24 million to go across a little river.
rip-off!

That would be a cool bridge to cross when it was snowing.

~Mad Vulcan

In a recent poll ~90% of Calgarian's thought it was a waste of money. I know, live there.

this bridge is ugly ... and where is the Calatrava-Style. Every architecture student can do this construction ...

The poll number menitoned above is a crock
no number like that exists. ill informed critics fail to realize the cost would have been about 22 mil just for the concrete without Calatrava's design.
Nice to have something of interest to the eye around these barren parts.Most people who do not attire themselves in the latest cowboy wear or clutch a dogeared bible and have actually visited a museum without a chuckwagon in it.-love the design.
I admire city concil for standing up to the bullying tactics of the vocal zealots condemning what they do not understand.

22 mill for concrete!?....I doubt that, since it looks like this project will be Steel intensive, not concrete.

22 mil without his design ..just a plain concrete walkway.
concrete and glass are the city's mascots.
they have just issued a request for tender on another bridge just down the road to appease the irked local architects who never had a chance to bid on the last one.

Fats, I was trying to find a figure as to how much an unadorned pedestrian bridge would have been. (Specifically, I'm looking for one that has piers.) So would you mind citing your source? Thanks!

Reminds me of the 70's.

And a snake

Bridge cost seems a bit high. A suspension type span, assuming the river is really as wide as the picture, should be considerably cheaper, but not enclosed.

It's very pretty, but I find it hard to justify spending $24.5 million on a pedestrian bridge that's more showpiece than practical.

Ok,

I have to ask the obvious question:
Does it serve any necessary purpose?
Is it necessary for people to get to work?

Or is it for the sake of art and "engineering feat"?

In other words, is there any reason to justify the spending of tax payers money of 24+ million to build a bridge that ultimately may or not may serve any useful purpose?

It would have been cheaper to just build a wood bridge.This crap is a waste of money. Its not like this is connecting two isolated cities or something.

Total waste of money. There are already two pedestrian crossings at Prince's Island and at 10 St Kensington. Why plop another ridiculously expensive bridge right between them?? Spend the money on more vital things in the city.

If they can throw away that much money on artistic expression, maybe they could put a little toward their citizens healthcare, while they're at it... A$$ininity is rampant, just about everywhere I guess.

LMAO at "Fat" in this thread trying to defend this RIP OFF.

I don't care how lovely it looks or how much the greenies think it would be nice to have. At a cost of $24.5 million for a mere 425 foot bridge, you're talking about a construction cost of.....yes, wait for it.....$56,470 per foot. That's right -- for every 12 INCHES of building this thing, it will cost over 56 THOUSAND DOLLARS.

LOL and I love how "Fats" is trying to defend it, even taking cheap personal shots at people who are either Bible readers and religious or who like western attire. What the hell EITHER of those two things have to do with the topic at hand only goes to show what a snide, bitter, mental midget he is.

Of course, equally laughable is "Fats" trying to argue that it would have still cost 22 million without this current artsy design. Wow! What a savings! At $22 million for 425 feet you would have been talking basically $52,000 per foot.

Bottom line -- this thing was actually designed for only one purpose. To line the pockets of some construction companies with overpriced fees and kickbacks. I showed this article to a friend of mine who IS involved in high end construction and he just laughed out loud.

How come architects always get the credit for "designing" stuff like this when it's the structural engineers and contractors who do the actual work of making their pretty pictures work in the real world?

Folks - why is everyone obsessing over functionality (you can cross it, right? Thus, it meets the minimal standard) and price when you are talking about something that may stand for 50 years and will be a major landscape feature. It is at worst intriguing and (in my opinion) in fact is quite appealing and eminently functional. People who whine over 24 million for a large structure don't and could never build them. Before prison edifices became common for bleak downtown areas, designers and builders attempted esthetic consideration, and in any major city still do. While I have no idea if chicanery, politics, fraud etc. were involved, if the bridge is a sound and maintainable structure AND looks as cool as it does, it will be a plus for decades, which should have been the idea. Stop bitching.

I like it. I live the province that's just to the east of Alberta... I have been to Calgary before and like it...
Except for the Progressive Conservativism...
The PCs are like the Republicans of the USA...
That's why... Anyhoo, I wish we in Saskatchewan had that kind of luck... Although we do have bridges as it is... Ciao, bellas

Um 24 million for a bridge not bad as long as Sarah (alaska) is not building it and 24 millions sounds correct some of yous shoulda got into construction remember the americans spend 2 BILLION on 1 plane that could last 1 day