Bridge to Nowhere?

[ricosuave]

^ like the 'iconic' talisman centre roof?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

^ like the 'iconic' talisman centre roof?

The fancypants architect noted in the article designed some bridge that used glass bricks. Glass bricks that have to be replaced frequently. Glass bricks that have to be replaced frequently and are pretty expensive. Just sayin'.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fredr123

The fancypants architect noted in the article designed some bridge that used glass bricks. Glass bricks that have to be replaced frequently. Glass bricks that have to be replaced frequently and are pretty expensive. Just sayin'.

Bah! We have oil and that gravy-train will never end!

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

And whats been Bronco's vision? Tax and spend.. Who gives a crap about cultural relevance? Honestly I fail to see how people think the city is ugly. The beauty here is the landscape and green spaces, not structures made of concrete and steel. Drive around a few american cities and tell me we arent lucky.

i 2nd this ..My first trip to calgary when my wife asked what my impression was The first thing out of my mouth was Wow such a big city but all this greenspace right in the middle of it

[moon]

Why does all this so-called "cultural" architecture have to always look like crap?

The bridges on the front page aren't cool. They don't look nice and certainly aren't worth anything close to $25 million.

I have always been against this so-called need for architecture to "improve" our city. I think it is a huge load of crap mainly promoted by people in the business.

If they want to attract people to Calgary there is a lot better things they can do than put up overpriced ugly bridges or buildings.

[Nancy]

Bravo to the last few posts. Build on the city's strengths, not its weaknesses. I think this money would be better invested acquiring key packages of park land, and in particular, the remaining parcels of forested land within the city's boundaries. This bridge is going to make zero difference to the architectural feel of the city and, as such, is just throwing money into a black hole. It is private architecture that dominates this city and these public structures and buildings just get lost in a sea of monotonous corporate highrises, and it will always be this way. There's no point putting lipstick on a pig.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by moon

I have always been against this so-called need for architecture to "improve" our city. I think it is a huge load of crap mainly promoted by people in the business.

Don't you live in Lethbridge?

There are very few people in the architecture business, so it can't be promoted only by them.

I'm not qualified to discuss architecture or why it is important but I hafta ask -- are you in a bare room with a lightbulb hanging by by it's cord? If not, why not?

[GGG]

Major landmarks aren't small bridges they are the big coporate skyscrpaers. Sears tower, John Hancock, Empire State, Burj Dubai, Chrysler Building Petronas Towers. These are generally private enterprise with some government involvement.

Things like the Bow are great, The penny lane buildings are also going to look pretty good This should be the focus. For example the areva buidings are putting in a public art display between there two towers.

Calgary should do it the Calgary has done it in the past. Convince businesses and Philenthropic people that it is in their best interest to improve "Culture" and get them to fund large portions of it.

[moon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Don't you live in Lethbridge?

There are very few people in the architecture business, so it can't be promoted only by them.

I was referring to the many threads that seem to come up on here. A lot of the pro $25 million dollar bridge crowd and pro Frank Geary etc. buildings clearly state that they are in the industry. Not saying they do it for personal financial reasons but that they obviously have an interest and tend to overrate how important it is in the grand scheme of things and to most people that are not in the same industry.

I'm not qualified to discuss architecture or why it is important but I hafta ask -- are you in a bare room with a lightbulb hanging by by it's cord? If not, why not?

Well I have a TV that I enjoy watching, a couch to sit on, a desk to work at and a ton of childrens toys all over the place.

Not sure if that means I have to support ugly overpriced bridges.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by moon

Well I have a TV that I enjoy watching, a couch to sit on, a desk to work at and a ton of childrens toys all over the place.

Not sure if that means I have to support ugly overpriced bridges.

And I'm sure your kid's rooms aren't bare drywall and you don't sleep on an army cot.

People like nice things around them. That's it.

Your judgement of "ugly" doesn't mean much. Neither does mine.

[moon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And I'm sure your kid's rooms aren't bare drywall and you don't sleep on an army cot.

People like nice things around them. That's it.

Your judgement of "ugly" doesn't mean much. Neither does mine.

I think there is a big difference between nice things and $25 million dollar bridges.

I don't think we need bland concrete bridges or buildings, but spending insane amounts of money on buildings and bridges thinking that they will attract tourists or make our city any better seems insane me.

Certainly there has to be a middle ground between artsie-fartsie wasteful projects like this and other buildings that have been mentioned in past threads and the bare bones approach.

The buildings and bridges in Calgary look fine to me and they didn't seem to cost an arm and a leg.

The ugly comment certainly was meant as my opinion and it means no more or less than the next guy, I agree 100% with you there. But again I am not saying lets waste $25 million dollars on a bridge. I would think that a bridge that costs that much should at least look half-decent.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Muta

Perhaps I'll submit an RFP for this project. Watch out for a bridge in the future labelled 'Muta'. Complete with spitting green mist.

I also presume that it will shoot out flames when ever the Flames score as well, right?

To actually contribute some meaningful insight, although there is quite a bit of scepticism towards this project, which will will undoubtedly become a more than worthy investment in time, it is great to see quite a few people, like Muta, support projects like this one. Although many might not yet see the true value of this project and others like it, there is a growing number of people in this city that do; which is very encouraging. Earlier Muta talked about how the creative class if rapidly leaving the city; I myself as a budding Urban Planner is among those queueing up to leave. However, I'm thrilled to see that there is a growing urban movement in this city that might one day lead to myself and others like me returning home after we hone our skills to turn Calgary into a truly world class city. By then, I just think it might be ready... Anyway, back to regular CP chatter!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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

WINNAR!!!

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by fotze

As long as they can make the final design look like any odd farming implement then it will be an easy sell. If not they can put some money aside for something like the worlds largest backhoe or drywall trowel to appease the non-artsyfartsie crowd.

Nah that would upset the dying to be sophisticated crowd.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't think we need bland concrete bridges or buildings, but spending insane amounts of money on buildings and bridges thinking that they will attract tourists or make our city any better seems insane me.

insane amounts of money? Have a litte fricking perspective dude. How much do you think a normal overpass in the middle of some suburb costs? Those things are easily in the 25 mill range, and are approved and built all the time. Why no outrage there?

This bridge is nothing compared to the crazy amounts of money spent in order to save some suburban soccer mom 5 mintues of trafic time in Cougar Ridge or some other vapid craphole that nobody else in the city visits.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Nancy

This bridge is going to make zero difference to the architectural feel of the city and, as such, is just throwing money into a black hole.

and what exactly are you basing this grand statement on on? Your vast architectural knowledge and expertise in the field? I never knew CP had so many Pritzker winners.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Table 5

This bridge is nothing compared to the crazy amounts of money spent in order to save some suburban soccer mom 5 mintues of trafic time in Cougar Ridge or some other vapid craphole that nobody else in the city visits.

Well, lets be fair, there's about 5,000 people that live in cougar ridge. The average home seems to be about $500,000 for that area (tax assessment). I'd wager a large amount of those people are working downtown paying a fair amount of taxes on top of their property tax and are important members of the Calgary economy.

Like the part I deleted from your post, don't know why, anyway, it'd be nice to see what a bridge would cost before any special efforts go into it, that would tell more of the story. I've decided I really don't care enough either way. The money will get spent/wasted one way or another. At least I'd run over the bridge one day. Or use it one some lame walking around the area date while holding hands and having a special moment

[Bill Bumface]

For those saying that a bridge won't bring tourists to Calgary, have you never been visiting an area and hopped on Wikipedia or done a google image search to check out the places that look like they are worth going?

If you pop open a picture of downtown Edmonton for example, and then one of downtown Calgary with a freaking cool bridge with the river right there and the Bow in the background, where are you going to chose to go?

I think having an aesthetically appealing city can do wonders for you.

[BlackArcher101]

Had a friend contact his friend at the City of Lethbridge to find out the cost of the Pedestrian bridge over the river next to Whoop-Up drive.

Apparently it cost 1.2 million (yes, not 12) back in 2000ish. I would estimate that to be roughly 5mil in today's costs.

Now, that bridge isn't really an eyesore and has nothing going into the water but yet spans a great distance. At this point, you have to look at what the $25mil is going to get, and it's going to be moreso for the architects name in this case. This money could be used a lot more efficiently but still end up with close to the same result for cheaper. There's is no need for the "go big or go home" approach that some people have to these bridges. Hire a younger architect that wants to make a name for himself.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Wookie

Well, lets be fair, there's about 5,000 people that live in cougar ridge. The average home seems to be about $500,000 for that area (tax assessment). I'd wager a large amount of those people are working downtown paying a fair amount of taxes on top of their property tax and are important members of the Calgary economy.

The thing is, that a very small amount of people outside of that group of 5000 will ever use anything in Cougar Ridge (great name btw, I love how these places are always named after the things/habitats they destroy, ha).

The inner city has over a 100,000 people working there every day, residents in the tens of thousands, and is visited by the vast majority of the 1 million people that live in the city.

See the difference? One dollar spent in that part of town is infinititely more useful than the dollar spent in Cougar Ridge? So why no hubub from all the fiscal conservatives about all the money spent there?