Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Addick]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Because your place is all built you expect no one else should build anywhere else? That's not really fair. If there was 200000 more people trying to live in your community I wonder if you would have even found a place.

No, I think he wants everyone living elsewhere to pay their fair share and not rely on subsidies to live out their urban/suburban/exurban/rural dreams and lifestyles.

Originally Posted by transplant99

But still necessary....this bridge was not....nor will it likely ever be.

Whether or not one likes the look of the thing, it truly was/is redundant in it's practicality....never mind the cost associated.

Even if you were right and the bridge is not needed right now, which I believe it is, one of the beautiful things about efficient and sustainable modes of transportation like walking and cycling is that municipalities can afford to be proactive when it comes to providing infrastructure. Rather than having to be reactive, which you are when providing costly infrastructure for auto-oriented transportation system, by flipping the transportation pyramid on its head Calgary can start to be proactive and provide pieces of infrastructure right before they are needed.

It's like buying a 7-12 Month sized sleeping suit for your 6 month-old baby.

[Ozy_Flame]

Also, I agree with others in this thread - you don't want to have reactionary infrastructure strategy - you want a proactive one, especially in a city like Calgary that spreads out and consumes land like unrelenting locust. This is the ironic thing about urban sprawl and rapid population growth.

The bridge was a good idea.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This macroeconomic argument is easy to make, but it's hard to make a distinction between inner city vs. suburb tax dollar ROI.

There is probably some synergetic relationship between inner and outer city tax dollars, but I have yet to find a reason why my tax dollars as a resident of Westbrook/Wildwood are even relevant to a Falconridge or Tuscany infrastructure services, just like you would feel the same way.

Either way, i would like to see tax dollars stay in the community they're paid from, and have a City-appointed finance manager per community with resident/citizen board members. If we feel a park is in order, we'll build it with our own tax dollars and leave Falconridge to deal with their own parks.

Public infrastructure and recreation costs, such as Memorial Trail or Prince's Island Park, should be designated city-wide taxes since most Calgarians will either use these pieces of the city at some point. Of course, robust research should go into what counts as a city-wide infrastructure piece.

Totally agree. But don't know that it's possible or fair or costly to do so. We hope that our elected officials are smart enough and dedicated enough to do this work for us - but not sure that's ever going to happen.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Joborule

It's humorous watching uneducated opinions trying to speak like they know it all.

Did someone say education!?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Design and construction contracts are two very separate things. Sole source design happens all the time. Tenders for construction are almost always done via bidding.

If you're going to start naming off names of construction contractors, then you should probably be aware of their part in a project before making statements like that.

Hey Mazrim, love the avatar. That chick is smoking hot. I call her 'thighs', since you have a great view of them from all the way up in the 300's...

[Muta]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Totally agree. But don't know that it's possible or fair or costly to do so. We hope that our elected officials are smart enough and dedicated enough to do this work for us - but not sure that's ever going to happen.

Just curious - would you agree to a tiered transportation tax, in that citizens who live further away from the core (in an established concentric ring system, or something) pay an additional tax for being located so far out? This tax would go to subsidizing the new infrastructure that needs to be built / maintained in their direction.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by fotze

You don't really think the weir project is for aesthetics do you.

I'll give you an out.

HA HA Where's the green text.

Fine, I didn't plan on attempting to die in the bow river anytime soon nor did I in the past.

But thanks for the out

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

The cost of the bridge is one thing which according to polls 98% of Calgarians agree 25m was wasted and the bridge was not even needed.

The location was extremely poor. This was not a placement that made any logic what so ever.

The thing that bothered me the most was how this project was closed off to ALL outside and local contractors. There was no open tendor that cityhall allowed any other engineering companies to bid on.

From what I know from dealing with Graham, PCL, Devitt, SNC, Aecon etc that projects of this magnitude are always tendered.

Bronco and Dru Farrell keeping this as a exclusive contract to Calatrava should have been shut down from the start.
Very unscrupulous practice right from the beginning and was forced on the city.
It was the unethical management by City Hall on this project that I feel should have shut this down. Not the cosmetics of the bridge or cost that is an entirely seperate issue to itself.

FACT: $25 Million was not wasted, we got a perfectly functional bridge out of it.

FACT: The bridge is needed, Existing pedestrian crossings are narrow, and a gap of 1 km between bridges is too much right across from downtown.

FACT: The location was agreed to by council in the Centre City Plan, which preceeds any talk of the peace bridge. As is the last answer, 1 km between bridges is too much for being right across from downtown.

FACT: The bridge was open to all local contractors.

FACT: Sole sourcing of design contracts happens all the time, for good reason. It saves lots of money and hassle.

FACT: the construction of the bridge was tendered, the subtrades were open to anyone, etc.

FACT: A basic bridge for this location would have cost $15 million (at least), not $2-5 million as some people would say.

FACT: If the city hadn't hired Calatrava, they would have hired more than one other engineering/architecture firm, plus they would have kept the 1% for art as a separate item.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Muta

Just curious - would you agree to a tiered transportation tax, in that citizens who live further away from the core (in an established concentric ring system, or something) pay an additional tax for being located so far out? This tax would go to subsidizing the new infrastructure that needs to be built / maintained in their direction.

Sure - if reparations were paid by said closer citizens for the monies that were equivalently spent placing, upgrading and maintaining their infrastructure from back in their day. Inflated to 2012 dollars and all additional costs like the examples provided above were board by said citizens living close by.

Or, have the city purchase all housing from the entire population for current market values. Create new taxation system and start the auction and see where everyone lands and how they like new location*.

*I have no idea if that makes sense or is relevant but it popped into my head and sounds fun and dramatic so I'm going to leave it without editing or thinking about it

[Muta]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Sure - if reparations were paid by said closer citizens for the monies that were equivalently spent placing, upgrading and maintaining their infrastructure from back in their day. Inflated to 2012 dollars and all additional costs like the examples provided above were board by said citizens living close by.

Or, have the city purchase all housing from the entire population for current market values. Create new taxation system and start the auction and see where everyone lands and how the like said location*.

*I have no idea if that makes sense or is relevant but it popped into my head and sounds fun and dramatic so I'm going to leave it without editing or thinking about it

Hahaha, okay. My only concern with your post is in the first paragraph - why would inner city residents have to pay reparations on things that were built and paid for along time ago? That's the beauty of living inner city - the existing majority of the infrastructure is re-used by multiple generations.

[burn_this_city]

I'm still curious if the city pushed Graham to use the spanish fabricator from Calatrava's hometown.

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Bird poop on my head was clearly a problem on the Prince's Island bridge. I'd be struttin' and then I'd be like "yo what's that shizzat I just felt" and it was a pigeon pinching a loaf. And I was like "COME AT ME, BRO!"

It's funny you should say that. Back in school, a friend on a school field trip close to Prince's Island Park along the river got pooped on by a seagull. I swear those flying #######s do it intentionally for kicks

Sad to say, the last half of grade 5 ruined him. But better him than me since I was just a few feet away

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This macroeconomic argument is easy to make, but it's hard to make a distinction between inner city vs. suburb tax dollar ROI.

There is probably some synergetic relationship between inner and outer city tax dollars, but I have yet to find a reason why my tax dollars as a resident of Westbrook/Wildwood are even relevant to a Falconridge or Tuscany infrastructure services, just like you would feel the same way.

Either way, i would like to see tax dollars stay in the community they're paid from, and have a City-appointed finance manager per community with resident/citizen board members. If we feel a park is in order, we'll build it with our own tax dollars and leave Falconridge to deal with their own parks.

Public infrastructure and recreation costs, such as Memorial Trail or Prince's Island Park, should be designated city-wide taxes since most Calgarians will either use these pieces of the city at some point. Of course, robust research should go into what counts as a city-wide infrastructure piece.

I agree with both of you, it really is irrelevant to consider who is actually paying for what in our current state. But it is still frustrating that I'm responsible for upgrading the sewage line in front of my house being built in Renfrew with a higher tax burden because my property value is higher than that of places outside the inner city.

I'd just like to see more money spent on the established communities, and to make the cost of initial infrastructure a little bit more passed onto the new home buyers. The city subsidizes the cost of infrastructure to developing communities so that the cost of the housing stays cheap. That's a big problem in my opinion.

Initial investment should be part of the cost of buying your home if it's a new construction, that seems fair given I have to pay for it myself to build a new home in an established neighbourhood.

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Did someone say education!?

uh oh...
time to lay the smackdown with another 80+ thanked rant?

[Bunk]

Interesting fact. 43% of Calgary's tax base is derived in the Centre City (boundary defined as 14th street in the west, elbow river in the east, 17th Avenue in the south and the bow river in the north).

Not a specific comment on the peace bridge, but it's important that we take care of this goose that lays the financial golden egg. That means reinvesting in the public realm to make it a safe and attractive place for employees, visitors and very importantly - residents. We've done a relatively good job in our parks, but now more attention needs to go into the other major public space, which is our streets. Making them more attractive and functional for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users - not just for the uniform function of getting people in and out via there car as fast as humanly possible.

Attracting more development and people living in the core area of the city and filling in those big gaps in the urban environment (expansive parking lots) I think are key elements to improving our competitiveness and liveability. Improving the public realm and street infrastructure is an important catalyst to that (look at what the new public realm infrastructure is doing for East Village).

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Muta

Hahaha, okay. My only concern with your post is in the first paragraph - why would inner city residents have to pay reparations on things that were built and paid for along time ago? That's the beauty of living inner city - the existing majority of the infrastructure is re-used by multiple generations.

You want to change the current system because you deem it unfair to inner city residents. Well they bought their houses knowing exactly how the system worked or they've had ample time to move if they don't like it. Suburbanites bought their houses under the same assumptions. Can't just up and change it for the benefit of the few and ignore the many. Spock would be pissed!

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Interesting fact. 43% of Calgary's tax based is derive in the Centre City (boundary defined as 14th street in the west, elbow river in the east, 17th Avenue in the south and the bow river in the north).

Not a specific comment on the peace bridge, but it's important that we take care of this goose that lays the financial golden egg. That means reinvesting in the public realm to make it a safe and attractive place for employees, visitors and very importantly - residents. We've done a relatively good job in our parks, but now more attention needs to go into the other major public space, which is our streets. Making them more attractive and functional for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users - not just for the uniform function of getting people in and out via there car as fast as humanly possible.

Attracting more development and people living in the core area of the city and filling in those big gaps in the urban environment (expansive parking lots) I think are key elements to improving our competitiveness and liveability. Improving the public realm and street infrastructure is an important catalyst to that (look at what the new public realm infrastructure is doing for East Village).

How is that number changed if that Centre City is expanded to 16th ave north which is what I think a lot of realtors refer to as Inner City?

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Interesting fact. 43% of Calgary's tax based is derive in the Centre City (boundary defined as 14th street in the west, elbow river in the east, 17th Avenue in the south and the bow river in the north).

Not a specific comment on the peace bridge, but it's important that we take care of this goose that lays the financial golden egg. That means reinvesting in the public realm to make it a safe and attractive place for employees, visitors and very importantly - residents. We've done a relatively good job in our parks, but now more attention needs to go into the other major public space, which is our streets. Making them more attractive and functional for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users - not just for the uniform function of getting people in and out via there car as fast as humanly possible.

Attracting more development and people living in the core area of the city and filling in those big gaps in the urban environment (expansive parking lots) I think are key elements to improving our competitiveness and liveability. Improving the public realm and street infrastructure is an important catalyst to that (look at what the new public realm infrastructure is doing for East Village).

Did it break it down into Business vs. Residential? Because we're really only talking about the latter.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'd just like to see more money spent on the established communities, and to make the cost of initial infrastructure a little bit more passed onto the new home buyers. The city subsidizes the cost of infrastructure to developing communities so that the cost of the housing stays cheap. That's a big problem in my opinion.

Why does the city do this? That's my issue.

If they didn't subsidize the cost of infrastructure for developing communities, prices for homes out in those communities would be higher. This, in turn, would force people back towards to the inner city because it's no longer a discount to live out in the middle of nowhere (and if you're paying the same amount, you're probably going to live in a place where it takes less time to get anywhere), and the infrastructure wouldn't be needed, thus saving the city those costs.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Interesting fact. 43% of Calgary's tax base is derived in the Centre City (boundary defined as 14th street in the west, elbow river in the east, 17th Avenue in the south and the bow river in the north).

What about if you expand that to Deerfoot in the East and 16th Ave in the North? Property values are pretty high in those areas.