04-06-2017, 09:45 AM
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/7228...m-project/
Cambridge politicians went with the cheapest option for a pedestrian bridge over the river, and destroyed the design so much that the architects are backing away, refusing to have their names on this piece.
Let this be of note, coincidentally, that on this day in Kitchener, we hear of a proposal on Margaret (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/s...hp?tid=715&pid=34839#pid34839) where in order to please Heritage, one of two adjacent buildings will be 60% shorter, and contain less than one fifth of the units of its neighbour. For the sake of heritage in a very tucked away area will we defend this choice.
But in Cambridge, crossing the river, being one of the few objects able to be seen up and down the shoreline, and one of the only structures crossing the river, well, we actually don't need the heritage features and details we originally said were critical, because that costs some money, and it's clearly not worth it.
*facepalm*
Cambridge politicians went with the cheapest option for a pedestrian bridge over the river, and destroyed the design so much that the architects are backing away, refusing to have their names on this piece.
Let this be of note, coincidentally, that on this day in Kitchener, we hear of a proposal on Margaret (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/s...hp?tid=715&pid=34839#pid34839) where in order to please Heritage, one of two adjacent buildings will be 60% shorter, and contain less than one fifth of the units of its neighbour. For the sake of heritage in a very tucked away area will we defend this choice.
But in Cambridge, crossing the river, being one of the few objects able to be seen up and down the shoreline, and one of the only structures crossing the river, well, we actually don't need the heritage features and details we originally said were critical, because that costs some money, and it's clearly not worth it.
*facepalm*