Don't like the fountain? You got a better idea? Sure you do!
When it comes to local politics, the City Beat tends to hear way more criticisms than proposals -- note the comment sections of postings about the Alerus Center, the Riverwalk Centre and that $800,000 fountain. (Love the comments, by the way. Keep them coming.)
Let's balance out the imbalance. If the old railroad bridge pier in the Red River downtown is an eye sore to you, what would you put on it? And how would you pay for it?
Let's balance out the imbalance. If the old railroad bridge pier in the Red River downtown is an eye sore to you, what would you put on it? And how would you pay for it?
posted by Tu-Uyen at 5:09 PM
10 Comments:
Whistler: That's not what I've heard, though I'll check on it. But let's not jump to conclusions before the facts are in.
So, BESIDES blowing up a historic pier, what else would you people do?
Come up with your own idea then. I told you, $300k in donated money.
I wouldn't want to see the pier destroyed. It is a historic structure and could be an attractive addition to the downtown area of the two cities. I'm in favor of the fountain if it is at all feasible, but I hope it would be designed to be classy and not tacky...
I'd like to see the pedestrian bridge put back up, including the historic pier. The other two (eventually) pedestrian bridges are too far south. There needs to be some balance. Crossing the road at the Sorlie (? The bridge by Cabela's) to get to the EGF bike trails is a pain, and it's somewhat dangerous. A dedicated ped bridge there would allow trail users to pass under the driving bridge in either direction.
The bridge support was historic when there was a historic bridge attached to it. Now it's simply and incongruous pillar in the middle of the river. Yes, tearing it down would cost money, too. But once the thing is gone, there's no cost to maintain it and no reason for local politicians to waste their time and our time by promoting silly ideas about how to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. I'm glad Mac is my city councilman.
You thought you read that the pier was a problem. I've talked with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers people and that has never come up. They only had a problem with the bridge itself. So, yeah, I think you're wrong but I haven't had time to clarify with the corps.
Well, if you can reference roughly when the story ran, I might be able to do a search for it.
I don't know why you don't trust the corps. They're the ones that would've been quoted in that earlier story.
I talked today to Bonnie Greenleaf, the corps person in charge of our dike project. She said that, yes, at one point, the corps thought that if the railroad bridge had to go, why not take out the whole thing, pier and all. But, she said, based on studies of water flow, the corps has concluded that the pier represents a negligible impact on flood debris.
That has always made more sense to me because the pier is round and water (and debris) flows around it. The bridge, on the other hand, is flat so, at flood level, debris would be caught in it as if it were a dam.
The fountain water would smell if sprayed into the air. As a kid the smelly spray from the old Riverside Park dam is a bad memory. The solution would be to have the fountain supplied with treated fresh water in a closed recirculating system so water wouldn't be wasted. At any rate wouldn't the fountain interfere with boat traffic trying to pass by the fountain?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home