Signature Bridge: Why?

Printable View

November 13th, 2008, 11:30 AM
MoreOfTheSame

Signature Bridge: Why?

There is another article in today's paper about the "progress" on the so called 'Signature Bridge' that would link the United States to Canada.

It was announced recently that a 400'+ "Signature Bridge" would be put in to replace the Peace Bridge. This will surely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

My question: Why? If the goal is to get a bridge that can handle more cars and trucks, fine, let's do that. But why do we need to make a wonder of the world landmark span? Do we really need to inflate our egos? Does anybody really believe such a bridge is going to increase tourism to the area? Come on. Let's get real.

The purpose of a bridge is to get from point A to point B. Not to look pretty or attract tourists. So then why are we wasting all this money on style and flash over substance?

The state and the federal government is in dire straits. Money is hemorrhaging because of projects like this one. Why not build the bare minimum that will get the job done? The people driving over the bridge won't care what it looks like. The truckers coming across won't care about its appearance.

I'd rather save my tax dollars than build some post-modern piece of eye candy. If we had simply wanted to get the job done with the cheapest design that would accomplish the goal we wouldn't have had to have a "design jury," confer with preservationists, worry about damage to migratory birds from aerial towers or any of that bureaucratic red tape. It would have done quicker and it would be cheaper.

But that's not the Buffalo way, is it? We'd rather demand something flashy, overly expensive and wasteful that is paid for with the free cheese government money of our fellow countrymen.
November 13th, 2008, 11:48 AM
Surfing USA

A covered bridge would attract more tourists.

http://www.cbc.ca/sevenwonders/image..._bridge_lg.jpg
November 13th, 2008, 12:31 PM
300miles

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOfTheSame

I'd rather save my tax dollars than build some post-modern piece of eye candy. If we had simply wanted to get the job done with the cheapest design that would accomplish the goal we wouldn't have had to have a "design jury," confer with preservationists, worry about damage to migratory birds from aerial towers or any of that bureaucratic red tape. It would have done quicker and it would be cheaper.

I might agree with some of that, but even with the cheapest most boring and inexpensive design, we would still be waiting for a new bridge. The controversy is more that just the design and cost of the bridge, it also involves the design of the plaza (completely separate issue) and which neighborhoods will be destroyed, and also the new proposal from the Ambassador group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOfTheSame

But that's not the Buffalo way, is it? We'd rather demand something flashy, overly expensive and wasteful that is paid for with the free cheese government money of our fellow countrymen.

uh... you lost me there. Buffalo is flashy? Where? You're talking about Buffalo, NY right?

;)
November 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM
WNYresident

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfing USA

A covered bridge would attract more tourists.

Wouldn't have to plow it so it would cost use less versus having people plowing it.
November 13th, 2008, 12:52 PM
CAugust

don't hold your breath..................waiting for construction to start....unless the Indians put the plans and construction together...... despite your feelings on casinos etc - you have to admit they get things done quick....
November 13th, 2008, 01:18 PM
300miles

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAugust

despite your feelings on casinos etc - you have to admit they get things done quick....

There's a half finished steel frame in downtown Buffalo that would suggest otherwise...
November 13th, 2008, 01:37 PM
CAugust

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300miles

There's a half finished steel frame in downtown Buffalo that would suggest otherwise...

THAT, has nothing to do with them......... if others kept their nose out of it, it would have been up and running by now - come on...............
November 13th, 2008, 03:27 PM
300miles

The senecas have publicly stated that they halted construction due to the economy and a slowdown in the casino industry.

While at the same time they pushed ahead initiating construction after a lawsuit had already begun to show the whole project could be illegal.

Neither of those issues demonstrate good business sense on the Seneca's part. It does show that they put "getting it done" ahead of legal and business realities however. That kind of management only works when you're flush with cash and the world is rosy (which is often the case for casino owners exempt from state regulation and taxes). As soon as a little bit of reality came knocking on their door, they quickly gave up... leaving us with an incomplete steel skeleton on our city's horizon.
November 13th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Surfing USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300miles

There's a half finished steel frame in downtown Buffalo that would suggest otherwise...

Perhaps they can use the casino steel to construct the signature bridge. :D
November 13th, 2008, 03:46 PM
300miles

we can drag it to the river and tip it over.
then we can all swing across it like kids on monkeybars...

:)
November 13th, 2008, 05:16 PM
joe d.

Now here's an idea

:D WE SHOULD OF ALLOWED THE SENECA'S TO BUILD A CASINO 1 STORY ABOVE A NEW PEACE BRIDGE....IT would of put the cost of building it on their shoulders..and it / ROADWAY would be covered so it wouldnt have to be plowed!!;)
November 13th, 2008, 11:53 PM
leets

In San Francisco they still rue the day they agreed to build that Golden Gate Bridge. Such a waste of effort for an unnecessarily beautiful design.

For that matter why make anything beautiful? We should just make everything cheap quick and ugly.
November 16th, 2008, 11:20 PM
keyboard150

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOfTheSame

There is another article in today's paper about the "progress" on the so called 'Signature Bridge' that would link the United States to Canada.

It was announced recently that a 400'+ "Signature Bridge" would be put in to replace the Peace Bridge. This will surely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

My question: Why? If the goal is to get a bridge that can handle more cars and trucks, fine, let's do that. But why do we need to make a wonder of the world landmark span? Do we really need to inflate our egos? Does anybody really believe such a bridge is going to increase tourism to the area? Come on. Let's get real.

The purpose of a bridge is to get from point A to point B. Not to look pretty or attract tourists. So then why are we wasting all this money on style and flash over substance?

The state and the federal government is in dire straits. Money is hemorrhaging because of projects like this one. Why not build the bare minimum that will get the job done? The people driving over the bridge won't care what it looks like. The truckers coming across won't care about its appearance.

I'd rather save my tax dollars than build some post-modern piece of eye candy. If we had simply wanted to get the job done with the cheapest design that would accomplish the goal we wouldn't have had to have a "design jury," confer with preservationists, worry about damage to migratory birds from aerial towers or any of that bureaucratic red tape. It would have done quicker and it would be cheaper.

But that's not the Buffalo way, is it? We'd rather demand something flashy, overly expensive and wasteful that is paid for with the free cheese government money of our fellow countrymen.

From what I understand much of the bridge will be paid for with funds from the Public Bridge Authority, which is through tolls.
And my question is: Why not?

I would like to see something cool added to the Buffalo skyline.
November 17th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Surfing USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by keyboard150

I would like to see something cool added to the Buffalo skyline.

How about a Twin Skyway? :D
November 17th, 2008, 12:08 AM
Achbek1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfing USA

A covered bridge would attract more tourists.

http://www.cbc.ca/sevenwonders/image..._bridge_lg.jpg

I see Robert James Waller under there.
November 17th, 2008, 12:19 AM
Surfing USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achbek1

I see Robert James Waller under there.

The Bridges of Erie County. :)
November 17th, 2008, 12:21 AM
keyboard150

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfing USA

How about a Twin Skyway? :D

I'm going to kill you 'till you die.
November 17th, 2008, 05:56 PM
JustRetired

I thought the idea behind a "signature bridge" was that people would come to see it, am I wrong?

Now be honest, other than the Golden Gate Bridge, how many people have really made a bridge a destination point on a vacation. If it happens to be on the road you are on, you see it, but I don't think many people go out of their way to see a bridge.

Just put up something efficient to handle traffic.
November 17th, 2008, 06:03 PM
keyboard150

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustRetired

I thought the idea behind a "signature bridge" was that people would come to see it, am I wrong?

Now be honest, other than the Golden Gate Bridge, how many people have really made a bridge a destination point on a vacation. If it happens to be on the road you are on, you see it, but I don't think many people go out of their way to see a bridge.

Just put up something efficient to handle traffic.

Nah. If you're going to put up an International Bridge, make a statement. "We don't need no ugly bridge!"
November 17th, 2008, 06:13 PM
leets

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustRetired

I thought the idea behind a "signature bridge" was that people would come to see it, am I wrong?

Now be honest, other than the Golden Gate Bridge, how many people have really made a bridge a destination point on a vacation. If it happens to be on the road you are on, you see it, but I don't think many people go out of their way to see a bridge.

Just put up something efficient to handle traffic.

A thing does not need to be a destination to make it worthy of beauty. As a matter of fact the Golden Gate was not built to be a tourist destination. It became so because it is beautiful. celebration of a peaceful international boarder alone should make this bridge worthy of the extra effort toward beauty.

Why build something that is ugly is the real question. Far too much of our built environment is ugly.
November 17th, 2008, 06:20 PM
speaker

Yep. I want a beautiful bridge that is awesome to pass over. A beautiful bridge doesn't cost that much more to build.