Peace Bridge | 131 Meter Span | Completed

[Blader]

I think Gustave Eiffel would have been impressed. Of course, it is not an Eiffel Tower, and will not draw hordes of tourists to Calgary. I think it of it as a enduring jewel that will give me the same pleasure as the Elevador de Santa Justa which I stumbled upon in Lisbon.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I like it, but I feel like it's missing something... hmmm oh I know.

I'll expect a cheque in the mail.

That does look better.

I've figured out what I don't like about this bridge. It hides the surroundings from the pedestrian instead of embracing our skyline, Prince's Island and the mountains. (not sure if they're even visible from that location)

It's kind of fitting that the bridge looks like a cocoon.

Has anyone heard what Calatrava has to say about his design?

[Bokimon]

great comments guys, I especially liked reading the detailed thoughts a few of you posted up here.
beware of the rampant ignorance brewing in the media hubs like the CBC and Herald. There are alot of dumbasses out there and your energy and sanity will only drain from exposing yourself to these weak minded complainers.
They dont seem to realize that the city now has an open mind to international design and its a part of our growth in the 21st century.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I like it, but I feel like it's missing something... hmmm oh I know.

I'll expect a cheque in the mail.

That is EXACTLY what I would have preferred. The north entrance (whether intentional on your part, or due to speedy photoshopping) opens far wider and addresses the abruptness to the entrance that Ferreth was concerned about.

This design, even in a rushed effort, would get a 10/10 from me!

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Me&You

That is EXACTLY what I would have preferred. The north entrance (whether intentional on your part, or due to speedy photoshopping) opens far wider and addresses the abruptness to the entrance that Ferreth was concerned about.

This design, even in a rushed effort, would get a 10/10 from me!

The problem with that design, is that its impossible.

[CorporateWhore]

what, you mean you need to engineer a bridge before you can build it???

[Wooster]

Yeah, I think structurally, that would require some sort of balance including mast and cables similar to other curved bridges (including a calatrava one in jerulsalem). with no girders in place.



Cool concept though. The problem I have with such a large curve is that it is so needlessly indirect as a route.

There's an animation of it at calgary.ctv.ca

Quite good, it shows winter condition as well.

[Fiveway]

I'm honestly blown away by the ignorance and self-righteousness that I'm coming across on a bunch of other sites where this discussion is going on. For so many people it boils down to the notion that if they can't use it, it shouldn't be built. Nobody has the sense to recognize that every so often you can actually build something that your average suburbanite might not use, but will be useful to a good number of inner-city residents and will become a very important link as density increases in the future.

[O-tacular]

Wow! Hmmm.... just as it was described. I don;t know what to think of it yet. I love the interior look, and the sheer uniqueness of it. My only complaint is one that's already been mentioned before, a little too flat. It appears to have a very gentle arch but I can;t say for sure. I think it would have been possible to give it a bit more curve. Ha! Let's see the wailing masses call it non-utilitarian now! It's as flat and efficient as it could be. I'll wait to render my final verdict. Need to digest this one.

[bob1954]

I'm gonna get creamed for saying this, but for it's location, what it supposed to signify, ( which is a peace bridge), I think it looks kind of cheap! But that's my taste. I thought it could be a little classier while not being so gawdy... IMO.

[WhipperSnapper]

Cool


I'm not an engineer so I wonder the effects a gentle curve would have on the structure which is basically a long truss.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Clearly the "peace" aspect was something that was, most likely, something added after the fact...However, the notion that a structure could represent an abstract idea like "peace" without resorting to symbols, is a pretty hard task...

the Arc de Triomphe doesn't say "victory" to me? The Eiffel Tower didn't say "paris" any more than the Empire State Building says "New York". The Statue of Liberty is simply an anonymous figure holding a torch.

Architecture can only be so much; meaning comes through the passage of time...even the World Trade Center was initially loathed by New Yorkers. Its unfortunate that the loudest amongst Calgarians are receiving the greatest amount of press.

I'd love it if there is a public forum on this; I'd be there in a heartbeat to smack down the naysayers.

EDIT - the curve that people mention throws off the balance of the structure (its called a "moment" point), where the transfer of forces is a lot more complicated...right now the forces are distributed straight down (point loads)...adding the curve would shift those forces out of center, causing the need for a bigger anchoring structure on either side. Additionally, don't forget that people walking (live loads) creates a harmonic resonance in the structure (think of the 'bounce' you feel walking over the bridge from cresent heights to Princess Island)...that resonance is something engineers have to account for, and the curvature would make those calculations and subsequent structure much more complex. Can it be done? Absolutely, but it would add a fair amount to the price tag...the crazies would have a field day with that...

[O-tacular]

They just had a blurb about the bridge on the news. Apparently it is flat to both move pedestrians more easily and because of the helipad (damn you helipad!).
Also it will have a special coating to deal with graffiti. And most of the interviews they had with ppl on the street seemed positive. My favourite was a guy who said that "it looks fancy. If it's tax dollars that pay for it why not?" I doubt the Herald or Sun will pick up on that though. All they see are 'wasted tax dollars' even if the average amount it would actually work out to be for Calgarians was a little over 20$.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Fiveway

I'm honestly blown away by the ignorance and self-righteousness that I'm coming across on a bunch of other sites where this discussion is going on. For so many people it boils down to the notion that if they can't use it, it shouldn't be built. Nobody has the sense to recognize that every so often you can actually build something that your average suburbanite might not use, but will be useful to a good number of inner-city residents and will become a very important link as density increases in the future.

From what I've been read so far this evening on the internets, the ignorance and self-righteousness appears to go both ways. Unfortunately, once must be equipped with empathy to see it.

Can't remember if it was the CBC or Herald site, but some pro-bridge fanatic was actually referring to suburbanites as Neocons. Where the fuck does that come from?

Generalizations such as that do not help the cause. It just makes you sound as ignorant as the people you oppose.

One could easily say that those for the bridge still live off their parents to some extent and have no clue what it's like to pay to live.

After some thought, I don't mind the design that much. I do find it a tad underwhelming considering the talent behind the design. I feel that he kind of phoned it in. The red reminds me of that old saying, "Like lipstick on a pig." Garish is another term that comes to mind.

Here is what I want to know:
When and why did a bridge become a must have?
Who decided that having a bridge at this location was needed?
What would the cost be to widen the existing bridges?
Who decided that we'd give the design solely to Calatrava?
Who approved his final design?
Can we see the contract between the City and Calatrava?

[Calgarian]

The Animation on CTV is pretty good, this is going to look great winter and summer. I'm really interested to see how it is built.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

On July 28th the city released the renderings for the new "Peace Bridge" designed by Santiago Calatrava.




Credit: Calgary Herald http://www.calgaryherald.com/Gallery...139/story.html

What do you think?

My last two cents of the night I swear. This render makes me think of crayola crayons. Not because of the bridge specifically, but b/c of all the primary colours on the rooftops of the condos in the b/g combined with the primary red of the bridge. Speaking of which, isn;t it a tad ironic to paint a bridge devoted to peace blood red? I get the reference to the sacrifice of soldiers etc.. but just saying.

Oh and lastly, I seem to recall Unibrain saying he liked how the adjoining paths 'swooped' you in or something. Doesn;t look that way to me.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

From what I've been read so far this evening on the internets, the ignorance and self-righteousness appears to go both ways. Unfortunately, once must be equipped with empathy to see it.

Can't remember if it was the CBC or Herald site, but some pro-bridge fanatic was actually referring to suburbanites as Neocons. Where the fuck does that come from?

Generalizations such as that do not help the cause. It just makes you sound as ignorant as the people you oppose.

One could easily say that those for the bridge still live off their parents to some extent and have no clue what it's like to pay to live.

After some thought, I don't mind the design that much. I do find it a tad underwhelming considering the talent behind the design. I feel that he kind of phoned it in. The red reminds me of that old saying, "Like lipstick on a pig." Garish is another term that comes to mind.

Here is what I want to know:
When and why did a bridge become a must have?
Who decided that having a bridge at this location was needed?
What would the cost be to widen the existing bridges?
Who decided that we'd give the design solely to Calatrava?
Who approved his final design?
Can we see the contract between the City and Calatrava?

1) Transportation saw a need for the bridge based on traffic studies - the same type of studies that determined the need for Stoney Trail, the interchanges over Crowchild, the interchange on Elbow over Glenmore. Its not driven by Bronco, at least not initially.

2) Transportation makes all the decisions based on location and then coordinates with the Parks department and Water Resources probably. They need to get approvals from Navigation Canada, Department of Fisheries as well - this is why the lack of piers is so important, as is the fact they won't be in the river at all during construction.

3) Who knows - certainly based on reputation and built work, I doubt there is an architect who knows bridges better than Calatrava - that means globally

4) I assume all the decision makers at the City saw the design and made sure it met those initial limitations (ie lack of piers, height limits, budget)...Of course this PASSED city council at a vote of 10-3 I believe...more like 10-2 because Blinky McIvor will vote against anything.

5) Not sure, but I imagine it will come out at sometime...probably will leak from McIvorite's office.

Seriously, the notion that someone in Calgary could do this is laughable...no way...I work in the profession; I know the players...Something like this would not be possible. The proof will be the competition for the next pedestrian bridge - the gaunlet has been thrown down and I am afraid most architects in Calgary (not all certainly, maybe 2 or 3 firms could come up with something interesting) would fall short. Afterall, architects are not engineers...bridges are engineering. Calatrava just happens to be a guy that is a PhD in Engineering and an architect...that's the difference.

[reflexzero]

Meh, giant Chinese finger puzzles won`t make Calgary a world class city.

It`s Calgarians themselves that have to rise above and make this city shine.

[RiverRat]

The first time I heard about the bridge was in 2006, at that time it was supposed to join Prince's Island with the 7th street crosswalk on Memorial.

I've always been curious why they changed the location to 8th street. The 7th street location seemed like a more logical choice, as it links to the existing crosswalk on Memorial, and would require a shorter span to link over to Princes Island. I'm guessing the height restriction for the helicopter pad would not be an issue on 7th as well.

Anyone know why the change in location was made?

8th is a little closer to the population density center of Kensington, but I'm guessing there's other reasons as well.

[bob1954]

This makes me look on either side of this thing, and I'm going to find an "ARCADE" or a Casino! This would look more appropriate over somewere at Stampede Park!