I think that it is interesting that this is called an
eco-bridge. For one, there does not seem to be an outlet for the enclosed water.
It is accurate to look at the projects in Dubai in some respects, though.
The breakwaters at Palm Jumiera ran into a problem where the the water was not being recycled. In the initial design, the breakwater was one cohesive unit, without breaks. As they analyzed, however, they discovered that the water became tepid and polluted because the water could not be swept out to sea and cleansed in the normal way that sea water is. Thus, they made two 100 meter breaks to allow the water to circulate, and I saw a graphic that showed how the water recycled every 14 days.
http://www.designbuild-network.com/p...palm-jumeirah/
Now, the creation that is becoming Palm Jumiera is larger and thus it may (... does, probably) have different physics with the aquatics and certainly has different weather. The palm has the two openings and is also open on the coastal side, allowing further for recirculation. The pic here appears to have just one opening.
Realistically, enclosing non-flowing water without proper outlets and introducing pollutants even in the smaller enclosed system shown in the graphics of the eco-bridge will make a worse situation ecologically than the original Palm design. If you don't think this occurs, look at the Dead Sea in Israel. It doesnt have proper (...any) outlets and thus it can contain no complex life of any kind.
Now, one might say that a solution like what Dubai did would be possible... but that would require bridges on the bridge (more than the one or two that appears in the graphic). Some might even say that there ARE... I cant really say from the pic, but this would increase the cost. Though as $1 bil, cost does not seem to be of much consequence...
Certainly, Burnham's original plan, as shown earlier in the thread has gaps that would allow for water to exchange, much like the current breakwater. It didn't allow for a walking path... but it is elegant, nonetheless. I'm wondering why Chicago needs to spend $1 bil on another walking path?
Yes, it will have the turbines... but you only need to drive north on 94 and continue past the Milwaukee Zoo on US 45 to US 41 near Lomira and Byron to see what a wind farm looks like. It looks alien. War of the Worlds incarnated. And it doesn't
obstruct, per say, the horizon, but it certainly
distracts from it and takes away from it by placing something man made in the way. And to what end? There are 88 turbines in Dodge and
Fond du Lac Counties which, at maximum capacity, can provide 129 megawatts of power. I found one estimate that says 600 MW can provide power for 180,000 people... thus 129 MW provides power would power under 39,000 people. By my count, there are 45 on the northern half. One would thus assume that the southern half would have the same number, thus the number would be about 90. This would serve under 40,000 when extrapolating on those numbers. Taking an approximated Chicago 1997 population of about 2,836,658, this is just over 1% and it doesn't account for the power necessitated by the large commercial sector.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=752484
I am not saying I'm against wind power as a principle. I have read about the Picken's Plan and it seems a possible solution to the energy crisis in this country. But Illinois has the 16th highest wind profile in the country in terms of potential kilowatt hours per year. The top 12 states have everywhere between about 8 and 20 TIMES the wind profile. Collectively, those 12 states would provide 165 times the potential power.
here's a link to the wind profile of the US.
http://www.bestsyndication.net/image...er_pickens.jpg
And another
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._power_map.png
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_potentia...0much%20energy
And though Chicago is the Windy City, it really is the 21st windiest city in the country. And besides... cities are not the best places for wind farms. heck, there is more wind out in Lake Michigan... a wind farm there would have much more potential power AND it would not take away from the aesthetics of the lakefront.
http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-f...-windiest-city
So, basically, the wind proposal is just fluff. It won't make nearly the impact that a (likely much larger) wind installation in Lake Michigan... only having such a small amount of turbines in a relatively small area will be a waste. Again, this is ONE BILLION DOLLARS. And wind turbines cost about $750k. If you take out the 100 turbines, you decrease the cost by $750 MILLION DOLLARS!?! If the want to do some land reclamation, then I say look for a cost effective way to do this... and elimination the turbines will do this the best way possible.
And finally...
Why cant Chicago's
natural beauty stay natural?