Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

People have just been whipped into a frenzy by the Dinger Bell's of the world on this issue, if they would have picked something else to stand on a soapbox about then it would have been that the people were getting involved in.

Until the fiscal hawks start complaining about some of these billion dollar road projects and multi million dollar interchanges I just can't take them seriously.

To me it has nothing to do with Bell, but good for him for continuing to follow the story, obviously he's hit a nerve, and the council instead of trying to defend this have gone into a denial mode. They've done a terrible job of selling this bridge.

And until this city is not a vehicle based city, we're going to have to continue to spend money on road ways and interchanges as the current road designs are based around a city of a half million people, not over a million, so whether you like it or not that is a key infrastructure project that probably has a priority over this bridge.

And I'm reminded of it every time my cars suspension gets ripped out by roads in dire need of repair.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by V

I think it's clear that Bronco wanted Calatrava's name. I think that's wrong, and the sole-sourcing the design is probably where the beef should be, but I cannot agree that we should allow the public to decide what we should be spending for infrastructure.

I agree with you on principle, but even when the city decides to spend 5 times the needed cost?

It's not like the public has issue with a bridge. There's issue with a gold plated bridge at a time when many are worried about their future.

I don't think this is about infrastructure at all.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I agree with you on principle, but even when the city decides to spend 5 times the needed cost?
.

5 times the needed cost? It's been estimated a plain bridge would still cost around 16-18 million.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

5 times the needed cost? It's been estimated a plain bridge would still cost around 16-18 million.

I have my doubts about that figure. I'd like to see where it came from. Again using the Dallas example, they just built a bridge of a similar length and situation to whats required for about 3 million dollars.

Now I don't think a bridge here would be 3 million dollars, but a standard uncovered bridge shouldn't cost 16 to 18 unless there are kickbacks going to the mafia.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Table 5

5 times the needed cost? It's been estimated a plain bridge would still cost around 16-18 million.

I took it from the city website: link

The proposed 'gateway' bridge over the Bow River (longer and wider than a 'typical' pedestrian bridge) is 5 times the cost ($24 million/$4.8 million) of a 'typical' pedestrian overpass.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I didn't know so I looked. Maybe the 16-18 mil is the presumed tab for the size, structure, green requirements etc. that are not 'typical'?

My point is the same. I don't think it's about infrastucture. Its about whether now is the time (if there is ever a time) to spend millions *extra* on features people don't seem to want and absolutely don't need.

[Table 5]

16-18m is what Ive heard from several sources, including some aldermen and people in the planning dept of the city, so I'm going to assume that's in the ballpark. I think the extra costs comes from the fact that the city didnt want any supports in the river and wouldnt allow any masts or any tall supports because of the helipad, which I would assume brings on a fairly big engineering problem. Remember also than an overpass is pretty short, this bridge is I think around 130m long. Im not engineer, but it doesn't sound that unrealistic to me....especially when a road interchange is always near 100 million.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

See, I'm not the hugest fan of Balmonds work myself (and I say this having met the guy)...but hey, I understand that many people are. Him and Arup are more than welcome to enter the next competition.

Oh, don't worry...

[Muta]

When people see what is proposed for some of the stuff in the East Village, they're going to have the exact same thoughts - why weren't we consulted in the process? I can just see it now.

Trust me, getting the general public involved with design is a disaster waiting to happen. This is why the RFQ process is so engaging and much more effective. If we let the public have a say in everything we do, we'd get absolutely nowhere.... very quick and at the taxpayer's expense. You want to see what happens when the public gets involved? Be prepared to see tax dollars go down the drain, quick, with little results to show.

Not everyone is going to like the bridge. Frankly, they don't have to; that's what good art and design does - it makes you question, value and compare. It engages people, however they see fit. I'm happy the city gave one bridge to Calatrava, and the other to the locals. I don't think alot of people see the long-term value of having a bridge from an international architect designed in this city. If one doesn't think that this first bridge will have an influence on the 2nd bridge, then they haven't done their proper homework.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by trew

Through the grapevine, the comment I've heard is actually quite the opposite. The design fees from Calatrava are probably cheaper than what a capable Canadian firm would have charged to work out the engineering on such a complicated bridge. This comment was supposedly spoken by a prominent Calgarian architect.

I will see this week if I can solicit a couple of other well-known Calgary architect's opinion. I already know one who is in complete favour of the bridge for the exact reasons I mentioned in my previous post. The benefits are going to outweigh the negatives.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Muta

When people see what is proposed for some of the stuff in the East Village, they're going to have the exact same thoughts - why weren't we consulted in the process? I can just see it now.

Feel free to give us peak when the chance comes!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Feel free to give us peak when the chance comes!

I definitely will the minute I'm allowed to. CP will be the first to find out!

[Bunk]

Article in the Toronto Star - the project and the city's response to it is getting some attention.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/674966

[fundmark19]

I don't get why we are still arguing about the bridge there is obviously nothing we can do so lets just anticipate the opening of the bridge so we can use it to cover all the taxs dollars we are putting into it

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

I don't get why we are still arguing about the bridge there is obviously nothing we can do so lets just anticipate the opening of the bridge so we can use it to cover all the taxs dollars we are putting into it

I agree, let's start planning a huge bridge opening ceremony with some marching bands, fire works, commemorative t-shirts and chinese finger trap give-a-ways (taxpayer funded of course). They could even shut down portions of Memorial Drive to do it. It would be epic!

[fundmark19]

I agree I think we should get Bill Clinton to come and do the ceremonial ribbon cutting. But for the finger traps I think we should limit them to the first 5000 people present and have a post bridge opening concert with finger 11

[CaptainCrunch]

Instead of Finger 11, we should call southpark and see if Fingerbang has any open concert dates.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

I agree, let's start planning a huge bridge opening ceremony with some marching bands, fire works, commemorative t-shirts and chinese finger trap give-a-ways (taxpayer funded of course). They could even shut down portions of Memorial Drive to do it. It would be epic!

Druh Farrel could be the host for the event

[Byrns]

Banff's bridge only cost $2mill. I guess they don't care about having extra tourists coming just to see it.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/colum...47106-sun.html

Banff's steel and concrete bridge, to be built by Vancouver firm Surespan, is simple, not because of cost, but because the town council decided the natural surroundings would be marred by anything too fancy.
Rather, the citizens of Banff decided. Banff's town council, you see, actually consulted citizens about what they wanted when it came to a new river crossing: The people of the town were surveyed, and their answers formed the blueprint for the bridge.
It wasn't just the shape either. Banffites had a say in the bridge's location and features -- including bike lanes, lighting, viewing areas and benches.
They also got to decide whether they wanted a bridge at all, and whether they'd actually use the thing. More than 80% said yes.

Since they consulted the citizens of Banff before agreeing on a design and location, I expect it to fall into the river within a year.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Banff's bridge only cost $2mill. I guess they don't care about having extra tourists coming just to see it.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/colum...47106-sun.html




Since they consulted the citizens of Banff before agreeing on a design and location, I expect it to fall into the river within a year.

It's also half as long, half as wide and has two pilings into the water. But hey, facts are overrated when it comes to getting the sheep riled up.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's also half as long, half as wide and has two pilings into the water. But hey, facts are overrated when it comes to getting the sheep riled up.

You forgot 92% cheaper.