guy to do public art paid for by Encana/ whoever own's it now then the city funding it. I like the city's beautification policy of spending 1% of TIC on making it look nice but these bridges are ridiculus. 25 million for a 5 million dollar bridge. Say all you want about being world class but at 5 times the cost I will take second class anyday.

When you go to london the only new structures were the millenium projects everything else built in the last hundred years has been strictly utilitarian. Hiring a architect who adds 5% to a billion dollar building to make it a signiture buliding is a lot better then spending 500% more on a new bridge.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Thats probably the case with 99% of cities. Not every city can be a dazzling cultural beacon renown throughout the world.

Why not friggin try? With your defeatist attitude, you should head the Canadian Soccer Association.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by GGG

When you go to london the only new structures were the millenium projects everything else built in the last hundred years has been strictly utilitarian.

London is one of the most architecture friendly cities in the world.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Why not friggin try? With your defeatist attitude, you should head the Canadian Soccer Association.

I just don't see why we should be wasting money when it could be better spent elsewhere. We have such a low population density it seems ludicrious to spend that much money when a realistic option is 1/4 the price. Why build a fancy 4 lane overpass when a 6 laner could be built in its place for the same price that flows 30% more traffic. I guess rolling through bumper to bumper traffic would be more palatable if I had something purdy to look at.

[ken0042]

I just wish there was some middle ground.

I have seen in other cities where a nice bridge contributes to the skyline, or at least makes it more picturesque. I'm thinking how much everybody raves about the new Provencher Bridge in Winnipeg, but that might also be because there's nothing else good in Winnipeg.

I just don't see how you can have a fully functional bridge for $10M, but it takes $15M more to make it look good. Couldn't something be done for an extra $2M and make everybody happy?

[pepper24]

Hopefully our city handles this better than that chick up in Alaska.

[Thunderball]

I can understand not cheaping out on two communist bloc looking bridges.

What I can't understand is blowing a gaping hole in the budget for two freaking pedestrian bridges.

Couldn't $25m buy two bridges that look nice, but didn't have to be designed by Calatrava?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I just don't see why we should be wasting money when it could be better spent elsewhere. We have such a low population density it seems ludicrious to spend that much money when a realistic option is 1/4 the price. Why build a fancy 4 lane overpass when a 6 laner could be built in its place for the same price that flows 30% more traffic. I guess rolling through bumper to bumper traffic would be more palatable if I had something purdy to look at.

The fact that you have such low population density makes you spend a ton lot more money on roads to begin with. You have to not only lay cement to all those far-flung suburbs, install lights and intersections, but also pay to mantain them. A city with a smaller footprint would be able to have less, but BETTER roads, and not spend so much to maintain them.

Do you really want the city to stop wasting money? Ask it not to support the constant sprawl of the city which makes every citizen pay for a road network the majority of it never uses. Atleast the roads and bridges in the inner city are used by almost everyone.

[worth]

I say we build a $25 million bridge that goes vertical instead of horizontal. That will garner us some attention and make our city have 100% culture just like in Civilization IV and then Montana will want to become a part of our province because of our culture and we will Annex them. Then the world will be ours!

[kevman]

As someone that might use it and someone that likes those corny landmarks in his city I'm all for it. However, if we end up getting something like that BP bridge that makes me walks through curves to cross the river adding to my commute I'll be back to using the train underpass like I do every other day. On the plus side I'll be able to look at the pretty bridge from the old functional bridge I use...

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

What I can't understand is blowing a gaping hole in the budget for two freaking pedestrian bridges.

Building pretty things causes people outside of your city to take notice. Notice enough to come visit your pretty things and spend their pretty money on goods and services. This could lead to more tax income for the city, allowing for the building of other pretty (and not so pretty) things.

Iconic structures are like investments. A little bit extra can go a long way. Nobody will visit a half-assed structure. You have to use your whole ass.