Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Ozy_Flame]

I agree that for a visual landpiece such as the bridge, there could have been a more involving consultation process. However, politicians are elected to do business on behalf of their constituents, and they can't keep running to them and holding mini referendums for every issue.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Byrns

I didn't know there was a competition. They only asked the one designer.

Every council or panel has their own ways of doing things. Sounds like this Banff bridge was given to a designer based on what the public wanted. As a result, you don't really get an original design, just a consensus opinion based on nothing more than popular numbers. Thus, it is obvious this bridge was designed for function over form. That doesn't necessarily make it right, though.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Byrns

So it's better to just shut up and let our politicians do whatever they want? Because we don't want risk heated discussion... There are\have been some pretty big idiots serving on council, and a lot of their decisions are pretty stupid.

An open house for a bridge? If that is what you setting the bar for regarding open houses nothing would get done in this city. Our city is too large to have everyone's opinion on everything, that's why we have elected officials. Of course they need to be held accountable, but you can't talk about everything with everyone.

[Byrns]

I'm not suggesting we need to micro manage council, but $25 mill isn't chump change. Nor would it kill the city to have a few people show up at community hall to accept input. I'm not asking for a referendum.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Byrns

It was at a committee, and the committee rejected the $25 mill bridge. Council overruled them.

Which committee was that? Council approved the plan that said a bridge at that location was necessary, council approved the plan that gave to contract to Calatrava, etc.

When all that was done, it went through the Calgary planning commission, For information only, where it was also approved.

I don't think any city committee ever rejected this bridge, that council overruled.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I don't think any city committee ever rejected this bridge, that council overruled.

I think there was one- Byrns is right on that point.

Sorry, my bad for bringing that word into this discussion.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by Burninator

An open house for a bridge? If that is what you setting the bar for regarding open houses nothing would get done in this city. Our city is too large to have everyone's opinion on everything, that's why we have elected officials. Of course they need to be held accountable, but you can't talk about everything with everyone.

Well they hold them for 1.8 mill dog parks.

http://www.secalgarynews.com/news/se...lion-upgrades/

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Which committee was that? Council approved the plan that said a bridge at that location was necessary, council approved the plan that gave to contract to Calatrava, etc.

When all that was done, it went through the Calgary planning commission, For information only, where it was also approved.

I don't think any city committee ever rejected this bridge, that council overruled.

You would be wrong. Andre Chabot was the head of the committee.

The proposal to spend $25 million on the bridges initially lost at committee but received enough votes to get past council when two aldermen opposed to the plan were away.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...ec0dc9c157&p=1

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Well they hold them for 1.8 mill dog parks.

http://www.secalgarynews.com/news/se...lion-upgrades/

Open houses make sense when you need to inform locals and community organizations about a particular project, but given that this project is of interest to everyone throughout the city and given that the residents of Hillhurst/Sunnyside (speaking anecdotally from talking with my neighbours) are overwhelmingly in favour of this project, I can't imagine what good an open house would do.

[You Need a Thneed]

^ but what was the name of the committee? I'm not saying the article is wrong on that point, but it certainly IS wrong on other points, bringing into question some of the other details. Can someone find further information on this other committee?

Elsewhere in the article, it says that the decision to go straight to council came from the Transportation dept, not from council - another point that many Calgarians seem to miss.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Byrns

I'm not suggesting we need to micro manage council, but $25 mill isn't chump change. Nor would it kill the city to have a few people show up at community hall to accept input. I'm not asking for a referendum.

The only people who have the time to show up for those things are the super bitter, the unemployed and senior citizens who probably won't be around to experience whatever is being discussed anyway. Hardly a great way to get sampling of the Calgary citizenry.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The only people who have the time to show up for those things are the super bitter, the unemployed and senior citizens who probably won't be around to experience whatever is being discussed anyway. Hardly a great way to get sampling of the Calgary citizenry.

Wow, way to pidgeon hole people, how about the. Some people show up because they want their voices heard. We should be respecting that, not shooting it down.

[yads]

Actually yes it is chump change. It's actually less than 0.625% of the total capital spending budget of the city over the next 3 years. I'm also trying to figure out what you are hoping would have been accomplished by consultation?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow, way to pidgeon hole people, how about the. Some people show up because they want their voices heard. We should be respecting that, not shooting it down.

Just go to a meeting, you'll see what I'm talking about. It's the same quality of people who call into talk-radio programs.

[CaptainCrunch]

They're still voters, they're still citizens, they still have a right to the democratic process.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They're still voters, they're still citizens, they still have a right to the democratic process.

But the democratic process is to the extent of voting representatives (city council) to make these decisions for them. That's what democracy is all about.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by kermitology

But the democratic process is to the extent of voting representatives (city council) to make these decisions for them. That's what democracy is all about.

If politicians make decisions based on what the public wants, their opponents accuse them of "not having a backbone" or "governing by opinion poll".

If politicians stick to their guns despite public pressure, their opponents accuse them of "not following the will of their constituents".

Either way, people who aren't fond of a particular decision will find a way to blast the elected officials responsible. It's a no-win situation.

[FanIn80]

I stopped following this thread after the first couple pages, so I apologize in advance is this has already been posted...

http://jetvision.tv/video.aspx?videoID=52308&playerID=6

It looks awesome. I can't wait to see it!

[Cowboy89]

Surprise, surprise, all bids for construction of this bridge are overbudget.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Bi...737/story.html

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Surprise, surprise, all bids for construction of this bridge are overbudget.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Bi...737/story.html

Guess they better raise that property tax a little more. Judging by the comments at the bottom this is a very popular expenditure.