Bridge to Nowhere?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm all for allowing local design firms to put in a bid for the bridge. Jeremy Sturgess im sure could design something beautiful.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

Ever been inside? Its quite a nice building for what its purpose is. I don't really get why outside appearance is such a big deal. Did you buy your house because you liked the exterior?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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

The buildings they built back in the day were probably the same boring standard of the day which I'm sure some people of the day said were ugly.

Maybe a few hundred years from now, the Calgary Tower will be a lot like the Eiffel Tower (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!) because at least ours wasn't made out of scrap metal for a fair and then just left up to rust.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Ever been inside? Its quite a nice building for what its purpose is. I don't really get why outside appearance is such a big deal. Did you buy your house because you liked the exterior?

Not if he lives in the burbs in Calgary!

[Muta]

I might be in the minority, but it's about bloody time the City made a considerable investment in inner-city beautification. Pedestrian bridges, while exactly that, are still bridges - and the Bow River is as much a part of Calgary as the Calgary Tower and the Calgary Zoo are.

Hence, making the Bow River look good with these proposed bridges, especially with a signature bridge architect, is a step in the right direction for encouraging foot traffic in the inner-city, increasing tourism (no matter how small it initally may seem to be), and it's a step in the right direction for the environment as a whole in the long-term. The added effect of a beautifully designed bridge is the icing on the cake. It's about time municipal money is used for this purpose when it likely would have gone to building MORE roads for the suburbanites living witihin the City limits 3 hours south of downtown.

The key is spending that money to make the bridges worth, if not exceed, that proposed $25 million. With that kind of budget, the creative juices should not just be flowing, but violently flooding.

As someone who works in the design industry, I am very hopeful and excited about how this project will play out. Kudos to City Council for displaying a set and finally putting money into a new initiative in this City; or an initiative that has long been ignored.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The buildings they built back in the day were probably the same boring standard of the day which I'm sure some people of the day said were ugly.

bull. "Back in the day" things weren't as disposable and were built for the long-term, ensuring quality and durability. The time frame for buildings being used was hundreds of years, not decades.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Ever been inside? Its quite a nice building for what its purpose is. I don't really get why outside appearance is such a big deal. Did you buy your house because you liked the exterior?

Are you kidding? You don't get why the outside appearance of a 400+ foot tall Public Institutional building is a big deal? Are you ACTUALLY comparing this to the importance of the inside of a persons house? That post was horrible. I understand what you're trying to say, you just picked a horrible way to try and say it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Muta

As someone who works in the design industry, I am very hopeful and excited about how this project will play out. Kudos to City Council for displaying a set and finally putting money into a new initiative in this City; or an initiative that has long been ignored.

Just curious what you do? I'm in the industry myself....work for I.D. mag.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Table 5

bull. "Back in the day" things weren't as disposable and were built for the long-term, ensuring quality and durability. The time frame for buildings being used was hundreds of years, not decades.

Fair enough. Didn't think of that.

But I still think we need to be more realistic.

Calgary is a boring, docile, business city that only now with more than a million residents is beginning to flesh-out culturally.

A 25 million dollar harp for King Kong resting over the Bow IS NOT culture. It doesn't represent what being Calgarian is. As much as I hate to admit it (because I am sick of cowboy everything), the Saddledome to me is a building that is iconic of our city because its clever. There is nothing clever about fruity bridges in what was originally a frontier town.

Five bridges that allow Calgarians to do stuff IS perpetuating culture.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are you kidding? You don't get why the outside appearance of a 400+ foot tall Public Institutional building is a big deal? Are you ACTUALLY comparing this to the importance of the inside of a persons house? That post was horrible. I understand what you're trying to say, you just picked a horrible way to try and say it.

If you actually read my post I was stating its rediculous to rate a building based on the exterior alone. You make it sound like the building is 25 stories of windowless concrete.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Just curious what you do? I'm in the industry myself....work for I.D. mag.

Work for a large architectural firm here in Calgary.

[Burninator]

I'm impressed the city approved something like this. They are usually not interested in anything remotely attractive. Good on them.

Also you people that are talking about designing a good looking bridge on the cheap don't really understand how the design and build process works. If you want something that will draw attention and stand out as good looking you can't do it cheaply. First of all do the engineers in Calgary know how to design a very far out bridge? I don't know, maybe not. Second of all the construction costs are higher because it is out of the norm. It's quite simple, if you want something to look good it's cost more money.

If half the people in this thread where in charge of the planning in Calgary the city would be twice as sprawled, with twice as much asphalt and you would be completely dependant on your car to get anywhere. Not too mention how boring the city would look.

Everyone wants to improve the city and projects like this help. You can't improve a city by focusing on one thing, and shorting your drive from the outskirts is not the most important thing. We need to spread projects and money around. Calgary is not strapped for cash, we can afford to spend money to improve the city function and image at the same time.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

If you actually read my post I was stating its rediculous to rate a building based on the exterior alone. You make it sound like the building is 25 stories of windowless concrete.

I understand it's great on the inside. Unfortunately the vast majority of people who see this building see it from the outside. When it's a public building and it's being made on a grand scale, it shouldn't look like a typical 9-5 office tower. That's all I'm trying to say here. I'm not knocking the inside of the building, which I haven't seen and most people won't see.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

If you actually read my post I was stating its rediculous to rate a building based on the exterior alone. You make it sound like the building is 25 stories of windowless concrete.

I'm 100% with this, interior is just as important as the exterior.

If people want 25 stories of windowless concrete, by all means go to Russia.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Fair enough. Didn't think of that.

But I still think we need to be more realistic.

Calgary is a boring, docile, business city that only now with more than a million residents is beginning to flesh-out culturally.

A 25 million dollar harp for King Kong resting over the Bow IS NOT culture. It doesn't represent what being Calgarian is. As much as I hate to admit it (because I am sick of cowboy everything), the Saddledome to me is a building that is iconic of our city because its clever. There is nothing clever about fruity bridges in what was originally a frontier town.

Five bridges that allow Calgarians to do stuff IS perpetuating culture.

Much image is part of culture. If the surroundings are ugly, boring and uninspired people are not going to hang around that kind of stuff. Image is something that draws people in and keeps them interested. It's not everything, but denying it is missing a big part of culture.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by nik-

I understand it's great on the inside. Unfortunately the vast majority of people who see this building see it from the outside. When it's a public building and it's being made on a grand scale, it shouldn't look like a typical 9-5 office tower. That's all I'm trying to say here. I'm not knocking the inside of the building, which I haven't seen and most people won't see.

Taxpayers also want government to spend their money realistically. I bet most people couldnt justify spending an additional $50-$100 million sprucing up the exterior. There needs to be balance between, form, function, and economics.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Taxpayers also want government to spend their money realistically. I bet most people couldnt justify spending an additional $50-$100 million sprucing up the exterior. There needs to be balance between, form, function, and economics.

...especially when it comes to goverment projects. One would not believe the amount of red tape that goes behind said projects. This doesn't mean you see don't see iconic government buildings (re: Museum of Civilization in Ottawa, the proposed National Portrait Gallery for Calgary, etc.), but it does matter in which area of the government this money is allocated to and spent.

Private-sector investors and builders are different; there's more flexibility in their spending and vision. The public sector has to take MANY factors into consideration when contemplating building a new structure.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by josh white

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.

Furthermore, it's the inner city residents that pay the highest taxes to fund those suburban interchanges. It's about time we buy something for ourselves!

[Bunk]

Relating to the cultural discussion in Calgary:

Another major announcement today:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=62631

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

I'm with T5 exctly here. What is Calgary's long term future after the oil/gas boom? Whats going to help keep businesses in Calgary when the markets move elsewhere? As stupid as it sounds investing $50M into 2 bridges, its part of the long term goal of installing the infrastructure that makes Calgary attractive for years to come. Without these aesthetically pleasing landmarks, Calgary is going to be a Uranium City - with these landmarks, Calgary starts to launch itself into a big player in the world.

Besides, Calgary just blew almost $10M on 1 year of Tanguay and Aucoin, whats $25M a bridge?