Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Incogneto]

I would say that the new building on 6th Ave and (hmmmmm) 3rd street is probably the 'coolest' building in the city. the Bow Center will add to it....

We are GETTING there, but I would love to see the next 4 or 5 high rises going up, go up with some FLARE! Nothing is better than things that make people talk. That is what makes them an attraction, and Calgary needs more attractions.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by V

There's no way it looks like that on the inside. Not if they're using LED lighting.

Why couldn't that be LED lighting?

[CaptainCrunch]

Ugh

I guess I just don't feel it. You can't tell me that a Calgary based architect couldn't have cut some holes in a paper towel core and thrown it across a river.

I think its hideous.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by moon

Having an ugly, overpriced bridge means that Calgary is a fun city?

What would your design be?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

What would your design be?

Well as I have said many times before I don't see any value in this so-called 'beautiful architecture" so I would go with a plain design that would get the best quality bridge for the cheapest money. I would pay 0 dollars to get some fancy design firm to create some ugly artsy thing like that.

A "plain" bridge that they seem to already have at a few spots over the river would work fine for me.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ugh

I guess I just don't feel it. You can't tell me that a Calgary based architect couldn't have cut some holes in a paper towel core and thrown it across a river.

I think its hideous.

Our local firms will have their chance when the 2nd bridge in the east village goes to an open competition.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by moon

Well as I have said many times before I don't see any value in this so-called 'beautiful architecture" so I would go with a plain design that would get the best quality bridge for the cheapest money. I would pay 0 dollars to get some fancy design firm to create some ugly artsy thing like that.

A "plain" bridge that they seem to already have at a few spots over the river would work fine for me.

I guess the "bare minimum" is good enough, hey?

I'd like to point out that we're not actually spending $22 million on a fancy bridge; we're spending about $8 million to make an otherwise drab, boring and unintelligible water bridge crossing actually have some some visual flare, aesthetic attraction and create a new dynamic in our growing downtown.

$8 million dollars in a budget the size of the City's is a drop in the bucket. And as a city with over one million people that has a land size larger than New York, I would hope we can aim a little higher than "the bare minimum."

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by moon

Well as I have said many times before I don't see any value in this so-called 'beautiful architecture" so I would go with a plain design that would get the best quality bridge for the cheapest money. I would pay 0 dollars to get some fancy design firm to create some ugly artsy thing like that.

A "plain" bridge that they seem to already have at a few spots over the river would work fine for me.

These kinds of posts are seriously just sad. You don't see ANY value in beauty whatsoever?

Who do you masturbate to? Janet Reno?

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by Muta

Correction: The current Nexen building, done by Fred Valentine, is arguably the nicest bit of large-scale architecture in the city. 2nd place props go to the M-Tech building on MacLeod. Both are extremely solid in this regard.

And then, I'm not sure. But I am excited about this bridge, and so far lots of people I have spoke to are as well. The only downside may be the exterior color, as it seems a little hokey / cheesy, but those concerns are relatively small.

I'm not a big fan of the red either, it would be interesting to see it photoshopped in a different colour, just for kicks.

[MRCboicgy]

Looks like a giant red ribbed condom.

[octothorp]

I mostly love it: it the part that counts - the pedestian / cyclist experience, it has the potential to be absolutely sublime: gorgeous interior, great lighting, beautiful lines. Only part I'm not sold on is the way the ends look. A little too much like it's just placed across the banks, which might have been the intent; that's a small complaint though.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I mostly love it: it the part that counts - the pedestian / cyclist experience, it has the potential to be absolutely sublime: gorgeous interior, great lighting, beautiful lines. Only part I'm not sold on is the way the ends look. A little too much like it's just placed across the banks, which might have been the intent; that's a small complaint though.

I agree, it looks a little stunted on the ends. I wish it extended out a bit more inland.

[BlackArcher101]

As some who likes to photograph things... I love it. This will only improve it. At first I didn't like the red but after looking at it again, I think it would contrast well. It will also look even better with a white covered river in the winter.

[Saint Troy]

It's fantastic, I hope the city continues to place an emphasis on architectural design for public projects.

[Wookie]

Looks cool, I like how there is a crane in the background, still working on what exactly? ? ? Hmm... not sure, is the crane working on centennial place?

I like the width of it, makes it better for bikers and pedestrians, granted I think people in both groups are still too stupid to not get in the way.

The thing that's sad about Calgary - it can be such a nice pretty city in the summer, too bad 9 out of the 12 months it looks dirty and brown and I think a red bridge will look a little weird. Kind of like how the Children's hospital looks like a big silly piece of Lego in the brown dead winter months. The few days of really nice snow and surreal Christmas like snow days it will probably look cool too.

And to the person who said it's unreasonable to walk 1.5 km between two bridges. The most someone would have to walk is either 750m from the exact middle. If that's too far to be walking for "downtown dwellers" maybe they should be living next to a ctrain out in the suburbs.. sheesh.

Or buy a place in Keynote and work and live in the same building and then talk about how suburbanites waste taxes and energy commuting.

And if I'm wrong with the distances and what you were implying I apologize and don't mean to sound like an ass.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by fotze

I like it, we are always subjected to these massive hideous abutments, the bridge that crosses to macmahon over crowchild from the LRT station is always cited, look at how massive and unnecessary that beast is for a pedestrian bridge.

That is an ugly monstrosity. Hideous. Shameful to whomever designed and approved that thing.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

That is an ugly monstrosity. Hideous. Shameful to whomever designed and approved that thing.

That's what you get for the bare minimum. It's so hideous, I wonder what it cost? It was probably added to the LRT budget back then.

[SebC]

Huh, new design really exudes speed to me... would be perfect for a monorail or something, but a bit odd for a pedestrian bridge. It's not bad, but could be better.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I agree, it looks a little stunted on the ends. I wish it extended out a bit more inland.

I would imagine that the more inland it would go the higher it would have to be and thus run afoul with the Heli-pad landing space. I agree that it looks that way though.

[burn_this_city]

Considering how many people cross it at once after a game I'd say it had to be built beefy.