Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have no bitterness towards the bridge, its an inanimate object.

I don't think "bitter" was the best word. I was kind of wrestling with the word choice when I wrote it, mainly for this reason. Perhaps I should rephrase my thoughts.

It appears as though you're being overly critical - to the point of having dozens of posts on the subject - of every aspect of the bridge (particularly design, the thought that other people may like it, particular location, functional necessity, non-local fabrication of parts) just because you don't like some aspects of it (sole sourcing, slightly premium cost, approval process). As I stated before, it's mainly the way in which you voice your distaste for things like the design or functional necessity.

It's apparent that you've gone out of your way to mention it enough times, which is why I wouldn't think it to be a stretch that you've let the negative issues surrounding the project to affect and sour your opinion of the otherwise neutral elements (design, etc.). I think it's possible that you're going out of your way to conclude that you don't like every aspect of it.

Choosing a word that's perhaps more appropriate than "bitter," it comes off as hypercritical (hyper-, not hypo-). Would you find the need to crack jokes, and do so ad nauseum, about, say the design of some other piece of infrastructure you find ugly if there weren't these other problems present? Look around, there's bound to be plenty you don't like the look of. There's plenty of structures in Calgary (public and private) that I don't find appealing either.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have problems with the look of the bridge, I have trouble with how it came to be, I have trouble with the cynical after the fact naming of the bridge.

Minus not liking the look, I agree. There's undeniably negative issues surrounding the project. Even though we disagree on the aesthetics of the design, that's fine too.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have trouble that we're building something thats suppossed to encourage environmental friendliness, yet we're building most of it overseas, shipping it across the ocean and then driving it across the country.

MarchHare covered this above, but basically it can't be both ways. You can't take the truly lowest bid on something and be protectionist at the same time.

Regarding the environmental impacts, your argument is a nirvana fallacy (when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect). Smart Cars and Priuses (Prii?) are shipped by truck. New LRT cars (emission-neutral as they are operated in Calgary) sometimes are driven up from the States by truck. Recycling is picked up by diesel-belching trucks.

Could there have been slightly less environmental impact due to the fabrication of the steel? Sure. The trade-off was cost in this case. It doesn't make the solution inherently bad in light of this imperfection though. I would guess it would be a drop in the bucket in the overall environmental impact of the alternative of not having the bridge for 80+ years.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To me the whole process and the bridge itself smacks of hypocrisy.

I'm afraid I must mention that bridges can't be hypocritical, they're inanimate.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And I don't see myself as a tourist visiting a town because of a bridge.

Okay. Neither would I, and neither would the vast majority of people. Thing is, the tourism spin-off argument was never about that. Sure, there may be a handful of bridge architecture enthusiasts who may make a special trip just to check out the bridge, but that economic and social impact would be negligible.

It's about little spin-offs like the business traveler seeing it from his hotel room and deciding to walk down and have a look; the kid in the car seeing the uniquely-shaped red bridge while driving by and asking his mom if they can go see it sometime; the tourist passing through on their way to Banff and adding the bridge to their tour of the Calgary Tower and Glenbow Museum; the people in town for Stampede that make it part of their trip, etc; the local Calgarians that make it part of their bike trip or photo op.

Do people go to Toronto just for the CN Tower? Some may, but most make it part of their trip that includes the Hockey Hall of Fame, catching a live play, Blue Jays/Raptors game, Royal Ontario Museum, etc. Do people go to Chicago to visit Grant Park? Most wouldn't, but they may take a spin by there while there to check out the Sears Tower, a Lake Michigan ferry ride, Wrigley Field, and the Hancock Observatory.

The bridge isn't the reason to go to Calgary, but it's one more reason.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that a lot of Calgarians are going to view this bridge as a monument dedicated to the arrogance of City Hall, and one more thing that this city failed to handle in a proper manner.

Sure. There were problems with the way it was approved and handled. My question is, who will still say that or think that every time they pass by it in 10 years? 15? 40? Could it possibly be that some good comes of it? Is it possible that it, like the Calgary Tower, Saddledome and The Bow it will be looked upon fondly as a symbol of what makes Calgary unique and is a must-see when hosting guests? Sure, some will never like it, and some of those will base that solely on some otherwise long-forgotten group of City councilors and administration making some mistakes. Too bad for them.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I do feel that when everything is said and done this bridge will probably end up over budget just like everything else that this council has handled.

There's the rub. A lot of the problems go well beyond the bridge, so why the grossly disproportionate attention and scorn?

Any Austin Powers jokes about the $26M Calgary Fire Department Maintenance Facility? Do you have an Office Space zinger about the $29M Beddington/Country Hills Blvd. Interchange? Care to channel Gaylord "Greg" Focker for your thoughts on the $218M Glenmore Water Treatment Plant upgrade?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Isn't the point of a bridge like this to impress, maybe give a little awe, maybe stir something in your chest. This doesn't do that for me.

No. The point of any bridge is to provide access over a barrier which is otherwise difficult or impossible to pass over by other means. The aesthetics are secondary, but important as well. It's unfortunate you don't happen to like the design, but so be it.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I find the Austin Powers thing amusing, because everytime I see pictures of this bridge design I have flashbacks to those scenes.

Fair enough. Classic movie. However, forgive me if I think it's lazy and uninventive to reference it again and again.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh and I don't want money or bribery,

Obviously my "offer" was facetious. The point was to illustrate the relatively small (miniscule even) dollar amounts we're talking about here, especially when compared to the larger budget that is characterized by the problems that plagued this bridge.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm interested in seeing what the final election results are and how this bridge factored into peoples voting decisions.

As am I. More correctly, I'm interested in seeing how all the over-budget, sole-sourced and otherwise mishandled projects, in aggregate and making up the total budget, factor into people's voting decisions. What I would hate to see is people focus on the bridge, in and of itself, and lose sight of the bigger budget picture. Sadly, I think that has happened to a disturbing degree.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I look at Calatrava bridge designs, and I just think that this thing looks lazy.

I stand by what I said earlier. That is being completely ignorant of the significant technical challenges presented by this particular project. Height of the structure was restricted due to the nearby helipad, and load distribution (lolz, phallic reference) was restricted due to the stipulation that there be no supports in the river. This design was inherently difficult and challenging from the outset.

To get a single 131 m that has less than 1% grade difference across it is a feat. There is nothing lazy about it. No lazy person, and no lazy process could have achieved that. To think otherwise is, as previously stated, ignorant.

[bomber317]

So is it true that the budget for the bridge came out of provincial coffers?

And we would have lost the money anyways if we didn't spend it on a specific type of infrastructure?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by bomber317

So is it true that the budget for the bridge came out of provincial coffers?

And we would have lost the money anyways if we didn't spend it on a specific type of infrastructure?

Yes. It's apart of the Provincial government's Municipal Sustainability Initiative funding. Basically it was a one time gift of 25 million to be spent on only infrastructure.

Here is a really good article which weighs the pros and cons of the argument.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Yes. It's apart of the Provincial government's Municipal Sustainability Initiative funding. Basically it was a one time gift of 25 million to be spent on only infrastructure.

Here is a really good article which weighs the pros and cons of the argument.

Thanks, wanted to verify because a potential alderman for my ward (ward 8), put a note under my door with some of his "key" points for voting for him.

One point was, talking about the Peace bridge and how the city could have spent it on other more important things.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by bomber317

Thanks, wanted to verify because a potential alderman for my ward (ward 8), put a note under my door with some of his "key" points for voting for him.

One point was, talking about the Peace bridge and how the city could have spent it on other more important things.

Yeah, It's an easy topic to criticize and build a platform around when you're an outsider running for office. But their hands were pretty tied. I'd be curious to see what this potential alderman would have done with 25 million dollars that met the criteria.

[algernon]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Yeah, It's an easy topic to criticize and build a platform around when you're an outsider running for office. But their hands were pretty tied. I'd be curious to see what this potential alderman would have done with 25 million dollars that met the criteria.

Do you know where I could find the province's criteria? If we had to spend the cash on something superfluous anyway, then who could be upset with that?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by algernon

Do you know where I could find the province's criteria? If we had to spend the cash on something superfluous anyway, then who could be upset with that?

You can find a vague outline of the criteria the link here - http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....initiative.cfm

This is a quote from the site.

Qualifying capital projects include municipal roads, bridges, public transit, water and wastewater systems, emergency services facilities and equipment, solid waste management facilities and equipment, regional and community airport facilities and equipment, and other municipal buildings and facilities such as recreational and sports facilities, libraries, public works buildings, and cultural/community centres.

And you can see where the funding for the pedestrain bridge occurred in the 2008 funding list.

And another follow up comment from the article author by DJ Kelly.

I should point out that my comments about the MSI funding are a bit of an oversimplification. We could have built other bridges but we could not have, for example, hired more staff for Calgary Transit. It's too complicated for me to explain here, with my limited knowledge of the agreement. An alderman our MLA would need to chime in to give you the exact specifications of the "strings" attached in this case.

Needless to say it's a far more complicated issue than just spending 25 million dollars on other things. For example, if you're given 25 million dollars to build something, your first inclination is to probably spend the 25 million on more Trains. But that 25 million is one time thing and won't cover the added upkeep of the trains over the next 20 years - new drivers, train maintance etc.,

But a one time purchase of a bridge which will last for 80 years does make a bit more sense.

If anything, it's a far more complicated issue then simply - I would have spent it else where.

[Sliver]

Captain Crunch, you're killing me. I can't wait to read your response to Frinkprof.

[CaptainCrunch]

hmmm, I can't help but feel that I've been zinged.

Anyways, any response will have to wait.

[Skate around the circle]

I had a look at the progress this morning it looks like they are building a roof over the damn thing,can't wait for the furniture plan. Yie carumba

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Skate around the circle

I had a look at the progress this morning it looks like they are building a roof over the damn thing,can't wait for the furniture plan. Yie carumba

Some shelter goes a long way when trying to weld in the snow/rain.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Some shelter goes a long way when trying to weld in the snow/rain.

Whoa there buddy, can't you seen this thread is for irrational outrage?
Why you gotta come all up in here with your reasoned thoughts, and logical explinations for crazy things like this?

[Table 5]

They finally got a local to design something.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by bomber317

Thanks, wanted to verify because a potential alderman for my ward (ward 8), put a note under my door with some of his "key" points for voting for him.

One point was, talking about the Peace bridge and how the city could have spent it on other more important things.

Who was that? I live in ward 8 and haven't received anything like that yet.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Who was that? I live in ward 8 and haven't received anything like that yet.

Zak Pashak - I think he was canvasing through my apartment building.

Sorry, reading the note again, I mis-remembered the sentence. It was

"Your incumbent Alderman voted to approve the Peace Bridge; this project is a symbol of the lack of transparency and taxpayer accountability at City Hall."

Not quite the same as "finding more important things to spend the money". Sorry for the mis-interpretation.

[Bigtime]

So apparently the bridge will no longer have the white paint on the inside sections. This comes from some twitter conversations that Druh Farrell was having with a few people yesterday.

Not too sure how I feel about this. On one hand it sucks to lose the contrast between the red exterior and white interior, but all red is still very striking and I think it will look very sharp during our white winters and brown/grey falls and spring.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

On one hand it sucks to lose the contrast between the red exterior and white interior, but all red is still very striking and I think it will look very sharp during our white winters and brown/grey falls and spring.

Who are you kidding, most of winter is crappy brown and grey too, just in slush form!

While this development is a little disappointing for sure, I think the all-red should work out fine as long as the other interior elements (pathway, barriers, glass etc) still remain fairly light in tone.

[Rathji]

I had always thought all red would actually make more sense, since if you were walking on the inside during an overcast day the inside would just blend in with the sky and I think it would lose some of it's appeal.

[Slava]

Most importantly though, will it cost less because they don't have to buy white paint? That is the only proper justification for this!

[Bigtime]

To be honest, when I heard the white was gone I was so shocked I spit my latte out all over my copy of the New Yorker.