Loving or hating Calgary’s new bridge is not as easy as it sounds
A few months ago I wrote to ask Calgarians to wait until the design of the new Santiago Calatrava bridge was released before deciding if the $22 million price tag was worth it. The design was supposed to be released by the end of May, then the big day was scheduled for August 6, before yesterday’s surprise release of the images. A bumpy wait, but now that they are out Calgarians are able to have their full say. (Click here to view the design on CBC’s website where many are giving their comments.)
It appears as though price is no longer the only contentious part of this bridge however. In addition to releasing the artist renderings yesterday, the Mayor announced on Friday that the bridge is meant to honour the Canadian Armed Forces. Then this past Monday he emerged from a closed door Council meeting to announce the bridge will be named the “Peace Bridge”.
So by my count that now gives Calgarians four different things to complain about when discussing the bridge:
- The cost.
- The spin.
- The name.
- The design.
And so it begins. The newsrooms, the editorials, the twittersphere, and the blogs have all become sounding boards of confused fury. People are being lumped in as either “for” or “against” the bridge. But as you can see from the list above there must be nuances not being explored. So I break it all down thusly:
1. The cost.
Con: This bridge is costing more than any other pedestrian bridge in Calgary’s history. Given the current state of the economy, reasoning suggests the large amount of cash resources could have been better spent elsewhere, on something Calgary has a demand for. I have not seen any data suggesting that what Calgary really needs right now more than anything else is a pedestrian bridge just west of Prince’s Island.
Pro: You can’t build a bridge for much less than this. The rumour we could have done it for $2 million simply is not true. It is also important to note the City of Calgary is not paying for this bridge out of their property tax revenues. The money for the bridge is coming from the Provincial Government as part of the Municipal Sustainability Initiative funding. As such, there are a number of “strings” attached to the agreement that mean Council can’t do much with the money except build a bridge. (Remember the Bronconnier/Stelmach public battle of about a year ago? This is what that was about. Bronco wanted to be able to spend the money on other more pressing civic needs. He lost this part of the argument.) Because the money is unexpected and limited to only this use, it stands to reason that you might as well build a better bridge than you normally would have rather than giving the money back. (You’ll hear more from me in the future about provincial/municipal funding issues. It is this kind of messed up relationship that illustrates why we need a new deal for cities.)
2. The spin.
Con: The number one reason why Bronconnier is so happy to honour our troops with this bridge is to help deflect some of the public criticism over the other three items on this list. It’s hard to argue with this. Even though the Mayor says this was the plan all the way along, it is news to just about ever observer. Including many – if not the vast majority of – council members. It smacks of using our troops as a political shield. Just about the lowest tactic I can think of.
Pro: Bronconnier may be telling the truth – we don’t know for sure. And either way naming the bridge in honour of the Canadian Armed Forces is a great idea, given the bridge’s proximity to Memorial Drive and the re-vamp that is underway there – also in honour of our troops. Most everyone thinks this is a good plan; however we must be wary that accusing the Mayor of political gamesmanship does not mean the accuser things this is not a worthy group to honour in this manner.
3. The name.
Pro: “Peace Bridge” is an appropriate name given that the bridge will be in honour of our troops. Peace is what they stand for. The name is also symbolic of Calgary and Canada as well as the joining of two shores.
Con: It is such a good name we already thought of it 82 years ago when we named the Niagara bridge that joins Canada to the United States at Fort Erie/Buffalo. Don’t our troops deserve to be honoured in a manner not already reserved in Canada for a different group? Couldn’t we be just a little bit more creative in the name we chose to honour them? I’m sure they’d be much happier not having to share a name with a much more famous bridge. It seems like the least we could do.
4. The design.
Pro: Calgary needs more iconic and unique architecture. The city is one of the most creative places in Canada – and I would argue the entire world. However the city has been mostly built during “boom” cycles, meaning getting a building up as quickly as possible had to be the number one goal. This kind of accelerated program doesn’t allow much time for the design process to create new engineering marvels. When Santiago Calatrava was commissioned to design this bridge it was because he had a history of unique designs that people the world over talk about. This design is unlike any bridge Calgary has, and is unlike any bridge anywhere else in the world. It is uniquely Calgarian and has the potential to quickly become a local treasure.
(We’ve known for months the bridge wasn’t going to be a standard Caltrava-esque design because of the limitations created by having a helipad so close. So if you expected the high towers and cables give your head a shake and get over it.)
Con: As Don Braid said in his recent post: Parisians didn’t love the Eiffel Tower when it was first designed either. They felt it was ugly and inappropriate given the scale and design of the rest of their city. So far I have heard Calgary’s new bridge design referred to as a Chinese finger trap, a blunt, a futuristic tunnel, a candy stick, a ribbed condom, and a drinking straw. (The design has only been out for about 18 hours so I’m sure there will be more to come or some I’ve missed.) What do these descriptions all have in common? It makes it sound like people don’t like the design. But I’m not buying that. I think this is people simply trying to make sense of what it is they are looking at. And that’s a good thing. Just like with the Eiffel Tower, iconic architecture is rarely immediately embraced the way the status quo is. Hopefully once is all said and done they decide they do like it.
via @stephenpeasley
So there you have it. All the pro and con arguments summed up. If you think I missed anything please let me know. I hope this will be able to help us frame the argument for or against the bridge with a little more nuance.
Or at the very least get to the point of accepting it a little quicker. Because I think it’s pretty cool Calgary has something so different, finally. (Even though I think it is a lot to pay, but we had little choice on what to do with that money so I’m happy with our choice. I also think naming the bridge in honour of our troops is a great idea, even though the Mayor’s political spin was terribly executed and the resulting name was unoriginal. Hopefully you understand my nuanced opinion on the bridge a little better given everything that came above in this post. If not, at least I tried.)
Open Government starts to expose what’s in the shadows
Ald. Ceci and Ald. Pincott’s notice of motion regarding open data becoming the standard at the City of Calgary passed this morning with only a couple amendments. One amendment was regarding cost of making the data available and another was asking for the City’s legal departments input. Both very good amendments in my opinion. The motion asked for a report on the feasibility of opening up the City’s data to the public from Administration to be completed and we should see it in December 2009.
I suggested the open data project to Ceci and Pincott in the first place is because it is one very simple way for the City to open up and become more transparent. This is what Open Government is all about.
In this day and age where we see dropping percentages of people who vote, and fatigue over partisan bickering, it strikes me that it is time to remind citizens who’s in charge and why the City exists in the first place.
Cities were of course created for one reason only: to make the lives of their citizens better.
So a group of engaged citizens in the 19th century stood up and said ‘if you wish, we will set the direction for how our City can make our lives better’. The rest of the population responded by holding an election to determine which citizens best characterize the direction they would like to see their city go, and the result was a group who immediately got to the business of making their city a better place to live.
They did this by hiring people to work projects on behalf of the citizens. They set policy and safety standards and generally did the job they were elected to do. Citizens watched and judged their accomplishments – letting them know when they agreed and when they disagreed. Every few years the population got a chance to change their representative if they felt it was necessary. And the building continued.
However at some point in time the elected individuals as well as the people they hired ended up hidden in the shadow of the behemoth organization they created in the name of making the lives of citizens better. Issues became more and more complex as more and more issues fall to their plates for solutions. More and more people were hired, more and more details were added. The entire undertaking became incredibly hard for the average citizen to follow, to judge and provide input on. This, unfortunately, is the government we have today.
Open Government is about using new technologies to shine the light on what is happening on our behalf. It is meant to turn back the clock and give the average citizen a way to be involved again.
Open Data is one small step in that direction; because, it is important to note, the data in our government’s possession is collected on behalf of us with a goal of making our lives better.
We, the citizens, own that information and we have every right to access it.
This brings me to today’s motion. I was hopeful that all aldermen would see this motion as a positive step toward opening up our government and not allowing individuals to live in the shadows – either on purpose or by accident. I truly thought we would see a unanimous vote of approval for looking into the practicality of open data for the City of Calgary. So I was surprised to see two aldermen vote to keep the citizens they supposedly represent at bay. Two aldermen who wanted to keep the City’s work in the shadows.
I’m extremely disappointed in Ald. Chabot and Ald. Connelly for not even entertaining the possibility of allowing the citizens of our city to better know the work they – and those they’ve hired – are doing on our behalf.
Security, privacy and legality concerns are all real need to be looked and more than likely addressed. This report will do that. So why not just SEE what the possibilities are instead of regressing back into the shadows?
Today’s motion was just the beginning of shining the light on the shadows and it shone directly on Chabot and Connelly. They have been exposed.
And just like my opinion of open data in general: what the citizens might do with this newly exposed information is what really excites me.
Brian Pincott on Open Data at Calgary City Hall
Brian Pincott on Open Data at Calgary City Hall
Hat tip to Grant Neufeld for filming and editing this video of Calgary City alderman Brian Pincott discussing why he sees a need for open data protocols and expectations from the City of Calgary.
I agree with him entirely except for his last point about data mining. If privacy and security concerns are met I don’t see any reason why a private company could not utilize the City’s data. Sure they may make a mint off of it (the odds of that may be slim) but that’s the trade off for making this info available. It’s available to everyone for whatever purpose they can dream up.
I may change my opinion on this however if smarter people than I can convince me of the evils of this kind of data mining though.
Help ensure Calgary’s “Open City” initiative is framed in the right light
If you know what “open data” means it is time for you to weigh in on what you think of Calgary’s “open government” initiative heading to council next week.
This is important because I imagine very shortly the ‘nay-sayers’ will automatically trot out their ill-informed opinions on privacy and security concerns to the media. Which, in turn, I postulate would be written about by journalists not familiar with data storage and security protocols, which will then be read by average citizens who will naturally share the fear they are being presented with. I’m hoping the internet community can start to frame this discussion in a positive light starting today, before this happens. Please share on your blogs and twitter how these concerns and challenges can be met.
I’d even start by talking about the data itself. The kinds of data that I see being put into this system are things like: garbage collection data, crime rates and locations, transit schedules, traffic patterns, mapping data, watershed flows, and life-cycle plans. In short, the vast majority of the data is not personal in any way, shape or form.
The privacy conversation should and will be had though. Recommendations on this front are asked to be included in the report. There is no point in being concerned in the slightest until the report comes back with some realistic, hard information to debate.
However I think it bears mentioning that the most personal data the City of Calgary collects – homeowner details and property values – have been available through the planning department and the City of Calgary’s property assessment website for years. Even decades in the case of the former. If citizens did not get upset about this data being made available then, then I’m not sure why they would be concerned about traffic data being available too.
As a final thought it is important to note the notice of motion already instructs administration to look at privacy and security issues and report back on potential issues. Due diligence has to be – and will be done.
I think many share my urging that this initiative move forward in a well thought out manner and doesn’t get side tracked by un-knowledgeable people offering sound bites. Please help ensure that doesn’t occur by writing about the project.
“Open Government” coming to Calgary?
It’s pretty exciting to be able to announce something the City of Calgary is about to do on a blog. It’s also rather fitting in this case.
Open Government projects have started popping up around the world; most recently in Washington, DC and Canada’s own Vancouver. And now we can hopefully add Calgary to that list.
Included in next week’s Calgary City Council agenda will be a notice of motion drafted by Aldermen Joe Ceci and Alderman Brian Pincott. If approved it instructs Administration to draft a report about the possibility of making all data collected by the City of Calgary (where appropriate given privacy and security concerns) available to all Calgarians. Perhaps just as importantly, the data would be made available in an open source format.
The text of the motion is as follows:
NM2009-July 14
RE: ACCESS TO CITY DATA AND SERVICES
ALDERMEN CECI AND PINCOTTWHEREAS Calgary is a well-connected on line community with 92% of Calgarians being Internet users;
AND WHEREAS this community profile leads to high citizen expectations and demand for online service delivery;
AND WHEREAS 89% of Calgarians support The City’s efforts to enhance resources, information and services via the Internet;
AND WHEREAS in the 2009-2011 Council Priorities document, Council has made a commitment to increase on – line citizen services;
AND WHEREAS other Canadian municipalities have recently made commitments to provide greater public access to civic data for the benefit of citizens, business, suppliers, community and social organizations;
AND WHEREAS The City of Calgary has had success in implementing open source solutions for our technology infrastructure;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Administration prepare a report outlining an overall strategy and to present it to the SPC on Finance and Corporate Services no later than 2009 December and that the report include:
- Identification of opportunities to make more of The City’s data open and accessible while respecting privacy and security concerns , and ensuring that data is available through use of open standards, interfaces and formats
- Development of an integrated information lifecycle management policy
- Increased opportunities for on-line citizen participation
- Increased City services on – line
- A policy on the use, procurement and support of open source technologies going forward
- Integration with Webwave and egovernment programs
- An implementation schedule and any associated costs
In my mind this motion is long overdue and a “no brainer”. The data the City holds is about US. In addition WE are the owners of that data because it is collected by the organization we created to make our lives better.
If it is about us and we own it, we should have access to it. Why hide it away, not available to the public, and in a proprietary format very few citizens would be able to use?
Where I get very excited about this potential new program is when I think about the kinds of things that can happen when this data is made available to someone other than just City of Calgary officials and in a more flexible format. Coders and academics alike now have the ability to build programs and applications we may not even know we need right now. With all these individuals and companies with access to this data the number of resources (human and computing) increases exponentially. The potential for new businesses goes through the roof!
This is an exciting day for Calgarians. I’m hoping you share the excitement as well.
PS – A big thank you to Ald. Ceci and Pincott for agreeing to allow this motion to be released via the internet before the official Council agenda goes out on Thursday.
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
