Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Muta

You know, as someone who works in architecture... I'm actually not mad of the way the City handled this. They actually had the BALLS to go out and single-source a QUALITY AND WELL-KNOWN BRIDGE DESIGNER.

This is the same muncipal government that RFP's 99.9999999% of the work it requires. Anyone in the industry knows how complex these RFP's can get.

Props to them.

We didn't get a chance to design the bridge, but you know what? Who cares. Calatrava is a bridge legend, and will likely produce something more discussion-worthy than most others can. Besides, everyone got a chance on the St. Partrick's Island Bridge, which people seem to forget.

I actually give the City of Calgary credit for the way the Peace Bridge bridge was delivered... but I do know that I'm probably in the extreme minority on this one.

I don't have issues with the sole sourcing either. The biggest problem I have with the process was that it really seemed that the city was trying to hide something at the very start. The city should have been open from the start, and gotten the city excited about the project from the start.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I don't have issues with the sole sourcing either. The biggest problem I have with the process was that it really seemed that the city was trying to hide something at the very start. The city should have been open from the start, and gotten the city excited about the project from the start.

I guess you could say the same about those massive interchange projects in 'burbs that cost $150 million, or somewhere in the nine-figures. I like how those go under the radar and once found out, no real public outcry (especially interchanges that only minority of Calgary's will ever really use).

The City doesn't do a good job of publicizing projects, but such is the case with many, multiple projects in its existence. And in the end, who cares? They're tasked with making infrastructure developments. They don't need a plebiscite on every single infrastructure project just to please the masses.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I guess you could say the same about those massive interchange projects in 'burbs that cost $150 million, or somewhere in the nine-figures. I like how those go under the radar and once found out, no real public outcry (especially interchanges that only minority of Calgary's will ever really use).

The City doesn't do a good job of publicizing projects, but such is the case with many, multiple projects in its existence. And in the end, who cares? They're tasked with making infrastructure developments. They don't need a plebiscite on every single infrastructure project just to please the masses.

I don't think even the GE5 interchange cost $150 million. It's probably the only one more than $100M. Most of the far out ones cost $40-60 million.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

-Druh this slick bridge is going to be good for your community. Sure wish I had properties to in that area as it seems like a lot of money is being put into sprucing it up. Just remember when we put my little pet project on the table for my Ward that you will return the support wink wink.

And where do you live Erick? Because virtually every newish community in Calgary is subsidized by the inner city. The Peace Bridge doesn't even come close to fixing that imbalance.

[JiriHrdina]

I don't like how the bridge looks but I also don't really know much about architecture. To me though it looks like something that will look dated in a few decades. But I also know I've hated it from Day 1 so I don't pretend to be completely objective.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Muta

You know, as someone who works in architecture... I'm actually not mad of the way the City handled this. They actually had the BALLS to go out and single-source a QUALITY AND WELL-KNOWN BRIDGE DESIGNER.

This is the same muncipal government that RFP's 99.9999999% of the work it requires. Anyone in the industry knows how complex these RFP's can get.

Props to them.

We didn't get a chance to design the bridge, but you know what? Who cares. Calatrava is a bridge legend, and will likely produce something more discussion-worthy than most others can. Besides, everyone got a chance on the St. Partrick's Island Bridge, which people seem to forget.

I actually give the City of Calgary credit for the way the Peace Bridge bridge was delivered... but I do know that I'm probably in the extreme minority on this one.

I completely agree with this entire post, but especially the bolded part. It's not like they sole sourced the project to someone unqualified as a political payoff. Calatrava is a freakin' legend. I went out of my way in Buenos Aires to see his bridge there (and it's not as striking as the Peace Bridge, imo).

Is everyone who is opposed to this honestly of the opinion we should always take the lowest bid for everything? Because I'm not interested in living in a city of square Soviet style architecture. And if you are in favour of low bidding everything, are you still opposed to the Spaniards who screwed up the welding after they low-bid that part of the job?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't like how the bridge looks but I also don't really know much about architecture. To me though it looks like something that will look dated in a few decades. But I also know I've hated it from Day 1 so I don't pretend to be completely objective.

I think this whole worrying about something looking dated is another horrible Calgarian trait when it comes to this.

The Calgary tower started to look dated after 20 years too, I'm sure 20 years after it was built the centre st bridge look dated, but you stick with architecture, don't blow it up when you think it looks "old" and let them mature and age and instead of looking old and dated, things look vintage and classic.

In 2032 people will look at the Peace Bridge and say - "Wow, what a dated piece of crap from 2010"

But 10 years after that and beyond it's - "What a cool piece of design work from the early 2000s"

Calgary is so quick to get rid of things that look dated and not let them age and become classic. Drives me up the wall, new new new new.

Ugh, rant over sorry. Don't even know if any of that made sense.

[Muta]

Calgary was built on brutalist 60's architecture. To hear a Calgarian worry about looking outdated is either extremely true, or extremely ironic.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I think this whole worrying about something looking dated is another horrible Calgarian trait when it comes to this.

The Calgary tower started to look dated after 20 years too, I'm sure 20 years after it was built the centre st bridge look dated, but you stick with architecture, don't blow it up when you think it looks "old" and let them mature and age and instead of looking old and dated, things look vintage and classic.

In 2032 people will look at the Peace Bridge and say - "Wow, what a dated piece of crap from 2010"

But 10 years after that and beyond it's - "What a cool piece of design work from the early 2000s"

Calgary is so quick to get rid of things that look dated and not let them age and become classic. Drives me up the wall, new new new new.

Ugh, rant over sorry. Don't even know if any of that made sense.

I don't mean dated as in "old" I mean dated as in it looks trendy and gimmicky.

I agree with EE that it doesn't look like it fits in. And perhaps that's a good thing but I question if a bridge is the right place to start and invest in a change in how a city looks.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't mean dated as in "old" I mean dated as in it looks trendy and gimmicky.

I agree with EE that it doesn't look like it fits in. And perhaps that's a good thing but I question if a bridge is the right place to start and invest in a change in how a city looks.

Just curious what you think would be a good place to start?

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't mean dated as in "old" I mean dated as in it looks trendy and gimmicky.

I agree with EE that it doesn't look like it fits in. And perhaps that's a good thing but I question if a bridge is the right place to start and invest in a change in how a city looks.

I agree the place could have been better chosen, but I don't have the perspective of someone who would use the bridge as part of thier commute, so my opinion isn't very valid in the placement.
and why isn't it the right place to invest in changing how the city looks? We already have the bow, and have commited to the music centre and east village. the bridge stands out and will be seen by people rafting in the summer, even moreso with the improvements to the wier and east village developments.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't mean dated as in "old" I mean dated as in it looks trendy and gimmicky.

Fair enough, but I think my reply still covers this, no?

I agree with EE that it doesn't look like it fits in. And perhaps that's a good thing but I question if a bridge is the right place to start and invest in a change in how a city looks.

So where would be a good place to start?

I'm sure others could answer this better but I think "The Bow" may have started a shift in Architecture attitude in Calgary, not the Peace Bridge.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by bomber317

Just curious what you think would be a good place to start?

Actual buildings I guess.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I'm sure others could answer this better but I think "The Bow" may have started a shift in Architecture attitude in Calgary, not the Peace Bridge.

I agree... the Bow is signalling a shift in the attitude towards architecture in this city (even if it is slight). That was really the catalyst for the next level in local design standards.

You will also see this happen with the National Music Centre. Not my favourite concept, but miles more unique than anything this city has seen thus far.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Fair enough, but I think my reply still covers this, no?



So where would be a good place to start?

I'm sure others could answer this better but I think "The Bow" may have started a shift in Architecture attitude in Calgary, not the Peace Bridge.

Yeah The Bow is pretty cool and I'm more on board with that type of project, particularly since it is funded privately. I think Calgary historically has done a cruddy job of protecting its historic sites but that appears to be changing too. But if there's an opportunity to continue the trend for a higher standard of architecture through public buildings too I'm all for that...but the right process should still be followed.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

...but the right process should still be followed.

meh, like someone before said, the city should have just owned it instead of being afraid of it. "We're using a world renowned designer of pedestrian bridges" ... done. The competition they held for the second just got us a faux early Calatrava, so I don't really see much wrong with the process even if I understand that many do.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

meh, like someone before said, the city should have just owned it instead of being afraid of it. "We're using a world renowned designer of pedestrian bridges" ... done. The competition they held for the second just got us a faux early Calatrava, so I don't really see much wrong with the process even if I understand that many do.

No doubt a big part of the problems with this project has been communication from Day 1 to now. They haven't done anything right when it comes to handling this from a public point of view.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I'm sure others could answer this better but I think "The Bow" may have started a shift in Architecture attitude in Calgary, not the Peace Bridge.

I dislike the Bow... sure it's tall, but it's even fatter than it is tall.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by SebC

I dislike the Bow... sure it's tall, but it's even fatter than it is tall.

Fair enough, and you've mentioned that before, but that isn't the point I was making.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by SebC

I dislike the Bow... sure it's tall, but it's even fatter than it is tall.

I'm sorry but the Bow f'ing rocks!
Here's a pic of it from yesterday.

The Big Blue Bow by Witty nickname, on Flickr