I know it is against the article posting rules, but I'm going to reproduce this whole editorial because I want to respond to several parts of it. Mods, feel free to edit as you see fit.
Quote:
Smoother waters for St. Patrick's Bridge
By MICHAEL PLATT, Calgary Sun
Last Updated: March 22, 2010 5:11pm
It’s sleek, simple and almost free of controversy.
And the best part — the pedestrian bridge that will link the East Village to the far side of the Bow River was partially designed by Calgarians, and not very famous Calgarians at that.
No high-priced architects to be found here, handed a lucrative contract on name alone.
Of course, there’s plenty of time to be told this bridge is to be hand-carved from titanium, by monks secluded deep in the Pyrenees mountains.
With this city council, there’s always a margin for error in judgement.
Until then, it’s difficult to find criticism with the process that’s landed Calgary its latest pedestrian bridge, forecast to link the East Village with St. Patrick’s Island and the north shore by 2012.
The price? At just under $25 million, there’s bound to be many a taxpayer who believes any new bridge is a waste of cash, especially when the island needs a major, multi-million dollar facelift to make the bridge worthwhile.
But if we must have new pedestrian bridges over the Bow — and it seems Calgary must, for some reason — then the path taken by the St. Patrick’s bridge competition is the one to follow.
“As a side-benefit that was completely unintended, we have a winner with local involvement,” said Chris Ollenberger, President and CEO of The Calgary Municipal Land Corporation.
“It wasn’t part of the equation, it wasn’t part of the decision, and so they stood entirely on their own, against people from around the globe.”
Unlike that other Bow River pedestrian bridge, the one designed by Santiago Calatrava, this bridge was open to submissions from all over the world.
It was a contest that drew 35 entries, and a smorgasbord of designs, from complex and grand, to low key and simple.
And then, again contrary to the Calatrava process, the public was given an opportunity to judge the future look of their East Village river span, by rating the bridges at an open house and online.
Of course, neither bridge allowed the public to answer the one question that was most pertinent — but whether Calgary wants or needs pedestrian bridges is apparently a moot point.
At least with the St. Patrick’s bridge, there was a choice about the concept, if not the construction.
From the 35 entries, finalists were chosen, and from there, a winner was named.
“I was excited to be involved in the competition, and to be going up against the world’s best, and we’re so excited to come out on top,” said John Ford, an engineer with Halsall Associates.
Those who criticised the Calatrava crowning are vindicated: There apparently is homegrown talent capable of competing with the great Spanish architect, who builds his bridges in Spain and ships them overseas.
Having a famous name, it seems, does not give you a monopoly on landmark bridges.
The two bridges are very different designs, with unique criteria and height restrictions, but to say one is better than the other is to argue your favourite colour rules the palette.
It’s a matter of personal taste — and the winning St. Patrick’s bridge is certainly tasteful, if uncluttered is your thing,
Ford said the design submitted by RFR/Halsall is purposely simple, featuring three steel arches spanning the river at different heights, while touching the island in the middle.
The press release announcing the winner characterizes the future bridge as “emulating a stone skipping across the Bow River” and it’s a pretty apt description.
But if the structure is free of adornment, the proposed lights are as fancy as it gets: Still subject to final approval, the bridge will have halos on the arches, and the potential to project designs onto the frozen river.
As a bonus, Ford says the whole thing should be easy enough to construct in Canada.
“It’ll be on budget, and it’s a very simple structure — that’s what we we’re shooting for, to complement the site, and not to overtake the environment,” said Ford.
|
Link
----------
This article altogether misses the mark, and does so by employing some misleading statements.
First, the misleading statments:
"
With this city council, there’s always a margin for error in judgement."
-Misleading because this decision, and managment of this project is not in City Council's hands, but CMLC's.
"
At just under $25 million, there’s bound to be many a taxpayer who believes any new bridge is a waste of cash, especially when the island needs a major, multi-million dollar facelift to make the bridge worthwhile."
-Misleading because it suggests that "taxpayers" might have a qualm with the fact that some nonzero amount of their tax dollars are going toward this project, which is not happening.
"
But if we must have new pedestrian bridges over the Bow — and it seems Calgary must, for some reason..."
-Weasel words "for some reason." The writer is implying that whichever reason or reasons pedestrian bridges over the Bow, in general, are needed is trivial, debatable, mysterious, or otherwise not valid. The reason why pedestrian bridges over the Bow, in general are a must have is pretty simple. People need transportation infrastructure links over geographical features like the Bow River to reasonably function in Calgary. Narrowing it down to these bridges in particular, the Centre City Plan calls for them and provides sound rationale for that recommendation.
"
Of course, neither bridge allowed the public to answer the one question that was most pertinent — but whether Calgary wants or needs pedestrian bridges is apparently a moot point."
-Weasel word "apparent." See above point. Pedestrian bridges are unquestionably a need to allow citizens to cross geographical or manmade structures. By the use of the word "apparent," the writer calls into question the validity of an undeniable fact. It is a moot point, period. This is not the "most pertinent" question, because it is not a question in the first place.
"
Those who criticised the Calatrava crowning are vindicated: There apparently is homegrown talent capable of competing with the great Spanish architect..."
-This outcome did not vindicate anyone based on this criteria. Calatrava did not submit an entry to this competition. No "homegrown talent" proved themselves capable of competing with [Calatrava], since no such direct competition existed.
"
Having a famous name, it seems, does not give you a monopoly on landmark bridges."
-Weasel words "it seems." Nothing about this outcome has made it "seem" that having a famous name (alluding to Calatrava) denies one of a monopoly on landmark bridges. Calatrava never entered this competition. His non-entry denied him of a "monopoly," not his non-selection.
---------------
Now, what I disagree with.
"
And the best part — the pedestrian bridge that will link the East Village to the far side of the Bow River was partially designed by Calgarians, and not very famous Calgarians at that.
-That's the best part? Really? The best aspect of this entire project is the place of residence of some of the designers involved, and how famous they are or aren't? Not the location, the aesthetics, the functionality, the usability, the time it will save a number of commuters, or the potential economic and social spinoffs that it will enable? Frankly, I disagree. The writer's view of what is the best part of this project is myopic and absurd in my opinion.