Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Muta]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

First - it's the public's money so they should have a say.
Second - I think you are under-estimating Calgarians. It's not about what the bridge looks like - its about the process that was used to arrive at this point.

Actually, alot of the projects I've seen turned down are NOT funded by public money, just so you know. It's been private money, where the developers have consulted the community to see what they think, and it gets shot down because of the NIMBY attitudes and fears of change. And these projects were hardly controversial, at all. Just progressive and forward thinking, but there's people out there that don't agree with that.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

We're talking about 20 million for a infrastructure project, not 20 billion. Geez, people need to really understand scale when it comes to money used by the city. Bronco probably spends many times more than that on his projects of putting up roads, and then ripping them all up just to put one more lane.

So far, no one has addressed the enormous spending the City does on perimeter infrastructure projects such as interchanges and such when it's been called out in this thread.

If suburban citizens get to have their interchanges and new infrastructure, I see no reason as to why inner-city residents can't have a pedestrian bridge, at a very small cost compared to other projects,, no less. After all, that is infrastructure too. The residual effects of having this bridge will only be positive, ranging from increased economic activity (tourism, local business, etc.) to more efficient transportation to green sustainability initiatives.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think when certain issues clearly strike a chord with the voting public politicians should involve the voters more directly. It was clear early on people weren't happy with the direction the whole project was taking and city hall just chose to ignore it.

Ultimately its our money. That can't be under-estimated. If we aren't happy with how it's being spent we have a right to voice our displeasure.

Exactly, when our next municipal election rolls around those people can voice their displeasure through their vote.

We did elect these people to manage the cities budget and our tax dollars in the hopes of bettering Calgary. But if we are going to have plebiscites every time a group of people have a tizzy over money spent by council why did we bother to elect anyone in the first place?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Muta

So far, no one has addressed the enormous spending the City does on perimeter infrastructure projects such as interchanges and such when it's been called out in this thread.

If suburban citizens get to have their interchanges and new infrastructure, I see no reason as to why inner-city residents can't have a pedestrian bridge, at a very small cost compared to other projects,, no less. After all, that is infrastructure too. The residual effects of having this bridge will only be positive, ranging from increased economic activity (tourism, local business, etc.) to more efficient transportation to green sustainability initiatives.

Exactly. Where were all you fiscal watchdogs when Bronco went crazy building roads and interchanges everywhere? Why didn't I see umpteen threads belittling the design of the new Stoney Trail interchanges? This whole anti-bridge brouhaha is like the feel-bad story of the summer - much manufactured rage and fury over infrastructure spending that is no different than any other, except that the city made the mistake of thinking people would be proud to have a bridge designed by someone who is well-known across the world, instead of Joe High-School or Jane Corporate Box.

If Calgary is to become a world-class city, the parochial attitude has to go. The more different architectural influences we can take advantage of, the better in the long run - there is a place for local talent (as the second bridge will demonstrate) but there should also be a place and a desire to engage the best of the world.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Muta

Actually, alot of the projects I've seen turned down are NOT funded by public money, just so you know. It's been private money, where the developers have consulted the community to see what they think, and it gets shot down because of the NIMBY attitudes and fears of change. And these projects were hardly controversial, at all. Just progressive and forward thinking, but there's people out there that don't agree with that.

And isn't that their right?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Muta

So far, no one has addressed the enormous spending the City does on perimeter infrastructure projects such as interchanges and such when it's been called out in this thread.

If suburban citizens get to have their interchanges and new infrastructure, I see no reason as to why inner-city residents can't have a pedestrian bridge, at a very small cost compared to other projects,, no less. After all, that is infrastructure too. The residual effects of having this bridge will only be positive, ranging from increased economic activity (tourism, local business, etc.) to more efficient transportation to green sustainability initiatives.

I have a lot of beefs with how the city spends money including on interchanges and what not. Urban sprawl is a huge problem here. The bridge is but one example of how the decision making is flawed in this city - and that's my biggest issue. But this thread is about the bridge which is why I focused on that. If we want to get into the larger problems - we'll likely find we are closer to being on the same page.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jammies

Exactly. Where were all you fiscal watchdogs when Bronco went crazy building roads and interchanges everywhere? Why didn't I see umpteen threads belittling the design of the new Stoney Trail interchanges? This whole anti-bridge brouhaha is like the feel-bad story of the summer - much manufactured rage and fury over infrastructure spending that is no different than any other, except that the city made the mistake of thinking people would be proud to have a bridge designed by someone who is well-known across the world, instead of Joe High-School or Jane Corporate Box.

If Calgary is to become a world-class city, the parochial attitude has to go. The more different architectural influences we can take advantage of, the better in the long run - there is a place for local talent (as the second bridge will demonstrate) but there should also be a place and a desire to engage the best of the world.

Part of it is the timing of it. This bridge came as city hall delivered a bloated budget and raised taxes. The message being sent to the public continues to be - we can't control our spending. Examples:
- The Bridge
- The artwork at the water treatment facility
- The purchase of the Cecil
- The gym at City Hall.

When forced to trim the budget City Hall merely moved cash around in the books to manufacture a decrease.

Again - the bridge is not the issue - it's just the issue people have issued to focus on the larger problem of overspending....at a time when the economy isn't good at all.

If this council could demonstrate an ability to set priorities, and manage a budget I wouldn't have a problem with this bridge.

[Phanuthier]

Jiri I think its perfectly within the thread to criticize the bidding process for this. I always thought these sort of architecture projects were always open for bidding for dozens of architecture firms, so I'm with you that I'm disappointed they just handed it off to one guy without seeing what else was out there.

Also agreed on the urban sprawl thing. The more the city builds outwards, the more the city will have to change inside to accommodate the new size. Calgary wasn't meant to be built for the size it is now (both land and population) so I'm all for ideas of:

- building UP and not OUT (i.e. I'm against building mass roads to suburbia, and would rather concentrate population in the city so that public transportation can be more effective, see next bullet)
- better alternative transportation than cars (i.e. public transportation, foot bridge)
- stronger downtown core versus crappy urban sprawls (i.e. quality architecture and life in the center of the city rather than spending the money to accommodate suburbia and have everyone leave the downtown to go to suburbia after 5pm)

I don't know how the $24M or whatever price tag fairs to the current budget so I'm interested in seeing how where the money goes where, but to me, the idea of this bridge suites all 3 points on what I think is best for Calgary. (and I won't even enjoy it or use it since I don't live in Calgary anymore, just making an observation)

[jammies]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

If this council could demonstrate an ability to set priorities, and manage a budget I wouldn't have a problem with this bridge.

Yet as has been brought up MANY times - this bridge is not being built with city money. No matter what they do with this bridge, it has NO effect on the budget, so why is this particular issue the one that incites such controversy?

I'll say it again - whether the city can manage a budget or not has nothing to do with this bridge. This is not city money being spent, it's provincial money that has been specifically made available for infrastructure ONLY. So if they don't build this bridge, that money doesn't go back in the budget, it doesn't reduce our civic debt, it doesn't get spent somewhere else, it just goes back to the province who then undoubtedly gives it away to another municipality.

That's my big problem with the criticism of this bridge, and you've brought it up again. Instead of complaining about actual problems with the budget, we get complaints about something not even in the budget that are falsely connected back to that budget. Why not actually bring something RELEVANT up if that's the problem?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'll say it again - whether the city can manage a budget or not has nothing to do with this bridge. This is not city money being spent, it's provincial money that has been specifically made available for infrastructure ONLY. So if they don't build this bridge, that money doesn't go back in the budget, it doesn't reduce our civic debt, it doesn't get spent somewhere else, it just goes back to the province who then undoubtedly gives it away to another municipality.

What makes you think they wouldn't spend it on some other infrastructure project?

[V]

I fail to understand why a tax dodger like yourself would post so often in this thread.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Does the public have a say in any of the other major infrastructure projects going on in the city? Why should this foot bridge be any different?

What's next, having plebiscites for water main extensions?

Actually, the public does have a say in major infrastructure projects. There are open houses held all the time and modifications are made based on public feedback.

Originally Posted by jammies

Exactly. Where were all you fiscal watchdogs when Bronco went crazy building roads and interchanges everywhere? Why didn't I see umpteen threads belittling the design of the new Stoney Trail interchanges?

There's actually a whole bunch of people angry about that interchange. You just don't know where to look.

There's usually a group of people angry about every project in Calgary. Some simply have more political power than others.

If Calgary is to become a world-class city, the parochial attitude has to go. The more different architectural influences we can take advantage of, the better in the long run - there is a place for local talent (as the second bridge will demonstrate) but there should also be a place and a desire to engage the best of the world.

I dunno. How does a bridge make a city world-class?

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Actually, the public does have a say in major infrastructure projects. There are open houses held all the time and modifications are made based on public feedback.

Open houses are just information sessions. Feedback is gathered but a design is usually at 80% when they are held and significant changes are rare. Also, these sessions aren't held for every major project.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jammies

Yet as has been brought up MANY times - this bridge is not being built with city money. No matter what they do with this bridge, it has NO effect on the budget, so why is this particular issue the one that incites such controversy?

I'll say it again - whether the city can manage a budget or not has nothing to do with this bridge. This is not city money being spent, it's provincial money that has been specifically made available for infrastructure ONLY.

So spend the money smartly then. It's the same issue. Just because the province provides money doesn't mean you should piss it away.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Open houses are just information sessions. Feedback is gathered but a design is usually at 80% when they are held and significant changes are rare. Also, these sessions aren't held for every major project.

There are cases where public outrage has delayed/changed projects. The LRT extension comes to mind, as does the ongoing debate over what to do with the airport tunnel. The public can impact how this stuff rolls out....and some of the sessions are designed specifically get obtain input from the community.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So spend the money smartly then. It's the same issue. Just because the province provides money doesn't mean you should piss it away.

That's where the bulk of the argument lies then. I don't think spending $4 Million dollars on having a world renowned architect design public infrastructure in the city is "pissing it away".

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

That's where the bulk of the argument lies then. I don't think spending $4 Million dollars on having a world renowned architect design public infrastructure in the city is "pissing it away".

Yup exactly - I'm all for having world class architecture in our city but I'd prefer it be on things other than foot bridges.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I dunno. How does a bridge make a city world-class?

It's not the bridge itself, it's the allowance of Calatrava to build his bridge here. The same goes for the Foster project, and whatever happens to Cantos. It shows this city is open to foreign talent and embraces what they bring, much like other great major cities around the world do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, working in the industry I have NO problem with these guys doing projects in our city. NONE. It raises the bar for architectural standards in Calgary (whether you think their projects are aesthetically pleasing or not), and can only have much, much better short and long-term benefits for the local guys. Having the quality of design talent enter this city between now and the last few years, well, color me impressed.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yup exactly - I'm all for having world class architecture in our city but I'd prefer it be on things other than foot bridges.

Along with Museums (ala Cantos) bridges are one of the best outlets for inviting interesting architecture...think of all the famous bridges in the world... Millennium, Golden Gate, London Tower, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge.

I would think this is exactly the type of stuff that money for good architecture should be spent on.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

The city has to start somewhere. I think testing the waters with a relatively inexpensive foot bridge and see where it goes,is a good thing. Could you imagine a 100 million dollar initiative and having it go awry? If this doesn't work for the better, at least we didn't spend a fortune. Small price for something that could bring more to this city. IMO.