Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Violator]

Originally Posted by getbak

October...2010.

oh....I see.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Thanks for posting this photo. I had no idea this was being built. I am going to email a copy to my cousin's wife in Edmonton. He is a member of the Princess Pats, that is still in Afghanistan until Nov.

Damn, should have water marked it!

Even those the thread has returned to bickering about the Peace Bridge again... I like the copper and rust look of the mural.

[V]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There is no reason to not accept the lowest bid unless you suspect that the trade submitting the bid is incapable of doing the work.

Here is the number one reason the City is spending so much more money than it really needs to in virtually every project I've been privy to.

The capital cost of the project is only one variable of many when considering bids, and to say that the lowest bid is the automatic pick (excepting incapability of the contractor) is the reason why the purchasers at the City are picking hack & slash contractors to work on their projects, and then paying maintenance crews to come in after the fact to clean up the mess. I can only speak for my industry, but I have a very hard time believing it's any different at other departments.

I dream of a day when owners like the City are more concerned with the quality of an installation than the few pennies they can save.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Actually hes not completely wrong, if it goes over budget I'm not sure the provincial money will cover everything. SO THERE!

Net transactions are the only ones that matter. Saying that the suburbs are paying for the bridge (in any capacity) is like saying that Tim's is paying you to take their coffee when they give you your change.

Another way to look at it is if the inner city is generating more revenue than what is being spent on it (and it is, and then some), then it's not taking money from anywhere else. That wouldn't add up. (Oh noes! I've uncovered massive corruption!)

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by V

Here is the number one reason the City is spending so much more money than it really needs to in virtually every project I've been privy to.

The capital cost of the project is only one variable of many when considering bids, and to say that the lowest bid is the automatic pick (excepting incapability of the contractor) is the reason why the purchasers at the City are picking hack & slash contractors to work on their projects, and then paying maintenance crews to come in after the fact to clean up the mess. I can only speak for my industry, but I have a very hard time believing it's any different at other departments.

I dream of a day when owners like the City are more concerned with the quality of an installation than the few pennies they can save.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1275

[V]

As has been pointed out by others already in this thread, it is naive at best to think that contractors are somehow forced into installing the product into a spec that the owner believes is reasonable. The theory is great, but the reality is a far cry from the theory. I've never seen a spec so black and white and so comprehensive that it holds a contractor to a high standard of quality throughout . In addition, I have yet to see an all-powerful engineer that is able to hold a contractor to a higher standard than the contractor is interested in meeting. As soon as the spec is grey the engineer holds no power.

In addition, the fact that purchasing holds all the power in picking the bidder fuels the problem, because the contractor is faced with no real penalty from shoddy work. They'll have the lowest price on the next bid too, so really, where's the incentive to meet a higher standard of quality? They'd have to royally screw things up to be taken off the pre-qualification list. And the purchasers don't care about quality of work or performance on other projects.

I do think it's funny that bid packages require so much information in them. Honestly, if every contractor put in a napkin with a dollar amount it would be enough information for the purchasers to make their decision.

In conclusion, I leave you with this:

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Violator

Whens this bridge supposed to be done?

I look forward to taking my teenaged kids to the grand opening, hopefully they will have access for my walker.

They are 2 and 4 right now.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by V

As has been pointed out by others already in this thread, it is naive at best to think that contractors are somehow forced into installing the product into a spec that the owner believes is reasonable. The theory is great, but the reality is a far cry from the theory. I've never seen a spec so black and white and so comprehensive that it holds a contractor to a high standard of quality throughout . In addition, I have yet to see an all-powerful engineer that is able to hold a contractor to a higher standard than the contractor is interested in meeting. As soon as the spec is grey the engineer holds no power.

In addition, the fact that purchasing holds all the power in picking the bidder fuels the problem, because the contractor is faced with no real penalty from shoddy work. They'll have the lowest price on the next bid too, so really, where's the incentive to meet a higher standard of quality? They'd have to royally screw things up to be taken off the pre-qualification list. And the purchasers don't care about quality of work or performance on other projects.

I do think it's funny that bid packages require so much information in them. Honestly, if every contractor put in a napkin with a dollar amount it would be enough information for the purchasers to make their decision.

In conclusion, I leave you with this:

It's quite apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about. I deal with this stuff nearly every day, and I don't see what you are talking about, and I do see the exact opposite of what you say.

Contractors don't get paid for work that doesn't meet specs - or get deducted pay for the cost of repairing it. And yes, work is checked to ensure it meets specs. And yes, specs are ALWAYS black and white. They are written to be objective, not subjective. As well, engineers hold all the cards, they are essentially "all powerful."

There is huge penalty for shoddy work. It's bloody hard to get ONTO the city's prequalification list (that's another story), never mind "hard to be taken off it" as you say. And I can assure you that owners, including the city take past performance into account.

Basically, if you said the exact opposite of what you said in every sentence, it would be correct.

[frinkprof]

So I figured I had two options here. Respond or don't respond.

First off, Shazam, your mostly fallacious and callous posts do not deserve to be dignified with a response. This was my initial thought.

However, given the nature of online forums, if falsehoods are stated and not debunked or corrected, especially about one's character, they can be perceived as having factual basis because silence from the other party may be interpreted as conceding implicitly.

You're still undeserving of a response. My character isn't.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You define urban Calgary as you see fit for whatever argument you wish to win.

I'm not trying to win an argument. I responded because I'm interested in the discussion, even if I find the nature of the overarching debate fairly ridiculous. Even though I responded directly to your post (in a rather non-confrontational tone that I'm shocked you responded to so aggressively, by the way), I was also critical of SebC's post.

I can only presume that you were attempting to make some sort of argument, or at least state your reasoning for disagreeing with SebC's. The meaning of using the example you did depends heavily on how you define "urban Calgary." I don't care whether you clarify this or not because I'm not trying to make a point. You might be though, so I thought I'd illuminate this.

Originally Posted by Shazam

As far am I concerned, your viewpoint is shallow. You're an LRT supporter - it's only partially paid by its users, the rest taxpayer funded.

Sure. If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. What does that have to do with anything? Transit is a public good. Auto-dependent layouts, inefficient designs, land use patterns that rather arbitrarily serve certain lifestyle choices over others, among other things, are not.

Besides, and full disclosure that this argument is a bit shaky, but the LRT, in and of itself, is revenue positive.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You believe in urban living - you also don't hesitate to go on transcontinental flights.

What an odd thing to say. I "believe" in urban living? What the hell does that even mean? Also, what's this transcontinental flights bit got to do with anything? If you're somehow trying to suggest that whatever hesitance (or lack of) I may have to go on transcontinental flights has anything to do with the position I take on sprawl-type development, you'd be completely wrong.

Not that it's any of your business, let alone of anything beyond a tangential relevance to the issue, but I've been on roughly 14-16 transcontinental flights in my life (if you count the return trip as two flights). The lion's share of that was going back and forth a couple of times a year (Christmas, Summer) to the east coast where I attended post-secondary school.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You rail against "sprawl" - but you seem to have a job that requires you to drive all over the place.

Firstly, you don't have the first god damn idea what my career entails, nor what goes into it and why I choose to have it. Furthermore, even if you did and what you say were completely correct, if you think that affects in any way the position myself and a lot of other people take on what sprawl-type development is, then you haven't been paying attention.

Sprawl entails an auto-dependent design and layout of infrastructure, land uses, and man-made space. This means that the way these things are designed and built all but mandates one particular mode of transportation for the living of day-to-day life and makes most other modes a non-option for practically living one's life. This includes getting to and from work or school, shopping for groceries and other daily needs and socializing.

Criticizing this type of development doesn't mean saying people shouldn't own and operate private vehicles. It doesn't mean ignoring that certain tasks and occupations all but require the use of a vehicle. Firefighters require trucks. Plumbers and electricians typically require vehicles for their job. Overhead utility installers need various vehicles to perform their work. I and most people aren't asking for automobiles to be banned or for certain occupations to strap all their tools to their back and ride a horse to their job or to perform their work in an unreasonably safe manner. That's ridiculous.

I've said basically the same thing at least once on this forum. I'm only interested in speaking for my own positions, but others have as well. Not to call him out in any way, but I think MarchHare is the only one I recall coming close to denouncing private automobile ownership - and mostly, I gather, in the sense that that's his choice. If this hasn't been impressed on you, you haven't been paying attention.

For the record, I take transit - train and bus - to the office. Currently though, I'm reporting to a different location as part of an ongoing project I'm working on, which I commute to by walking and LRT. Normally though, when reporting to the office, I work out of a service-type truck for the balance of the day. The truck is required due to the nature of the services we provide and the amount and bulk of equipment we need to use. This has pretty much has zero affect on any of my positions on sprawl-type development and what to do about it. I don't own a personal automobile, although owning one doesn't go against any of my positions either.

Originally Posted by Shazam

When you live the lifestyle you so covet, then you will have some credibility.

It's quite apparent that you have a very perverted view of what type of lifestyle I, and a lot of other people covet, and how they go about pursuing it. It appears to me that you have some sort of idealistic caricature in your mind that you think anyone critical of sprawl wants to attain. While I'm sure there are some delusional people out there (and do I really need to bring up the white-picket fences; peace, quiet and safety; and lush green grass idyl that even the most ardent promoters and profiteers of sprawl-type development make light-hearted jokes about?), a lot have much more realistic expectations and are reasonable of the existence of constraints.

When you start paying attention to what I and a lot of other people post and not through whatever lens is making you post such baseless venom and the outright baffling connections you've drawn, then you will have some credibility. Maybe with someone else though.

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, you do like to brag a lot.

This is the part that probably swayed me to respond the most.

I brag a lot? I really don't even know what to think of this claim because I think it's one of the most confounding things that someone has charged me with, at least online. I can honestly say that I try to approach most things, especially on internet forums, in a calm and humble manner, and when discussing things I try to give as much credit and respect to opposing views as I can with some exceptions, to be fair. I have a self-deprecating humour. I would say I most certainly do not post in a self-aggrandizing manner and in fact I would say I consciously try to err to the opposite. I think most people on here would agree to some facsimile of this.

Ironically, this post may be the thing that comes closest to me "bragging," and that is because your negative characterization of me has called for something resembling it.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You know what? I'd agree with everything you and the other new-urbanist posers on here write about if you guys actually bothered to live the way you claim modern first world living should be.

But man, you have guys like Flames in 07 on your side, who whines constantly about the suburbs, and yet owns a house in Shawnessy that he rents out.

I don't have a side in the battle of the extremes it seems you and, to be fair, a lot of other people are clinging to. That's probably the most glaring thing that you seem to have missed, forgotten, or outright chosen to ignore. I've posted numerous times that the "suburbs vs. inner city" debate that rages on is a false dichotomy and an overly simplistic way of looking at things. Furthermore "sprawl" is a complex issue that demands complex and careful solutions. It is also only one aspect of the overall puzzle of issues facing Calgary and North American cities. Putting ourselves in one of two diametrically opposed groups is not something I'm interested in.

One of the most confusing parts about your talk of "sides" and you trying to group myself in with a bunch of people on to one of them is that, among many of my posts to similar effect, is this one:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

[On the topic of where "sprawl" begins.] This is open to interpretation. Here's my (sort of) interpretation (along with other areas of the city) that I posted in another thread.

[Images that no longer link properly]

Google Maps Link

Other interpretations I've heard are to basically draw a line where the gridded road pattern ends and everything inside is more or less "inner city" or at least is different in a way from everything outside the line.

Really though, I'm not a fan of the "inner city vs. suburbs" arguments. It's a false dichotomy and doesn't have much practical use. I should note that I made the map above for another purpose, not to argue inner city vs. suburbs.

Which you agreed with:

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, I'm glad someone else besides me understands that.

Originally Posted by Shazam

So yeah, forgive me for being just a bit skeptical.

Absolutely. In fact, I would encourage your skepticism. What I will not forgive is you making attacks on my character that are not only in large part false, but are only relevant to your distorted view of the issues being discussed and my positions on them.

[Bigtime]

The whole urban/suburban debate just can't help but turn sour. Perhaps having the debates on a website instead of face to face is the issue, it really helps to put a face to the name posting everything. You know, see them as an actual human and all (instead of a godless car-less commie or pickup truck driving rootin' tootin' pollutin' suburbanite).

[MarchHare]

Not to call him out in any way, but I think MarchHare is the only one I recall coming close to denouncing private automobile ownership - and mostly, I gather, in the sense that that's his choice.

That's slightly mischaracterizing my position.

Ideally, I think cities should be designed for walkability with other infrastructure in place (e.g. an excellent bike path network and public transit system) such that people prefer to leave their cars at home (or choose not to own one at all). I don't denounce private automobile ownership, but I think Calgary has made some poor urban planning decisions that has resulted in the private vehicle being the most attractive transportation option for the majority of the city's population. In other cities around the world, private vehicles are seen as the method of last resort if you can't conveniently reach your destination by foot or transit; that's where I'd like to see Calgary headed.

I also have a problem with people who drive unnecessarily large and fuel-inefficient urban assault vehicles, but that's a topic for another thread.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's slightly mischaracterizing my position.

Ideally, I think cities should be designed for walkability with other infrastructure in place (e.g. an excellent bike path network and public transit system) such that people prefer to leave their cars at home (or choose not to own one at all). I don't denounce private automobile ownership, but I think Calgary has made some poor urban planning decisions that has resulted in the private vehicle being the most attractive transportation option for the majority of the city's population. In other cities around the world, private vehicles are seen as the method of last resort if you can't conveniently reach your destination by foot or transit; that's where I'd like to see Calgary headed.

I also have a problem with people who drive unnecessarily large and fuel-inefficient urban assault vehicles, but that's a topic for another thread.

Your hippy utopia sounds great, but our climate makes it unreasonable, if no impossible, to create what you describe. This city is comfortably 'outdoor-commutable' 4-5 months out of the year.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's slightly mischaracterizing my position.

Ideally, I think cities should be designed for walkability with other infrastructure in place (e.g. an excellent bike path network and public transit system) such that people prefer to leave their cars at home (or choose not to own one at all). I don't denounce private automobile ownership, but I think Calgary has made some poor urban planning decisions that has resulted in the private vehicle being the most attractive transportation option for the majority of the city's population. In other cities around the world, private vehicles are seen as the method of last resort if you can't conveniently reach your destination by foot or transit; that's where I'd like to see Calgary headed.

I also have a problem with people who drive unnecessarily large and fuel-inefficient urban assault vehicles, but that's a topic for another thread.

You should start that thread...it could be interesting.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Your hippy utopia sounds great, but our climate makes it unreasonable, if no impossible, to create what you describe. This city is comfortably 'outdoor-commutable' 4-5 months out of the year.

How do people living in the major cities of Scandinavia or northern Russia get around? Has anyone been to Stockholm, for example? It has a similar population and climate to Calgary -- are urban Swedes as car dependent as we are?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How do people living in the major cities of Scandinavia or northern Russia get around? Has anyone been to Stockholm, for example? It has a similar population and climate to Calgary -- are urban Swedes as car dependent as we are?

People in Russia look cold and miserable to me. Plus aren't like half of them unemployed or something?

[Knut]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How do people living in the major cities of Scandinavia or northern Russia get around? Has anyone been to Stockholm, for example? It has a similar population and climate to Calgary -- are urban Swedes as car dependent as we are?

Everything in Stockholm is accesible within a 15 minute walk of a train station. The Tunnelbana is huge and sprawling. It would likely cost Billions to build a system like that here.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Everything in Stockholm is accesible within a 15 minute walk of a train station. The Tunnelbana is huge and sprawling. It would likely cost Billions to build a system like that here.

Right, which is exactly my point. If Calgary had embraced that sort of urban design principle decades ago, we could have grown naturally and cost-effectively as a city in which it is easy to get around by foot or by transit. Instead, past councils adopted a pro-sprawl design policy and neglected walkable communities, bike paths, and transit infrastructure, and now the majority of Calgarians think they're absolutely dependent on their cars.

[Tinordi]

I say to my friends who aren't from Calgary but have gone to visit that Calgary could have been an amazing city if it had a better built environment. The people are very friendly, they love to be out and partying, enjoying the outdoors etc. But the City itself is just a wasteland of suburbs with basically zero urban character. If it had that it would be amazing.

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Everything in Stockholm is accesible within a 15 minute walk of a train station. The Tunnelbana is huge and sprawling. It would likely cost Billions to build a system like that here.

Stockholm founded in 1250
Calgary became a city in 1894


I have relatives in Scotland who would never consider driving for 1 hour
to pick me up from the airport, where as we bomb up to Edmonton for 3 hours without a second thought.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How do people living in the major cities of Scandinavia or northern Russia get around? Has anyone been to Stockholm, for example? It has a similar population and climate to Calgary -- are urban Swedes as car dependent as we are?

I don't disagree with your point especially, as I think Calgary should be more walkable for the season(s) when that's reasonable. But our climate isn't really similar to Stockholms.

Example:
Average January Low Stockholm: -5 degrees C
Average January Low Calgary: -15 degrees C

I'll make a reasonable distance walk at -5. At -15 or lower, I'm seriously considering an alternative.

**http://www.calgaryarea.com/calgary_weather.htm
**http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/foreca...&region=world#