Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[CaptainCrunch]

ok, I have several problems with the bridge, I might as well lay them out so that I don't have to revisit them

1) I think its an incredibly lackluster design, its dosen't fill me with a sense of wonder or awe, I don't think its a great design from my point of view.

2) I think in a city with a lot of infrastructure problem from crumbling roads to roadway congestion problems, to water quality and sewer quality problems to mass transit issues that this bridge as sexy of a project as it is should be way down on the list of priorities. At this point while its a nice to have project its certainly not a must have.

3) I hate that this city council tried to get around the disenfranchised feelings about this bridge suddenly made it a salute to the troops that have died in service of this country. To me, something like the Lions head bridge which to me a historical landmark is more relevant memorial.

4) I want to see an actual feasibility study concerning the construction on this bridge. My guy tells me that the complexity and requirements for the construction of the bridge will mean that this 23 million dollar bridge will end up being a 40 million dollar bridge.

5) I hate the fact that our City Council has actually polarized itself itself against this bridge, to the point where council people didn't show up for key votes or had to make phone calls during the vote. Either stand behind this project by voting or resign your seat.

6) I'm still pissed that this design was approved without competition, and no I'm not talking about high school students, or college students. I'm talking that they should have thrown it open to architecture firms in this city. I you can tell me that these firms can't make exciting designs, but I don't buy that.

7) I don't buy that this bridge design is going to raise the cities value nor is it going to increase tourism or be a destination point for tourists so I don't see the value of it. I think after the first drive by it will be the forgotten bridge and will end up being a pigeon poop speckled bridge just like the other pigeon poop speckled bridges around this city.

Thats my view, and I doubt I'm going to change it. Because of the polarization of the electorate on this issue that the construction should be delayed until the election. but my gut tells me that it won't, and this mayor and most of this council is going to fall over this bridge and other issues and this bridge might not get finished, or the vision will be changed by the next city council.

.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Claeren

(I am not going to go over again how this spending for the bridge was NOT the work of city council, was money specifically allocated for this use, etc. Any person who actually wants to be informed knows this, and the rest... still oppose the bridge for the same tired reasons.)

Claeren.

Ed Stelmach said and i quote...

I'm not going to be making any personal comments," the premier said of the Peace Bridge design.

"We provide substantial new funding for infrastructure for all municipalities and the agreement we have with the municipalities is that they make the decisions as to how that money will be spent."

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm anti-bridge and not a suburbanite. I fail to see why because money is wasted elsewhere (which it is) why that excuses this specific waste of money.

Nope, I think you may have missed the point. (Or just don't ever support building anything anytime so it is a mute point).

You think it is a waste because you don't use it, are not properly calculating its actual premium relative other engineering options, are not able to see all the ways it will create 'value' in the city over time (and thus a hidden return on investment v. other options) etc etc.

Just like someone who doesn't use a far flung suburban interchange may not value it, value not sitting in traffic, or the inherent value found in having predictable and free flow of goods and services through our city/province.


The point is that BOTH have value to someone and both 'someones' have contributed revenues to the provincial coffers. And while inner-city folks have largely allowed unfettered growth (and COST) to continue on and on and on and on to add up to billions and billions in yearly expenditures, the reverse is not seemingly the case for a mere $24M dollars, and now those that benefit from one are stopping the other.

I see in your wording that you are kind of saying that neither spending is good, but by that logic we should never build anything ever. Great for the wealthy elite and/or those that live out of a text book but I have read study after study that show that the best places in the world to live have marginally higher taxes but much greater public infrastrucutre within which to live.

Hundreds of thousands of peopl will use this bridge daily/weekly. I think people are really really underestimating the amount of /user use this bridge will get. The cost will likely be well below $0.001/user within a few short years -- and the bridge will likely stand for a century or more after that.




Claeren.

[Table 5]

Captain, thanks for laying out your concerns in a reasonable manner. I don't agree with a lot of things you said of course, but I'm glad you can at least express your opinion without resorting to whines about elitism.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Dion

Ed Stelmach said and i quote...

I'm not going to be making any personal comments," the premier said of the Peace Bridge design.

"We provide substantial new funding for infrastructure for all municipalities and the agreement we have with the municipalities is that they make the decisions as to how that money will be spent."

Oh yeah, because Ed Stelmach is going to come out and say "yes the city asked to be able to spend that money elsewhere, but money is earmarked by the province specifically for different purposes so that we can take the credit whenever possible and while we don't want to take credit this time it was our inane inflexibility that led to the city of Calgary building this bridge instead of turning down the money offered."





Claeren.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Again, an article full of opinions but short on facts.

I don't want to get into an argument with you Claeren, I respect what your saying. However I think there are plenty of facts that are represented in this article that are concerning.

Their $113-million Calatrava is much bigger and is for vehicles. It is way over budget and behind schedule. They can't build the ends of the bridge because they can't get the thumbs-up from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over problems with the bridge and the city's levee system.

For a year or two or three, their Calatrava creation will be the bridge to nowhere.

Angela also mentions Dallas built a bridge about the size of the Peace Bridge about four years ago.
"It's a simple, wonderful little bridge," she says. Cost: $2.3 million.

Then, right after speaking with Angela, we find out Ald. Brian Pincott doesn't think much of putting off building the Peace Bridge until it is debated in the next civic election. The construction doesn't have to begin now, but Pincott snickers at the idea as "hilarious."

Enough of that. Let us bring in Calgary's Lindsay Blackett, the province's culture minister and widely recognized as a man of exquisite taste. Come on, he's the culture minister.
What does he think of the bridge only 8% of the population want?
"It's underwhelming," says Lindsay.
"I expected to be wowed. I didn't get it, but maybe I don't have the proper pedigree."
He says everywhere he goes Calgarians are talking. What do they ask each other?
"Do we need to spend hard-earned tax dollars there?" says Lindsay.

Originally Posted by Claeren

How much does this Dallas city councillor think she could build a bridge for where:
- Piers into the river are to be avoided if at all possible, both for the environmental impact and for safety.
- No towers (for suspension) are to be used, due to the heliport located near the south entrance to the bridge.
- The opposing river banks are at differing heights and cannot be drastically altered.

I am guessing she would be close to $20M WITHOUT any star architect. With the same risk for cost-creep as any staritect design.

Is that an opinion or fact?

And I have to question, if the factors such as the helipad, the differing heights and the other factors are based around the location of this bridge. Then does this bridge have to go there?

Originally Posted by Claeren

And as a bonus, a bridge designed by Calatrava will have spill over benefits to all sorts of facets of the cities 'economy' that a concrete span would not.

I'm yet to see any proof of these benefits, I don't buy that people are going to come to Calgary because of this bridge. I might buy that someone thats a tourist thats come to Calgary for other reasons might want to see it, but if we're talking about tourism benefits, then wouldn't upgrades to the zoo, or more museums, or a amusment park or wild life park be a better way to increase tourism?

Originally Posted by Claeren

As for local designers v. international designers, it is called free trade people. It is supremely ironic that it is mostly right-wing types that are so anti-Calatrava. Maybe the European Union should not award any contracts to Canadian experts in their fields and get their students to do all the work for slave wages instead!? Seems like a really good way to grow a world economy....

But it wasn't free trade Claeren, because this was never an open competition, in fact it could be called the furtherist thing from competition. to me thats against everything that responsible government should be doing. Free trade is great if the foreign firm wins the deal or contract. But award a contract sight unseen to me is wrong.

Originally Posted by Claeren

(I am not going to go over again how this spending for the bridge was NOT the work of city council, was money specifically allocated for this use, etc. Any person who actually wants to be informed knows this, and the rest... still oppose the bridge for the same tired reasons.)

The money was infrastructure money, it wasn't ear marked by the province for this bridge and we saw that in the quote from Blackett. The spending of the money was a decision by the city council. The money could have been spent on other projects that this city probably needs to focus on first.

Originally Posted by Claeren

And Moon, it is not like you EVER approve of anything. If it costs money or changes things without directly benefiting you, you don't like it. Sorry if the rest of us have a bit broader view of how the world interacts and evolves over time. As Calatrava himself said:
“to build things with beauty is a matter of dignity and not a matter of time.”

Thats actually a pretty arrogant statement by Calatrava who is treating this bridge as a peace of art thats required in his mind. But its a statement by a guy that has no clue about the infrastructure needs and requirements of a city of over a million people. If he wants his art to be out there, and he wanted to see this beautiful thing built he should have donated the design for free. But based on the problem with the Dallas bridge, he didn't take the city environment or construction issues into account.







Claeren.[/quote]

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Nope, I think you may have missed the point.

You think it is a waste because you don't use it, are not properly calculating its actual premium relative other engineering options, are not able to see all the ways it will create 'value' in the city over time (and thus a hidden return on investment v. other options) etc etc.
.

I think it's a waste becuase I dont use it? Where did I say that? In fact I likely will use it - but thanks for telling me what I think.

I don't have a problem with a bridge in this location itself - I have a problem with how the decision was reached, how the designer was selected and how the budget was set.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Captain, thanks for laying out your concerns in a reasonable manner. I don't agree with a lot of things you said of course, but I'm glad you can at least express your opinion without resorting to whines about elitism.

Both sides could stand to take a step back. While there has clearly been some whining about elitisim on the other side people have chosen to assume why people have formed their opinion and have also assumed that becuse they don't like the bridge they are either suburbanites, right wing or both.

Both sides should probably try to avoid that stuff.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Claeren

And Moon, it is not like you EVER approve of anything. If it costs money or changes things without directly benefiting you, you don't like it. Sorry if the rest of us have a bit broader view of how the world interacts and evolves over time. As Calatrava himself said:
“to build things with beauty is a matter of dignity and not a matter of time.”

What have I ever disapproved of before?

Why would I like changing things that don't benefit me?

That's a nice quote by Calatrave, too bad he knows nothing about building things of beauty.

[Phanuthier]

Just wondering since it was brought up, how much of the budget is spent on the suburb roads and whatnot? To get a relative idea of how much is spent on the bridge.

(I am disappointed the project was just handed to one guy though, rather than having a bunch of architecture (firms) bid on the project. However, I'm totally for building good architecture and I believe its important to improve the core of the city, rather than be a Buffalo or Eastern European city and just go with the functional, big, ugly gray concrete buildings... pretty typical opinion though for a fiscally conservative city)

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by moon

That's a nice quote by Calatrave, too bad he knows nothing about building things of beauty.

Really, I find these buildings and bridges quite impressive.

Zubizuri Bridge - Bilbao, Spain


Tenerife Opera House - Canary Islands, Spain



Turning Torso - Malmo, Sweden


Milwaukee Arts Museum


El Alamillo Bridge - Seville, Spain

[Phanuthier]

I don't think moon can tell the difference

(BTW can you caption those pics? They are amazing)

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Really, I find these buildings and bridges quite impressive.

I completely agree but look what moon has told us so far. He does not find any beauty at all in architecture. Which is completely fair, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But showing him pictures of more architecture as an example of architectural beauty will more than likely be lost on him in this case.

[Muta]

The Turning Torso in Malmo is an engineering marvel.

Guaranteed, if you pulled that kind of project here, people would riot because it's different and nothing that 'fits' in Calgary. From the projects that I've seen turned down because the general public thinks they know what is best and don't want it, it's truly unfortunate.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Muta

The Turning Torso in Malmo is an engineering marvel.

Guaranteed, if you pulled that kind of project here, people would riot because it's different and nothing that 'fits' in Calgary. From the projects that I've seen turned down because the general public thinks they know what is best and don't want it, it's truly unfortunate.

First - it's the public's money so they should have a say.
Second - I think you are under-estimating Calgarians. It's not about what the bridge looks like - its about the process that was used to arrive at this point.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

First - it's the public's money so they should have a say.

Does the public have a say in any of the other major infrastructure projects going on in the city? Why should this foot bridge be any different?

What's next, having plebiscites for water main extensions?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by moon

That's a nice quote by Calatrave, too bad he knows nothing about building things of beauty.

Wow. Finally I can see how Bunk, Muta, and Co. are the condescending, whinging, elitist snobs. Oh great one, do tell us more of this thing you call beauty!

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Does the public have a say in any of the other major infrastructure projects going on in the city? Why should this foot bridge be any different?

What's next, having plebiscites for water main extensions?

I think when certain issues clearly strike a chord with the voting public politicians should involve the voters more directly. It was clear early on people weren't happy with the direction the whole project was taking and city hall just chose to ignore it.

Ultimately its our money. That can't be under-estimated. If we aren't happy with how it's being spent we have a right to voice our displeasure.

[Joborule]

I don't get what the whole problem is. It's just a bridge. We have LRT extensions and new lines getting built, new highways, roads, and interchanges constantly being built/expanded. We're going to spend far above hundreds of millions on transportation projects year by year, but we get all up on a tizzy of $25 million bridge from a world famous architecture to improve the viability and attractiveness of downtown? Which only cost a small fraction of our annual transportation budget?

Things have greatly gotten blown out of proportions. It's like because of this bridge something that was gonna get built is not going to get built now. Heaven forbid we let a world class architecture make a bridge in our city! We don't welcome them!

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I don't get what the whole problem is. It's just a bridge. We have LRT extensions and new lines getting built, new highways, roads, and interchanges constantly being built/expanded. We're going to spend far above hundreds of millions on transportation projects year by year, but we get all up on a tizzy of $25 million bridge from a world famous architecture to improve the viability and attractiveness of downtown? Which only cost a small fraction of our annual transportation budget?

Things have greatly gotten blown out of proportions. It's like because of this bridge something that was gonna get built is not going to get built now. Heaven forbid we let a world class architecture make a bridge in our city! We don't welcome them!

Exactly. So many people are getting their panties in a bunch because of this bridge. I mean, you don't see me whining about the Crowfoot LRT extension, when I don't even use the LRT at all. This bridge I probably won't use (except to actually go see it when it's completed because it does look nice), but I'm not going to sit here and whine about it either because I think in the long run, it's going to be money well spent.

We're talking about 20 million for a infrastructure project, not 20 billion. Geez, people need to really understand scale when it comes to money used by the city. Bronco probably spends many times more than that on his projects of putting up roads, and then ripping them all up just to put one more lane.