HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 6:40 PM
kgc087's Avatar
kgc087 kgc087 is offline
Urban Dreamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measuring Stick View Post
KGC I completely disagree with you and the heritage society. Do you keep old sneakers when they are worn out. Some things just are not worth keeping for memories. There will be thousands of pictures to remember the traffic bridge and an upgrade was essential to accommodate your philosophy of increasing downtown density and a thriving downtown that acts as the centre of the community. In order for this to occur we need good access and a new bridge will serve as an excellent entrance to Nasser's development.

On the flip side I do think we need to do something to commemorate the bridge and its history. As I mentioned in a previous post rehabilitating one section of the bridge into the nearby Meewasin Trail may be an excellent way to keep the history while expanding our City. I am not one who is against the keeping of our historical buildings, but buildings can be much better retrofitted than a bridge.
I agree with you for future growth of the city, which is what this is about in the end. I'm just disappointed the city is taking the easy route and replicating the existing bridge. A signature structure would have been a crowning feature of the city.
__________________
Just be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 7:08 PM
Measuring Stick Measuring Stick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 140
Signature Bridge

Yeah I agree a signature bridge would have been nice, but I wonder if it would have been a 10% increase in taxes instead of the 4% then
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 8:54 PM
kgc087's Avatar
kgc087 kgc087 is offline
Urban Dreamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measuring Stick View Post
Yeah I agree a signature bridge would have been nice, but I wonder if it would have been a 10% increase in taxes instead of the 4% then
I think the city needs to start thinking in the future and not the present. Building a great city means spending some money. But I guess there are more urgent things to focus on before a signature structure like excellent transit!
__________________
Just be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2010, 11:11 PM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm310 View Post
What happened to that old nut who bought the Borden Bridge? Is he even still alive? He was 85 when he bought it and talked about his plans to convert it into a dance hall.
Some say he mysteriously vanished after a night of jivin' on the bridge.

I really don't know. I imagine he's still kickin'...here's his fb profile. Looks like he runs marathons too.

A dance hall (call it a club) would be pretty sweet. Very unique.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2010, 4:42 AM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
Not the decision I was hoping for, but it was expected. If the bridge wasn't so deteriorated it might have been saved. The width, height, and load limit also seemed to be an issue for some (fire chief). It kind of irritates me that the fire chief thinks our roadways should accommodate every piece of equipment they operate.

__________________

We should have bought a quality pre-owned bridge...

Credit - me
Umm. First off nice picture. Secondly, if I were a resident who lived just across the bridge and my house was burning, and I was stuck inside, and I died because the Fire-department couldn't use the small bridge and had to use Idylwyld bridge or the broadway bridge to get to my place, I am sure there would be huge issues. And if you don't think that 30 seconds makes a difference in response times, know this. Wood truss homes (which are currently the standard) can burn to the point of collapse in under 5-10 minutes. (Tested by and confirmed by the Canadian National Reaserch Council of Canada) So load limits for fire fighting equiptment should be one of the top check-boxes for bridge design. I liken it to a historical building. If We (I am an Architectural Technologist) can't renovate a historical (Commercial / Industrial) building to be accessible for most we normally won't keep the building.

So yes it is a beautiful bridge, and yes it has historical value and it will be missed by a lot of people. But we cannot let historical value determine what is best for human safety.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2010, 5:16 AM
gowest gowest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 368
Safety first

Well said regarding the safety issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2010, 7:02 PM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy View Post
Umm. First off nice picture. Secondly, if I were a resident who lived just across the bridge and my house was burning, and I was stuck inside, and I died because the Fire-department couldn't use the small bridge and had to use Idylwyld bridge or the broadway bridge to get to my place, I am sure there would be huge issues. And if you don't think that 30 seconds makes a difference in response times, know this. Wood truss homes (which are currently the standard) can burn to the point of collapse in under 5-10 minutes. (Tested by and confirmed by the Canadian National Reaserch Council of Canada) So load limits for fire fighting equiptment should be one of the top check-boxes for bridge design. I liken it to a historical building. If We (I am an Architectural Technologist) can't renovate a historical (Commercial / Industrial) building to be accessible for most we normally won't keep the building.

So yes it is a beautiful bridge, and yes it has historical value and it will be missed by a lot of people. But we cannot let historical value determine what is best for human safety.
Give me a break. Because the fire department can't drive its ladder truck across the Traffic Bridge, people may be consumed by flames? The fire department should have equipment that can go anywhere. And not just the fire department, all civic departments (e.g. transit, waste, etc). The reality is roadway design and land uses differ from one neighborhood to another. In this particular case, the one-size-fits-all procurement policy is an obstacle to incorporating intimate human-scaled design.

Sorry, I think the City has a backward approach to providing municipal services.

Last edited by Ruckus; Dec 9, 2010 at 7:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2010, 5:01 AM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
Give me a break. Because the fire department can't drive its ladder truck across the Traffic Bridge, people may be consumed by flames? The fire department should have equipment that can go anywhere. And not just the fire department, all civic departments (e.g. transit, waste, etc). The reality is roadway design and land uses differ from one neighborhood to another. In this particular case, the one-size-fits-all procurement policy is an obstacle to incorporating intimate human-scaled design.

Sorry, I think the City has a backward approach to providing municipal services.
The biggest reason why Fire-trucks need bridges that can accomadate them, is not because of their physical size, but because of their water load. A fully loaded fire-truck can come in around 10 tonnes. The actual size of the bridge is fine as the equiptment is designed to meet National Traffic lane and height restrictions. However, with the amount of water the trucks need to be able to carry is what makes them much heavier. Now you might say why not use a hydrant? Well the reason for carrying water is within seconds of arriving on scene, there is the possibility that you may need to evacuate persons from a building. In THIS regard "seconds" make all the difference, so the need to hook up to a hydrant in these circumstances is not advantageous.

Also keep in mind, that the average response time for the fire-department is between 4-8 minutes, due to traffic, and times it takes to get personel and trucks out of the hall. Now that house may already be down with current constructions methods. So, like I said earlier. Anyway to make response faster would be adventageous for the city and for residents.

I don't mean to offend or argue with your point of view. All I wish to do is to inform readers of this forum the facts of why the Fire Cheif and City are doing with regards to fire-fighting equiptment.

P.S. Thank-you GOWEST.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2010, 6:33 PM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy View Post
The biggest reason why Fire-trucks need bridges that can accomadate them, is not because of their physical size, but because of their water load. A fully loaded fire-truck can come in around 10 tonnes. The actual size of the bridge is fine as the equiptment is designed to meet National Traffic lane and height restrictions. However, with the amount of water the trucks need to be able to carry is what makes them much heavier. Now you might say why not use a hydrant? Well the reason for carrying water is within seconds of arriving on scene, there is the possibility that you may need to evacuate persons from a building. In THIS regard "seconds" make all the difference, so the need to hook up to a hydrant in these circumstances is not advantageous.

Also keep in mind, that the average response time for the fire-department is between 4-8 minutes, due to traffic, and times it takes to get personel and trucks out of the hall. Now that house may already be down with current constructions methods. So, like I said earlier. Anyway to make response faster would be adventageous for the city and for residents.

I don't mean to offend or argue with your point of view. All I wish to do is to inform readers of this forum the facts of why the Fire Cheif and City are doing with regards to fire-fighting equiptment.

P.S. Thank-you GOWEST.
The bridge could be retrofitted more robustly for the increased load. I don't think there would be an issue with that. The height restriction seemed more of a sticking point. But really, the argument of 'seconds/minutes matter' is a stretch. Why don't we build more fire stations if response times are a concern? More bridges? The minimum response time has adequately served the fire department since 1982 when the Traffic Bridge was pulled from their route.

There should be a balance between designing for adequate fire service, and human-scaled design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2010, 6:54 PM
dsim249's Avatar
dsim249 dsim249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
The bridge could be retrofitted more robustly for the increased load. I don't think there would be an issue with that. The height restriction seemed more of a sticking point. But really, the argument of 'seconds/minutes matter' is a stretch. Why don't we build more fire stations if response times are a concern? More bridges? The minimum response time has adequately served the fire department since 1982 when the Traffic Bridge was pulled from their route.

There should be a balance between designing for adequate fire service, and human-scaled design.
Let's pave over the river!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2010, 7:42 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 24,644
so its going to die the death of scrap? what a shame

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2010, 11:58 PM
Measuring Stick Measuring Stick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 140
Sounds like the City has been listening to us

Reuse options for the traffic bridge:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Saskat...334/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:11 AM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Another City of Saskatoon special. Councilor Neault wants wider driving lanes for...*drumroll*...trade show tents.

Video Link


This beat is totally danceable
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:03 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.