Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[nik-]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You have contributed absolutely nothing to this, other than the odd smart a comment here and there. I'd say that you can be safely and completely dismissed.

You can dismiss me all you want. Like I said, I have no time to argue with people on the extremes, especially when they spout off all the cliches when it comes to taxes and spending and "raising kids in the inner city".

Don't be bitter at me because you fall into that category. You don't know enough about what you're complaining about and as a result are grasping at stereotypes.

I mean hell, you even dropped the "no one wants to raise their kids in the middle of rush hour traffic". It's hilarious how obviously clueless you are.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yes I can read. Where do you think the the province gets its money? From taxpayers thats where.

But I thought you didn't care cause you're moving to Okotoks? When I was there yesterday I don't think I left the province?

I'm fine with those if they got the best bang for their buck. I have no problem with the money being spent on necessary projects. My problem is when the city overspends on necessary projects because they have some "grandiose vision" of building something bigger, better, and more wonderful than anything else in Canada. The problem with politicians is they sometimes forget where the money really comes from... John Q Taxpayer.

A Calatrava bridge for only $22 million is amazing bang for our buck. Good value =/= cheap.

No we wouldn't be but there is no way you can compare the Center St Bridge and the C-train (critical pieces of infrastructure) to this monument to art that the city council wants to call a pedestrian bridge. Build the bridge... fine. Just don't go hog wild by spending lots more money by trying to put lipstick on a pig. In the end, its still a pig. I'd rather pay for the pig without lipstick than with.

Really? No comparison at all? Citizens were outraged at the cost of the Centre St. Bridge and didn't see why we needed a bridge modeled after some fancy pants monument in Trafalgar Square when a simple bridge could do and some fancy pants sculptor to make 4 lions.

The C-Train was seen as a unnecessary and ridiculous luxury at the time by some as well.

And pig with lipstick cliche? Barf.

[Pastiche]

Great services those are.... Don't get me wrong, they are definitely needed, but they don't fit all of the need for a growing family. High density areas aren't ideal.

We agree, for many people they aren't ideal. And from the sounds of things you are one of those people.

What I'm saying is that we should end the economic incentives for people to live out in the burbs. You clearly would pay the full cost of living out there because you really like it. That could be an extra 500 to 1000 bucks a month.

There are many people that are probably on the margin, if it costs an extra 1000 bucks a month they'd forego the big house and get a smaller place closer to work.

This is what I'm talking about. Calgary in particular has whacked out incentives to go live in the burbs as its way cheaper and almost more rationale to do so.

Problem is that this type of development has significant costs to the city, to liveability, environmentally, and to tax payers writ-large.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

That's exactly the point. There is far LESS rework on existing infrastructure required by building better further out. That makes up a significant portion of the expected savings.

So, what you're saying is that the capacity of the existing sewer pipes and such don't need to be upgraded to support higher density? Seems totally counter-intuitive. Packing more people into the same space means more sewer waste going through the same pipes, which most certainly means digging up and upgrading.

[ken0042]

I'm only going to say this once, and it applies to everybody. No more name calling or else infractions will be handed out. If you believe somebody is wrong or you disagree with their opinion, then argue the facts; and state your point of view.

[Muta]

One of the biggest problematic issues that people have, as well, is that they need a backyard (for whatever reason); this is what you also get with suburban sprawl. It is a huge consumer of space, and drives up infrastructure costs.

The beauty of inner-city parks, or even communal parks in general, is that there's usually enough room and are close enough that you wouldn't need a backyard. Plus, eliminating the need for backyards and sharing public spaces with others can drive down property taxes, promote sustainable lifestyles and encourage more socially-integrated communities. What you might lose in physical space (unsustainable on a global level), you far surpass in other ways.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by nik-

You can dismiss me all you want. Like I said, I have no time to argue with people on the extremes, especially when they spout off all the cliches when it comes to taxes and spending and "raising kids in the inner city".

Don't be bitter at me because you fall into that category. You don't know enough about what you're complaining about and as a result are grasping at stereotypes.

I mean hell, you even dropped the "no one wants to raise their kids in the middle of rush hour traffic". It's hilarious how obviously clueless you are.

Or, living through it right now....

I could get an apartment downtown and raise my kids there. Where do they get to go to play? They have to cross rush hour traffic to get to the local park.

OR...

They could walk across a couple local streets with very low traffic.

Which would you consider safer?

Stereotypes. Sure. Whatever. You're obviously clueless.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Or, living through it right now....

I could get an apartment downtown and raise my kids there. Where do they get to go to play? They have to cross rush hour traffic to get to the local park.

OR...

They could walk across a couple local streets with very low traffic.

Which would you consider safer?

Stereotypes. Sure. Whatever. You're obviously clueless.

There's a difference between the CBD and Inner City.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I guess there is a prime example of the relative unfairness in Calgary if you live in the inner city versus suburbs: Calgary Transit.

For a bus ride from Inglewood to downtown it costs the same amount as a bus ride from Mackenzie Towne.

My distaste for Calgary Transit was one of the prime motivators for me moving to an inner city location. I cycle to work, even in the dead of winter, and there isn't much that will get me to move out to Mackenzie Towne, even if it did get me a bigger house and a yard.

Folks downtown also have a free ride corridor. So hypothetically some downtowners may never pay for the train. Those b@stards.

Regardless it boils down to the fact people have different mentalities. I have no desire to live downtown or ride a bike to work. Instead I'll live halfway between the burbs and downtown and drive everywhere.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What I'm saying is that we should end the economic incentives for people to live out in the burbs. You clearly would pay the full cost of living out there because you really like it. That could be an extra 500 to 1000 bucks a month.

There are many people that are probably on the margin, if it costs an extra 1000 bucks a month they'd forego the big house and get a smaller place closer to work.

This is what I'm talking about. Calgary in particular has whacked out incentives to go live in the burbs as its way cheaper and almost more rationale to do so.

Problem is that this type of development has significant costs to the city, to liveability, environmentally, and to tax payers writ-large.

Forget that. If you add $700-1000 per month to the average bill in the cheapest areas of the city, you won't have people living in the city. That's a great way to shrink the size of it - both in land space and population - if that's what your goal is.

[Chump]

Originally Posted by nik-

You can dismiss me all you want. Like I said, I have no time to argue with people on the extremes, especially when they spout off all the cliches when it comes to taxes and spending and "raising kids in the inner city".

Don't be bitter at me because you fall into that category. You don't know enough about what you're complaining about and as a result are grasping at stereotypes.

I mean hell, you even dropped the "no one wants to raise their kids in the middle of rush hour traffic". It's hilarious how obviously clueless you are.

Maybe you should use some of the the seemingly ample time you have for insulting people and calling them clueless to actually contribute some legitimate arguments to the thread.

[MarchHare]

I could get an apartment downtown and raise my kids there. Where do they get to go to play? They have to cross rush hour traffic to get to the local park.

OR...

They could walk across a couple local streets with very low traffic.

I live in a condo downtown. I can see two nearby parks from my balcony. The street I have to cross to get to either one barely has any traffic at all.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

hmm... One of the reasons it's cheaper is because you don't have to pay for the roads and utilities that go out to your communities yet are built almost exclusively for your use. That's a subsidy.



This is just bosh. High density areas often have great cycling, sports pitches, and shockingly often have less traffic because people are walking around and taking transit.

This is also bosh. The initial installation of facilities is paid for by the developer.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I could get an apartment downtown and raise my kids there. Where do they get to go to play? They have to cross rush hour traffic to get to the local park.

OR...

They could walk across a couple local streets with very low traffic.

Which would you consider safer?

...and your kids get hit by some idiot going way too fast on that quiet low traffic street.

I consider both options equally as dangerous, the difference will be made in how we educate our children in basic 'street smarts'.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I live in a condo downtown. I can see two nearby parks from my balcony. The street I have to cross to get to either one barely has any traffic at all.

I guess that you're lucky. Any condos or apartments that I have ever looked at didn't have any parks anywhere close to them, and if they did, there were busy streets in between.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

This is also bosh. The initial installation of facilities is paid for by the developer.

Thats what I always thought too.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calculoso

No. It's not because it's being subsidized. It's because the initial cost is much lower and it is a standard of living / way of life choice.

Ha! The initial cost is lower because it's subsidized and the standard of living / way of life is good because it's subsidized.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

You can dismiss me all you want. Like I said, I have no time to argue with people on the extremes, especially when they spout off all the cliches when it comes to taxes and spending and "raising kids in the inner city".

Just to add, nik... hundreds of millions of people in thousands of cities around the world raise their kids in the inner-city. Calgary sprawl problem is an exception; not the rule, and is very much a different phenomenon than most of the rest of the world's model. It is truly unfortunate that some people find the concept of 'raising kids in the inner city' scary or unappealing.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I guess that you're lucky. Any condos or apartments that I have ever looked at didn't have any parks anywhere close to them, and if they did, there were busy streets in between.

Once again what difference does it make if it is a busy street or a quiet one? It is OUR responsibility to ensure our children are taught how to cross ANY street safely.

I know I was taught that, and so were all my friends growing up.

I'm raising a child in the Beltline, you better believe I'm going to make sure they know how to properly deal with crossing the street.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Barnes

But I thought you didn't care cause you're moving to Okotoks? When I was there yesterday I don't think I left the province?

I changed my mind when I found out that provincial taxes are being used to fund this project... that means that even though I won't be living in Calgary anymore, I still have to help pay for this dam thing.

Originally Posted by Barnes

A Calatrava bridge for only $22 million is amazing bang for our buck. Good value =/= cheap.

Your opinion only. Most people in Calgary/Alberta don't know Calatrava from a hole in the ground... and they don't care to know him either or any of his "architectural works of art".

Originally Posted by Barnes

Really? No comparison at all? Citizens were outraged at the cost of the Centre St. Bridge and didn't see why we needed a bridge modeled after some fancy pants monument in Trafalgar Square when a simple bridge could do and some fancy pants sculptor to make 4 lions.

The C-Train was seen as a unnecessary and ridiculous luxury at the time by some as well.

And pig with lipstick cliche? Barf.

As for some people being outraged at the cost of those projects, sure there was. But in no way was the public outrage at all comparable to what has been seen with this "pedestrian bridge"

This bridge project is seen by a lot of taxpayers to be extravagent over-the-top spending. Build a bridge sure... just don't pay 22 million to build one so you can have some fancy pants architects name on it when something just as nice could have been built for 18 million by employing a different architectural firm.