interchange42 said:
Ehhh, Waterfront Toronto doesn't do everything right either: they chose a too-safe Jack Layton Ferry Terminal design.
Click to expand...
Hey, I really liked that design! (And to be honest, I can live with this bridge design too. I was just really attached to the ED submission and probably feel irrationally bitter that it wasn't selected.)
 
smuncky said:
Design should never come second. Design and function should always work with each other, not compete.

The problem with "something iconic somewhere else" is that the same logic could be applied to the next site, and the next, and the next. And in the end, nothing of substance is ever built.

I feel we always make excuses for watered down designs instead of calling them out for what they are.
Click to expand...

In this case, it should. This bridge has been long delayed, with costs continually increasing. Who's to say that the more expensive options wouldn't have been watered down also? Cost is a huge player when it comes to making decisions in this city and one that cant be ignored. It's still much better than a basic box-truss (which we could have ended up with) and at a cost that most are ok with.
 
Disappointed the ED proposal wasn't chosen, not just because my firm was part of the team, but because I thought the design was great.

At least we're getting a new link/bridge, and parkland. Can't wait to bike across it ... in 2017.
 
Tuscani01 said:
In this case, it should. This bridge has been long delayed, with costs continually increasing. Who's to say that the more expensive options wouldn't have been watered down also? Cost is a huge player when it comes to making decisions in this city and one that cant be ignored. It's still much better than a basic box-truss (which we could have ended up with) and at a cost that most are ok with.
Click to expand...
Do we know the difference in price of the proposals? No, we don't.

Meanwhile, our front page story is up here with a report from the event, while our dataBase file for the project—linked at the top of this page—has been throughly updated with new renderings and info.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Do we know the difference in price of the proposals? No, we don't.
42
Click to expand...

No but we do know that the cost increased from $18 million to $23 million before this design was even selected, which is what lead to the cancellation of the original project. If you don't think price was the major factor, you're fooling yourself. The history of this project has pretty much entirely been tied to the cost.
 
I'm not saying that. I am saying that they did not release what the difference was cost-wise amongst the three entries. If ultimately they've made the decision based on costs, what's the harm in releasing what the budgets were?

42
 
I'm curious if the final cost includes the work thrown out from the first bridge and any compensation made to the original architect and breaking the contract with the construction firm that was ready to start building it when Ford stopped it. I suspect that the total cost of building this bridge will be more than what it would have been if we just built the bridge as planned.
 
MetroMan said:
I'm curious if the final cost includes the work thrown out from the first bridge and any compensation made to the original architect and breaking the contract with the construction firm that was ready to start building it when Ford stopped it. I suspect that the total cost of building this bridge will be more than what it would have been if we just built the bridge as planned.
Click to expand...

At the time of cancellation, a little over $1 million had already been spent on the original proposal. Any penalties would be in addition to those costs, so that is quite possible.
 
Councillor Layton has confirmed that after sunk costs, the price is about the same — for an inferior design. This city is depressing sometimes.
 
Now, to be fair, the current design has the advantage of allowing access to the Ordnance Triangle/future Garrison Point park between the rail corridors, whereas the original would have bypassed it. We are going to end up with a more functional design, if not a more beautiful one.
 
I find this very, very disappointing, especially due to the fact, now we will spend as much as the original bridge was going to cost but yet we are getting the worst one. How F-ed up is that!
 
I'm sorry but this is depressing. Factoring in the sunk costs, the shit bridge below costs the same as the iconic design above. Delivered 5 years late, all the design value sucked out of it, same price. Sometimes I hate this city.

ACI2Xvb.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top