Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Slava]

Am I the only one who laughed out loud at moon in this thread? I mean seriously your chiming in about how bad this thing looks, and writing from Lethbridge of all places! The biggest highlight there is a giant bridge!! (and I suppose a restaurant at the top of a water tower if you're into that kind of thing!)

[Rerun]

I thought this bridge was going to cost 22 million? Now I read in the paper that the cost is 24.5 million. I wonder what the real cost will be once its built?

Frankly I think we're paying a lot of money for a Chinese Finger Trap.

[Bunk]

After having thought about this design quite a bit and hearing from the architect, I'll weigh in my opinion in a little more depth.

I think what attracts me most about this design and all contemporary architecture that I like is that it is fundamentally about its functionality. It seems very clear to me that the dual objectives of maintaining a low height and creating a clear span across the river really drove the design and engineering response. Couple with that is an obviously clearly thought out approach to best accommodating the user - which is cyclists, bladers and pedestrians.

- The flat profile is due to its height restriction, but also to make it as accessible and easy to use as possible.

- It has a clear flat span, which requires a strong, straight, very rigid structure - which drives the decision to use a helix as its structural element.

- It is wide with separated lanes for different users, reducing congestion and improving safety.

- The straightness of the bridge also is much more direct, user friendly and likely ultimately safer for bikes whipping around pedestrians in a semi-enclosed structure.

- There isn't any feature without purpose, there isn't really needless adornment.

- The Helix in turn adds the potential for weather protection, unique lighting opportunities and a damn unique user experience moving through it. It's like a space warp or something.

- All these functional moves add up also to something that is quite beautiful as well - which I think is his true brilliance.

As Calatrava said, structurally, this is one of his most demanding bridges ever, and I think those challenges, constraints and functional considerations ended up as a brilliant design. Colour me impressed, Calatrava is a master.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I wonder how much that opinion would change if we were still in a big boom instead of a recession.

Depends if my taxes kept going up by 6% every year.

[CaptainCrunch]

To me, its just not a bridge design that makes me go wow, thats awesome or that beautiful or that inspires.

It honestly looks like a half ass design effort that took 20 minutes to come up with the concept and the guy got his inpiration while he was taking a dump and he looked over and saw that he was out of paper and all that was left was the cardboard tube.

I completely take issue with the idea that a local firm couldn't have come up with a better theme and design.

I don't know how many people after the first time they drive by it or walk over it are going to give it a second thought.

I think that the scary concept for the city council is if the second bridge thats locally designed is a better concept or better looking.

But to me, I don't love it, and for all of the hype it should stir some feeling in my chest or pride, or excitment of wonder, of oh wow thats amazing, but at best its a feeling of meh, at worst its a feeling of, that just looks lazy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

Apparently this military angle was indeed a total politically motivated afterthought.

And captain from those designing the bridge it is the farthest thing from lazy, it is an incredibly difficult to design structure and that is a fact that the city has not put out yet. That may not appease you that it may appear lazy to you but take my word for it, it isn't.

No I get that, and its not about appeasing me, at the end of the day, this city council will face the voters and this issue will be a large one of many.

While it might not be lazy, it has the appearance of lazy, and after thought.

but I think part of my problem is that I'm old, and a lot of the modern contemporary architecture to me is not really inspirational.

Personally, I would have designed it to go under water, and I would have stocked the Bow with neon green goldfish.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by V

Just look at that rendering. There is perfect uniformity of illumination. But where is it lit from? A point source just does not have the ability to create that look. Also, the vertical illumination is outstanding in the rendering. LEDs don't have a prayer when it comes to providing that kind of a finished look.

Also, with the LED's weak lumen to watt ratio, there's no way you could possibly find enough source locations to provide that kind of horizontal illuminance all the way across the bridge. It looks to me like the lighting will be mounted along the centre ceiling. Trust me when I say that if you tried to light that tunnel with a strip of LED lighting along the centre the lighting would be awful. You wouldn't want to be biking, that's for sure.

I don't think you know the capabilities of LED lights these days. High power LEDs are very bright these days (every bit as bright as any other lighting) , and you can get uniform light by using lots of them. LEDs probably have the HIGHEST lumen to watt ratio any any kind of light - they are the most efficient lights out there.

It looks to me from the renderings that the lighting is continuous along the top centre strip, AND continuous along the ground level on each side. (leaving aside the lighting under the deck for now) The bridge will be very well lit.

What do you mean by "the lighting would be awful?" Do you mean that it wouldn't be bright enough? Or, that the quality of light would be poor, or what?

There will be thousands of high power LEDs in each strip of light.

[Ozy_Flame]

That bridge, with the proper lighting, is going to look fan-freaking-tastic at night.

[Rerun]

poll poll poll !!!!

We want a poll !!!

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by fotze

I'm guessing 20% for, 80% against

The enlightened ones in our society have always been in the minority.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The enlightened ones in our society have always been in the minority.

Fixed.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

So when you go to Egypt, you don't check out the pyramids? When you go to NY, you don't go up the Empire State Building or Rockefeller Center? When you are in Paris, you don't glance at the Eiffel Tower? The Colosseum in Rome? Great Wall of China? Sydney Opera House?

Architecture is one of the top reasons why people travel. The vast majority of attractions in the world is some form of building structure. How can you say you don't find beauty in architecture? Beauty IS architecture!

You're comparing this bridge, and it's architectural "beauty", to the pyramids, the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, etc???

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I completely take issue with the idea that a local firm couldn't have come up with a better theme and design.

Well local firms have had their chance more than a few times to design something interesting. I invite you to show us a significant project that is as unique as this conceived by a local firm.

The best wow factor buildings at the moment, The Bow, Hotel Le Germain, Cantos Project, SAIT Parkade this bridge.....all designed by architects outside of the city.

If this were Vancouver or Toronto, I think you'd have a point. But unfortunately, local firms have had the chance to prove their worth over and over, and have failed to produce anything as interesting. There are a select few small-scale examples, by Eleven Eleven or Sturgess, but out of the big firms who would have a chance to design something like this, we, more often than not, get pure tripe.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You're comparing this bridge, and it's architectural "beauty", to the pyramids, the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, etc???

Yeah, way to take things out of context. I suggest you go try again and come back when you figure out what the point of the argument was.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If this were Vancouver or Toronto, I think you'd have a point. But unfortunately, local firms have had the chance to prove their worth over and over, and have failed to produce anything as interesting. There are a select few small-scale examples, by Eleven Eleven or Sturgess, but out of the big firms who would have a chance to design something like this, we, more often than not, get pure tripe.

Or as we like to say over at SSP, "we got Gaged".

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If this were Vancouver or Toronto, I think you'd have a point. But unfortunately, local firms have had the chance to prove their worth over and over, and have failed to produce anything as interesting. There are a select few small-scale examples, by Eleven Eleven or Sturgess, but out of the big firms who would have a chance to design something like this, we, more often than not, get pure tripe.

Local firms aren't often asked to produce anything interesting. My wife is an architect. Local clients are conservative, and generally want plain, functional, cheap buidlings.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by moon

When I was in Egypt I thought it was cool to think about how the Pyramids were built and was more impressed with the sheer size of them, but I didn't find them "beautiful". It was more the engineering aspect that went into building them than the actual look of them

The bridge is actually quite amazing if engineering is your thing. The fact that they managed to design something this long without any supports is definitely no small feat.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by troutman

Local firms aren't often asked to produce anything interesting. My wife is an architect. Local clients are conservative, and generally want plain, functional, cheap buidlings.

I'm a designer myself, and while I can sympathize with that, I feel like part of our job is to educate and direct our clients into the right direction. We all know that Calgary clients are conservative, but you would think once in a while you'd get somebody who lets you do what you really want. Where are those projects? Often times the downfall of locally designed projects are things dealing with aesthetical choices and details, not big massive shifts in philosophy/budgets. Choosing crappy colors or tacking on ornamentation is a result of lack of imagination, not budgets.

Besides, local firms are more than welcome to enter competitions worldwide. What has Gibbs Gage, probably the biggest architect in town who gets a ton of work, done anywhere that's even in the same ballpark as Norman Foster or Calatrava?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

The pyramids look like lazy design, its a fatain pyramid, what next the Parallelograms of Sudan.

The Pyramids do look like a lazy design, but I was more blown away by the concept of their construction based around the technology at the time.

I'm still waiting for somebody to design a bender pyramid, that is 1 billion cubits tall, belches fire and yells out "remember me"

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, way to take things out of context. I suggest you go try again and come back when you figure out what the point of the argument was.

Kind of like when I was challenged earlier in the thread (obviously not by you but by someone else)?

It is very easy to find beauty in how the Pyramids or the Colosseum were made way back when. This bridge is a different kettle of fish. Nobody is going to come to Calgary to 'glance' at it.