Tomb

They’re meant to encourage healthy, emissions-free commuting while framing the city core with landmark architecture. But after city council approved two iconic pedestrian bridges over the Bow River, most of the attention was focused not on the bridges themselves, but on their price tag of more than $25 million.

“We could have spent $2 or $3 million per bridge, made them really pretty and attractive, without absolutely losing control as was done in this case,” says Ald. Ric McIver. By McIver’s math, the city could have bought at least eight pedestrian bridges for the price they’re paying for two. “There’s no credible way you can defend this decision,” says McIver, adding the money would be better spent on roads, transit or parks and recreation upgrades.

While McIver portrays the bridges as a superfluous waste of money, his assertions are challenged by aldermen who say public discussion of the bridges has been distorted by misinformation. Aldermen Druh Farrell and Brian Pincott say that paying $2 million to $3 million for a pedestrian bridge over the river isn’t anywhere close to realistic. Says Farrell: “That’s just a joke.” Pincott: “Ridiculous.”

Their challenge is backed up by Don Mulligan, director of the city’s transportation planning department. “That’s clearly wrong,” says Mulligan when asked about the possibility of buying the bridges for $3 million each. “Clearly wrong.” Mulligan says “a basic pedestrian bridge across the Bow River at this location would be $12 to $15 million — probably on the higher end of that.”

The westernmost bridge will span the Bow just west of Prince’s Island. This bridge will be entirely paid for by the $25 million. The second bridge — which will link Bridgeland and the East Village while touching on the western tip of St. George’s Island — will be paid for by the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation pending its board’s approval.

The city is eyeing Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava as a possible designer for the single-span bridges. His sleek bridge designs are seen in cities like Seville, Valencia and Dublin. “Calatrava is somebody who has taken these kinds of opportunities and transformed a complete place,” says Jeff Spalding, CEO of the Glenbow Museum. Spalding says that because Calgary is a river-oriented city, it makes sense to highlight its physical landscape. “You put money and affection towards things that really matter, and our relationship with the natural splendour of this part of the world is part of it,” he says.

The $25 million for the bridges came from the Municipal Sustainability Initiative, a transfer of money from the province to Calgary that will total $3.3 billion over 10 years. “We had already budgeted this (money) for transportation,” says Farrell. “When you look at what else we would spend this money on, it would likely have gone to an interchange, and this is about a third of the price of an interchange. So really, it benefits certainly more Calgarians than an interchange out in the suburbs somewhere.”

The city says the bridges are needed to handle pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area. Approximately 120,000 people work in the city core, and this number is expected to swell to 180,000 within the next two decades. Approximately 13,000 commuters cross the Bow River every weekday. “Because we can’t build any more roads, we want to promote walking, cycling and transit,” says Mulligan. “It’s already the busiest area for pedestrians in the whole city.”

The city also expects the city centre’s population of 30,000 to double by 2035. “This has to be viewed from a long-term perspective, not just what’s happening in the next year or two,” says Mulligan.

The debate about the new bridges illustrates Calgary’s choice between cheap, utilitarian public infrastructure and lasting, quality architecture with esthetic value. Calgary’s City Centre plan, which was approved by city council last year, calls for “design excellence” in public infrastructure. “(Bridges) are very visible structures,” says Farrell. “And sometimes we’ve done them and they’re ugly, downright ugly…. I think that’s not the way to look at long-term infrastructure — the cheapest possible design.”

Noel Keough, a professor in the University of Calgary’s faculty of environmental design, says there’s also “a strong economic argument” that the bridges will ultimately save the city money. “The cost of a bridge to get X number of pedestrians across a river versus the cost of a bridge to get the same number of people across the river in cars — there’s no comparison,” says Keough. “The more people walking, the less people using their cars, the less we’ll need very expensive car infrastructure.” Keough says it’s a “wise investment” to build well-designed bridges instead of cheap ones. “In the end, it will make life more pleasant for Calgarians. It will get us out of our cars. It will attract more people to our city that will contribute to the economy of our city.”

Still, the bridges have been a tough sell to the public. Newspaper columnists have panned the bridges as a “gimmick” and said functionality is all that’s needed. When Fast Forward accosted pathway users near Eau Claire on a sunny Tuesday lunch hour, most people agreed. “It’s a waste of money,” said one cyclist. Another: “I think a standard footbridge is sufficient. People are here to run, to walk, to enjoy nature. They don’t want to stare at a big piece of metal. They could repair the paths with that money, or make more paths.”

Pincott says he can understand public opposition to the bridges. “If I was a citizen and not aware of the real numbers and I was reacting to merely the misinformation that’s being spread, then yeah… I might be a tad outraged as well,” he says. “But I think when you put it into context and you have the real information, the real numbers, then it isn’t being irresponsible. It isn’t being frivolous with spending our money. It’s spending it very, very strategically.”