So other than the potential for reclaiming land where the curve is (which I've already mentioned a couple of times myself), what's the point then?
the city could offset their costs by selling it, like Vancouver could with the redesign of the loops at the northeast end of the granville bridge. & since the city doesn't have the cash flow at the moment it's something they might consider. there's room for a few more buildings around there, which means more intensity, people living or working or shopping, etc in that part of town.
I likened it to freeway thinking (an obvious reference, I thought, to the old freeway visions for Vic West) because it supposes that the directness of vehicle routes is the highest priority in a city's built form. Save a second wherever you can, even if the distances are short and the scenery is interesting.
i don't see how it's any kind of reference, since nobody has suggested freeways through vicwest in 40 years now. it's more efficient use of the land around the bridgeheads. simple as that
It's the same school of idiocy that envisioned a straight route right across Beacon Hill Park. There's nothing fundamentally wrong about a slightly indirect route, a curved road, etc.
& there's nothing
fundamentally wrong with a straight road. there are other variables that affect whether or not it's "freeway thinking." can I say it's *obvious* that johnson st wouldn't suddenly become a freeway for 200m if it were merely straightened out?
In fact, Victoria has several iconic buildings that were indeed built by design, at will, intentionally, etc. There's absolutely no logical reason to suppose that it can't be done again, and there's absolutely no logical reason to suppose that an "accidental" icon such as the current bridge couldn't be replaced by something modern, fundamentally different, but equally iconic.
if you mean the legislature & the empress, even if they were built today, they wouldn't have the same 100yrs of stories & history that they do have, and no amount of design can substitute
I am a little confused about this whole issue. Does the bridge actually need work or is this just a money grab? If it is just a money grab then I think there are lots of other things that could be built rather than worrying about the slight possibility of an earthquake.
pam madoff said earlier in the thread that the reason they want to make a decision quickly is so that they can get federal stimulus cash, which could fund up to 2/3(?) of the project, not because drivers are in imminent danger of it collapsing
If it should be fixed then I am all for either doing a good restoration or building something attractive. As I said above, I can't imagine that it is that hard or expensive to make a utilitarian bridge look interesting. Another Bay Street Bridge that rotates would be a shame, and it certainly would have no chance of ever being iconic.
you've got that right. all it takes is some blue paint & voila, an interesting utilitarian bridge!