Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Muta]

I've weighed into these debates before, and there's always the pro-sprawl vs. the anti-sprawl crowd. It's actually quite interesting to watch on this board, there's a clear line between them.

With the proposed plans for Kensington / Hillhurst / Sunnyside, this bridge doesn't just become a luxury, it becomes a necessity. One that promotes walkable communities and a focus on developing sustainable methods of transportation; alot of these types of projects are going up now. This project will accomodate the proposed density increases in said neghborhoods.

A pedestrian bridge has alot of advantages; beautifying it in the process is only a plus. It is forward thinking, and makes a positive statement to the national and international communities more than alot of you might know.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I certainly agree with what you have said.
However, you don't have to go to Europe to find some pricey avant garde architect to design a pedestrian bridge for you (and pay a premium price for doing it.) I am sure something could have been designed within Canada/USA that would be very attractive looking and at a much lower cost.

The bridge is supposed to be 22 million. A basic bridge that would meet the same design standards (no piers in the river, etc), would be at least 15-16 Million. Do any kind of "sprucing up" and it probobly hits 18 million. Really we are only talking about a 4-6 million dollar difference here, at the most. The price premium the detractors are talking about is really very little. And really, you don't get much more in terms of instant international recognition (for a bridge) than putting Calatrava's name on it. What I mean by that, is that even if a different designer created something even more beautiful, it still wouldn't be talked about as much, simply because putting Calatrava's name on it creates international interest.

Besides, the second new pedestrian bridge (in the east village) will likely be designed in a design competition, or be designed by a local architect.

There are MANY places where tax dollars have been spent more foolishly in this city than paying an extra 4-6 million on this particular bridge.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The bridge is supposed to be 22 million. A basic bridge that would meet the same design standards (no piers in the river, etc), would be at least 15-16 Million. Do any kind of "sprucing up" and it probobly hits 18 million. Really we are only talking about a 4-6 million dollar difference here, at the most. The price premium the detractors are talking about is really very little. And really, you don't get much more in terms of instant international recognition (for a bridge) than putting Calatrava's name on it. What I mean by that, is that even if a different designer created something even more beautiful, it still wouldn't be talked about as much, simply because putting Calatrava's name on it creates international interest.

Besides, the second new pedestrian bridge (in the east village) will likely be designed in a design competition, or be designed by a local architect.

There are MANY places where tax dollars have been spent more foolishly in this city than paying an extra 4-6 million on this particular bridge.

I know I know... But spending seems to be getting out of control and I'm sure that the extra 4 to 6 million dollars could have gone to a much more worthy cause (ie road repair, opening more beds in the city hospitals, more hockey arenas for kids to play hockey in). These days, it just seems like a large majority of the council members at silly hall don't seem to think they are accountable to anyone these days and they spend like there is some magic money tree growing behind city hall.

[calculoso]

[QUOTE=SeeGeeWhy;1958331]Sure, my response was half directed at you so I understand your apprehension but will you answer my question as to why you don't go downtown?

I have no need to.

The museums don't change enough to warrant going frequently. Even if they did, they aren't interesting for my family at the moment.

Prince's Island Park is indeed a nice park... but why go all the way downtown when Bowness Park, Edworthy Park, Nose Hill Park, etc are all closer in the NW (with others around the city for those in those ares) and I don't have to pay for parking to get to them?

Eau Claire Market isn't much of a market. It might be good for those in the area, but it isn't a draw to come downtown.

etc.

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Right, and what would you prefer spending the (fairly insignificant) incremental on? Do you also have nice looking, functional sex? Do you wish to squeeze the joy and interest out of everything for everyone else around you? The money "wasted" on the required artwork on that interchange is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to the re-work they are going to need to do on it because it was never designed properly to begin with (but that is a different story).

What would I prefer spending the increment on? How about the next project? Making up an example, instead of two $25MM projects, how about 3 $17MM projects, if the decrement would be "fairly insignificant"?

Nice looking functional sex? wtf?

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

To me, good transportation does not equal free flowing vehicle traffic at every interesction in the city. It is an incomplete view and does not provide enough flexibility to the citizens of Calgary.

The development arc we are on is heavily weighted towards investment in vehicle based transportation and to me that isn't fair. People practically need 2 - 3 vehicles or more just to get around in Calgary - that's damned expensive. Not to mention dangerous.

Free flowing traffic isn't a necessity, but the current constantly stopped traffic needs to be re-evaluated. Stopping at a light with no cross-traffic only to get the green light as the cross-traffic arrives happens way too often and needs to be re-evaluated. This is only a part of "good transportation".

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

You argue that the inner-city lifestyle is being forced upon you, but in what way is this significantly happening? Do you not see that urban sprawl is the only lifestyle being "forced" in this town?

If urban sprawl is being "forced", why is it the most in demand?

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

I would not be upset at all if half of this city fell off the map for good. Its not special nor is it required. We do not need to be impacting the environment and our economy in the way that we currently choosing to.

Demand is one thing, but what you're failing to see is that our system doesn't truly allow for a proper selection of supply to be available to the market as it is.

It obviously is required since it exists.

People are not demanding the high density areas, or they would be being built a lot more often than they are. That's the beauty of our economy - demand is king.

[nik-]

edit: nm, not even worth it.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by nik-

edit: nm, not even worth it.

Is road repair not classified as infrastucture?

... and you seem bound and determined to insinuate that I don't want to spend any money on a bridge.... which is not the case. I just don't want to spend 22 million on a bridge.

edit: I see you deleted your post before I was able to finish my response.

[Pastiche]

People are not demanding the high density areas, or they would be being built a lot more often than they are. That's the beauty of our economy - demand is king.

Did you read my posts? Suburban living is being overdemanded because it's being subsidized. I'm sure once you factored in all the costs that suburban people are avoiding you'd see marked shift in demand for high density housing.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Rerun

road repair

The money for this bridge was set aside for new infrastructure, I don't think it could have been used for road repair.

opening more beds in the city hospitals,

Provincial matter, they city can't spend money to do this.

more hockey arenas for kids to play hockey in

The city has set aside money for rec centres. We'd all like more. The Genesis Centre up in Martindale will be starting construction in a few months. Site work has started. That's just one example (that doesn't contain any hockey rinks - but does contain indoor soccer fields, even more in demand than hockey rinks, I think.)

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Is road repair not classified as infrastucture?

... and you seem bound and determined to insinuate that I don't want to spend any money on a bridge.... which is not the case. I just don't want to spend 22 million on a bridge.

edit: I see you deleted your post before I was able to finish my response.

I did. It's not even worth arguing anymore. There will always be people who parrot the Ric McIvor's and Rick Bell's of the world and there will always be others on the other side. I'm in the middle, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with someone on the extremes.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Did you read my posts? Suburban living is being overdemanded because it's being subsidized. I'm sure once you factored in all the costs that suburban people are avoiding you'd see marked shift in demand for high density housing.

No. It's not because it's being subsidized. It's because the initial cost is much lower and it is a standard of living / way of life choice.

People in Calgary don't want to raise their kids in the middle of rush hour traffic. A lot of us remember playing street hockey when growing up. Guess what? You can't do that in high density areas. There are less places to go riding bikes. These are things that people remember when growing up, and deliberately choose them when raising kids. As a relatively young city, guess where our demand is?

Your 'subsidy' is quite the imaginative way of getting out of paying for the city good.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by nik-

I did. It's not even worth arguing anymore. There will always be people who parrot the Ric McIvor's and Rick Bell's of the world and there will always be others on the other side. I'm in the middle, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with someone on the extremes.

Good job dismissing viewpoints that disagree with you.

Don't know if you're referring to me, but I've barely heard McIvor speak and I certainly don't read Rick Bell or the Calgary Sun. I have my own ideas, thank you very much.

[Bunk]

I think the term 'subsidized' is used because for each new house or resident that moves to the periphery of the city, it costs more to service that house/resident than the resident brings in tax revenue. That deficit increases the lower the density housing that is built (more miles of roads, pipes, less efficient delivery of transit service, garbage collection, police, fire, ambulance, libraries etc, etc). It's being 'subsidized' in essence because that deficit is being financed on the backs of residents of the established areas. This is an inherently unsustainable situation. Fiscal conservatives of Calgary should be all over Plan It, because in the end it will mean less tax increases and help balance that defecit.

The Plan It study estimated that the City's new vision would save tax payers a net $11 billion over 60 years if implemented over the 'business as usual' status quo course. You don't really need a study to tell you that though, it's entirely intuitive.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by calculoso

good job dismissing viewpoints that disagree with you.

Don't know if you're referring to me, but i've barely heard mcivor speak and i certainly don't read rick bell or the calgary sun. I have my own ideas, thank you very much.

lol

I love when people jump to that old standby.

[Pastiche]

No. It's not because it's being subsidized. It's because the initial cost is much lower

hmm... One of the reasons it's cheaper is because you don't have to pay for the roads and utilities that go out to your communities yet are built almost exclusively for your use. That's a subsidy.

People in Calgary don't want to raise their kids in the middle of rush hour traffic. A lot of us remember playing street hockey when growing up. Guess what? You can't do that in high density areas. There are less places to go riding bikes. These are things that people remember when growing up, and deliberately choose them when raising kids. As a relatively young city, guess where our demand is?

This is just bosh. High density areas often have great cycling, sports pitches, and shockingly often have less traffic because people are walking around and taking transit.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The Plan It study estimated that the City's new vision would save tax payers a net $11 billion over 60 years if implemented over the 'business as usual' status quo course. You don't really need a study to tell you that though, it's entirely intuitive.

You seem to be intimately familiar with it.

How much re-work on the existing infrastructure is planned for this increase in density?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol

I love when people jump to that old standby.

You have contributed absolutely nothing to this, other than the odd smart a comment here and there. I'd say that you can be safely and completely dismissed.

[kermitology]

I guess there is a prime example of the relative unfairness in Calgary if you live in the inner city versus suburbs: Calgary Transit.

For a bus ride from Inglewood to downtown it costs the same amount as a bus ride from Mackenzie Towne.

My distaste for Calgary Transit was one of the prime motivators for me moving to an inner city location. I cycle to work, even in the dead of winter, and there isn't much that will get me to move out to Mackenzie Towne, even if it did get me a bigger house and a yard.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You seem to be intimately familiar with it.

How much re-work on the existing infrastructure is planned for this increase in density?

That's exactly the point. There is far LESS rework on existing infrastructure required by building better further out. That makes up a significant portion of the expected savings.

[red sky]

Where does Innercity include? I know Killareny is considered innercity but how far west does that go?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

hmm... One of the reasons it's cheaper is because you don't have to pay for the roads and utilities that go out to your communities yet are built almost exclusively for your use. That's a subsidy.

That's right... The person moving in doesn't have to pay for it (directly), but I've always understood that the developer does pay a portion of it. Where do you think they get their money from??

Originally Posted by Pastiche

This is just bosh. High density areas often have great cycling, sports pitches, and shockingly often have less traffic because people are walking around and taking transit.

Cycling for adults, perhaps, but for kids playing and going in circles like they tend to do? Making jumps? Y'know.. kid things?

Sports pitches, which are typically used during evenings for team sports and not families wanting to go out and just play adhoc?

Great services those are.... Don't get me wrong, they are definitely needed, but they don't fit all of the need for a growing family. High density areas aren't ideal.