Bridge to Nowhere?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 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!

Much like Springfield's Escalator to Nowhere. I like this plan.

[Wookie]

Aren't we just opening ourselves up to the possibility of terrorist attacks with these "large expensive super bridges?"

Do we really need more places for homeless people to sleep?

All kidding aside, I think they'd look great 3 months of the year maybe 4, but the other 7 months Calgary is brown/dead/dirty/snowy/icy/gravelly and nothing really looks nice in this city. Maybe the odd time it has just snowed before it's partly melted and dirty again.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

And yet, Glenmore, Deerfoot, Macleod, Crowchild, Anderson, 14th Street SW, McKnight and John Laurie are used by a small minority? I think you'd find these roads have way more usage... or at the absolute minimum, about the same.

If Calgary does not support a balanced approach that includes suburban single detached homes... Cochrane and Airdrie will... and that will intensify issues, and wrest planning control away from Calgary.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by fotze

That price tag is really seeming ridiculous as well. I'm going to try and find out why.

Perhaps with your connections you can find the cost of similar artsy projects. I was doing a bit of quick googling and found that some of this designers other bridges cost in the $30M range almost 10 years ago. I don't know how the materials or size of those projects compare to what may be in store for Calgary plus more detailed numbers are hard to come by on the internets.

Maybe the cost of being artsy really is in the $25M range?

[WhiteTom]

Originally Posted by Wookie

All kidding aside, I think they'd look great 3 months of the year maybe 4, but the other 7 months Calgary is brown/dead/dirty/snowy/icy/gravelly and nothing really looks nice in this city. Maybe the odd time it has just snowed before it's partly melted and dirty again.

Maybe this is part of the reason why it is so expensive, they need to engineer a way to make it look good when there is 8 tonnes of snow and gravel on it.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

People at large are not going to travel the world to see a freaking pedestrian bridge that traverses a small river. It may look nice, but its nothing special. Maybe a few architecture buffs here and there will make a trip.

Bridges that are special tourist attractions tend to be unique... as in they do something others haven't, or are historical. Traversing the "mighty" Bow River is not going to put this thing on any level that will provide any financial return on what will likely be a $50 million white elephant.

Like I said, I can understand not cheaping out on ugly... but a world class pedestrian bridge is about on par with owning a solid gold toilet seat.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

And yet, Glenmore, Deerfoot, Macleod, Crowchild, Anderson, 14th Street SW, McKnight and John Laurie are used by a small minority? I think you'd find these roads have way more usage... or at the absolute minimum, about the same.

Most of these are clearly not streets i was talking about. I'm talking about the miles and miles of suburban housing roads on the fringe of the city. The streets you mentioned are important arterial roads.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

People at large are not going to travel the world to see a freaking pedestrian bridge that traverses a small river. It may look nice, but its nothing special. Maybe a few architecture buffs here and there will make a trip.

Ugh, is it really all or nothing though? Do you not realize that the city has to start somewhere? No, we're not going to become frickin London overnight, but the change has to happen somehow. Winnipeg's pedestrian bridge isnt going to turn it into some magical city either, but it's helped the city gain attention and you'd be surprised about the amount of civic pride generated over it.

When you consider the amount of money that the city is wasting trying to maintain it's massive road network to support some soccer mom in Tuscany, $25 million to build a bridge that will levate your city (even if just a bit on the world-stage) is not that big of a deal.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Maybe the cost of being artsy really is in the $25M range?

London's Millennium Bridge cost around 18 million Pounds...so it's in the ballpark.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Ugh, is it really all or nothing with some of you? Do you not realize that the city has to start somewhere? No, we're not going to become frickin London overnight, but the change has to happen somehow.

When you consider the amount of money that the city is wasting trying to maintain it's massive road network to support some soccer mom in Tuscany, $25 million to build a bridge that will levate your city (even if just a bit on the world-stage) is not that big of a deal.

Let me get this straight... lets blow the wad on some flashy bridges, because if we waste enough money, we might be able to buy enough culture to be able to be in visual distance of London's urban league? Calgary is a historical footnote, and a young, relatively cultureless, mid-size city. Frankly, it needs to act like what it is and get its act together before trying to mimic the major players. Calgary has a ways to grow before it has the critical mass to undertake flashy projects. Communities like Tuscany may not be the most efficient, but it is, regardless of your opinion, what the majority desires... communities like Tuscany also reduce demand on the inner city properties making them more affordable for those who actually want the congested inner-city lifestyle.

Calgary has an obligation to maintain that road system, because if the City of Calgary refuses to build suburban communities with detached dwellings, a neighboring city will. The end result of that is even worse as you will have huge satellite cities leaching off the core with no tax return. Calgary whines about Okotoks, Airdrie and Cochrane now... imagine if they were three times bigger. Of course, could they build better suburbs than Tuscany? You bet.

Back on topic, Calgary does not have to spend $50 million on two pedestrian bridges that will be used by a relatively small population... a much smaller population than those who use the "sprawling road network."

If Calgary wants to blow money on grand projects, do so with Libraries, Post-Secondary facilities, Stadia, Concert Halls, Museums, etc. Things that add actual value to a city and actually bring in some real income. Not two grossly overpriced bridges.

$50 million would go a long way towards a multi-purpose stadium capable of football, soccer, outdoor concerts and other major events.

[CaptainCrunch]

geez, you'd think for 30 mill we could build a solid gold statue of Digum

[Bunk]

The Calgary Sun even gets the value in these Bridges!!!

Read

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...721321-sun.php

For all the whiners - the City drops BILLIONS into suburban interchanges so that people can cut down their commute by 5 minutes. For urban dwellers - these are their interchanges - for people who live close and bike and walk everwhere. Even suburban interchanges get upgrades to improve their appearance.

Downtown, our river pathway are our showcase to the world. Beauty is an important component to attracting more people to downtown to live, to visit and so forth. This is how people's images of Calgary are forged.

Bring on the Bridges!

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Let me get this straight... lets blow the wad on some flashy bridges, because if we waste enough money, we might be able to buy enough culture to be comparable to London?

What do we pride ourselves on tourists saying when they come to Calgary? Wow, what a clean city!

No, people won't go home and tell everybody "You gotta go to Calgary. They have this bridge......." But a nice looking bridge will help the appearance of the city; and that appearance is of a clean city.

I still stand by the fact that it shouldn't cost 150% more to make a pretty bridge though.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Blinkin Rick should be the next Mayor, hes one of the only ones who spends our money carefully. ^^ its supposed to be a pedestrian bridge not a giant harp..

Could not agree more. I'm tired of rich people being in charge, and then being in their position so long they lose all grip on reality for the everyday citizen.

Actually, BurnThisCity has made some excellent points throughout this thread.

Cities like London and Paris had their amazing buildings built hundreds of years ago. Calgary is barely 100 (I think). When I lived in Germany, I lived in a town that was 720 years old and looked straight out of Beauty and the Beast.

I am sick of people saying Calgary has no culture. It is in our people, music, sports, and access to greenspaces, the mountains, camping/4x4ing.

People who think gay looking buildings mean culture should head to Church Street in Toronto. You'll find a whole shwack of gay buildings there (not that they really look all that different except the flags...).

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What do we pride ourselves on tourists saying when they come to Calgary? Wow, what a clean city!

No, people won't go home and tell everybody "You gotta go to Calgary. They have this bridge......." But a nice looking bridge will help the appearance of the city; and that appearance is of a clean city.

I still stand by the fact that it shouldn't cost 150% more to make a pretty bridge though.

Hey, I'm with you on that. I don't see why they couldn't do that on a much more conservative budget. Its the budget that makes it an issue.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

Ouch. You'd be surprised how internationally-recognized the courthouse builiding is becoming. It's arguably alot more well-designed than 'ever other office building' as you say. Have you been in there? There's a 24-story, floor-to-ceiling atrium connecting both structures, which is truely impressive, for starters.

[Superflyer]

It seems to me that for the $25 mil, it is about half for the bridge and half for the famous engineer to put his name on it. Sure we are not as big and fancy as Paris and London etc, but they have hundreds of years on us.
So why not put out a bid for local engineers to develop fancy bridges, I am sure that we can find some that will actually represent Calgary in a good way and not just some 100 foot harp. That way we can spend half the money, then as we slowly build nicer looking bridges, buildings and such and people start to take notice, and maybe even come to Calgary to see the amazing structures that we have, then we can get some famous guy to build something for us.
This reminds me of the Opera house from the Simpsons.

[CaptainCrunch]

Better yet, we could open a contest where school children draw their ideas for a bridge, and then college student engineers make it reality.

"Yeah honey, I'm going to walk to work today, right over the Hannah Montana cross over"

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Muta

Ouch. You'd be surprised how internationally-recognized the courthouse builiding is becoming. It's arguably alot more well-designed than 'ever other office building' as you say. Have you been in there? There's a 24-story, floor-to-ceiling atrium connecting both structures, which is truely impressive, for starters.

Yes, I would be surprised, but I don't buy it. Do you have any sort of proof of this international recognition? It may be getting recognition for its size, but it can't be for its appearance.

I work on the next block over from this building, I have to see it every day. It's visually not a good courthouse.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Cities like London and Paris had their amazing buildings built hundreds of years ago. Calgary is barely 100 (I think). When I lived in Germany, I lived in a town that was 720 years old and looked straight out of Beauty and the Beast.

so at what point in time can calgary officially start doing the same? apparently its all about age.