Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoNerd
Unlike yourself I’m not an armchair urbanist/engineer. I speak from experience.
|
Do you even know my educational and professional background to make such an assumption? Look back at my previous posts on this discussion and I have refrained from making definitive statement about the bridge for good reason. Regardless of your background, unless you performed an engineering inspection of the bridge (or have reviewed the report from the engineer who did) you don't have enough data to give a proper analysis. One would hope that anyone with their P.Eng. (or even been through the iron ring ceremony) wouldn't make definitive statements about the structural integrity of the bridge without data to back up their statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoNerd
Repurposing infrastructure can make great places.
|
It can, but it doesn't always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoNerd
Also, I like how the thought of replacing or even providing maintenance decades down the road to a green space or MUP is the worst case scenario to you.  |
It is a value for money proposition.
For the MUP option, to be useful it needs to go from somewhere useful to somewhere useful. That would mean building a bridge over the new tracks on the north end, and building a MUP around the golf course and through an environmentally sensitive area on the north end, neither of which will be cheap (not to mention any upgrades the overpass itself would require to make it safe for the new purpose).
For the green space option, you are only gaining about 500 m^2 of new greenspace (the part over the highway, since the approaches will be greenspace either way). Given that it wouldn't be easy to access and the city would likely want to keep people off of for liability reasons, I struggle to see the value for money.
This is all assuming that the new alignment of the 174 is compatible with where the bridge supports of the overpass were.