Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge Lights Up -- So what is next w/the TRP? (Houston: condo, houses)

[Blue Light]

Originally Posted by dallasboi

Dallas is on its way to play with the Big boys....

No intelligent human being on Planet Earth believes this except for a few delusional, internet addicted people in Dallas.

That bridge looks like it was picked out of a catalogue. In fact, I think it was. There are other city's that have bridges EXACTLY like it that were also design by the same architect.

Truly, the bridge is quite tacky. It has been well documented in the national media that people in Dallas have terrible taste. A low lying, one tower bridge with no water under it really lose all sense of purpose and dynamics. And very few are recognized as great architecture.

Dallas and the people who love it seem to not know the difference between convoluted, superficial architectural design and quality architecture that melds form, function and aesthetically pleasing design.

Dallas' standard answer for enhancing lacking design for cheap attention is stringing ratty blinking lights on everything so that they flash like out of season christmas decorations on the side of a low income suburban house.

The addition of lighting to the ditchbridge is nothing more than slapping lipstick on a pig.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by Blue Light

No intelligent human being on Planet Earth believes this except for a few delusional, internet addicted people in Dallas.

That bridge looks like it was picked out of a catalogue. In fact, I think it was. There are other city's that have bridges EXACTLY like it that were also design by the same architect.

Truly, the bridge is quite tacky. It has been well documented in the national media that people in Dallas have terrible taste. A low lying, one tower bridge with no water under it really lose all sense of purpose and dynamics. And very few are recognized as great architecture.

Dallas and the people who love it seem to not know the difference between convoluted, superficial architectural design and quality architecture that melds form, function and aesthetically pleasing design.

Dallas' standard answer for enhancing lacking design for cheap attention is stringing ratty blinking lights on everything so that they flash like out of season christmas decorations on the side of a low income suburban house.

The addition of lighting to the ditchbridge is nothing more than slapping lipstick on a pig.

Why are you worried about it? I have never heard anyone in my life care about what another city builds. Just face it no one cares about what you think. If we did, Dallas would not uniqueness about it. Stop saying Dallas. The City of Dallas has nothing to do with the design of the structures/buildings that are built in this city.

[kenshi]

Originally Posted by Blue Light

Truly, the bridge is quite tacky. It has been well documented in the national media that people in Dallas have terrible taste. A low lying, one tower bridge with no water under it really lose all sense of purpose and dynamics. And very few are recognized as great architecture.

Are you unaware that there is a river under it and there will one day be a lake? I really feel like an intellectual giant in this thread as I can't comprehend why people keep thinking it's a bridge over dry land. Here, look at this map. You see the grayish stuff on the ground at the middle of the bridge? That's water believe it or not. And some day, there's going to be a whole lot more of it. So yes, they needed a bridge there because cars can't drive through rivers.

[busterkeaton]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

Why are you worried about it? I have never heard anyone in my life care about what another city builds. Just face it no one cares about what you think. If we did, Dallas would not uniqueness about it. Stop saying Dallas. The City of Dallas has nothing to do with the design of the structures/buildings that are built in this city.

I find it hard to believe that, Dallas, has no say in what buildings are being erected in its city, even if, they have no actual hands in the buildings design. Also, if people didn't care about what other cities built, how they governed, or how their respective economies were functioning, I don't believe a site like C-D would exist....so folks do care.

[ClarenceBodiker]

Originally Posted by Blue Light

No intelligent human being on Planet Earth believes this except for a few delusional, internet addicted people in Dallas.

That bridge looks like it was picked out of a catalogue. In fact, I think it was. There are other city's that have bridges EXACTLY like it that were also design by the same architect.

Truly, the bridge is quite tacky. It has been well documented in the national media that people in Dallas have terrible taste. A low lying, one tower bridge with no water under it really lose all sense of purpose and dynamics. And very few are recognized as great architecture.

Dallas and the people who love it seem to not know the difference between convoluted, superficial architectural design and quality architecture that melds form, function and aesthetically pleasing design.

Dallas' standard answer for enhancing lacking design for cheap attention is stringing ratty blinking lights on everything so that they flash like out of season christmas decorations on the side of a low income suburban house.

The addition of lighting to the ditchbridge is nothing more than slapping lipstick on a pig.

Looks like about 11 of your 14 posts are on a Houston Texans thread trolling Cowboy fans.

Looks like another Houston troll is lost.


Poooooooooor Houston.

[busterkeaton]

Originally Posted by kenshi

Are you unaware that there is a river under it and there will one day be a lake? I really feel like an intellectual giant in this thread as I can't comprehend why people keep thinking it's a bridge over dry land. Here, look at this map. You see the grayish stuff on the ground at the middle of the bridge? That's water believe it or not. And some day, there's going to be a whole lot more of it. So yes, they needed a bridge there because cars can't drive through rivers.

There is some water under that bridge, sometimes, yes. The question is," did it need to be done at such a high price tag, when other areas of this city could use some help?"... and also, why the need and want to develop West Dallas, now? Where was the West Dallas cheerleaders at before this bridge was erected? I guess the land wasn't ripe for investment until a fancy($$$) bridge was put in place? Looks like some home owners are gonna get their homes swept out from them like their Arlington brethren ala Jerry Jones.

[ClarenceBodiker]

Originally Posted by busterkeaton

There is some water under that bridge, sometimes, yes. The question is," did it need to be done at such a high price tag, when other areas of this city could use some help?"... and also, why the need and want to develop West Dallas, now? Where was the West Dallas cheerleaders at before this bridge was erected? I guess the land wasn't ripe for investment until a fancy($$$) bridge was put in place? Looks like some home owners are gonna get their homes swept out from them like their Arlington brethren ala Jerry Jones.

N. Oak Cliff has been on the up-and-up for a while now, long before this bridge was built. Bishops Arts has been about the most exciting development in Dallas for a few years now. Before it's over, Oak Cliff might end up teaching us all how we were supposed to be doing things all along.

[Blue Light]

Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker

Looks like about 11 of your 14 posts are on a Houston Texans thread trolling Cowboy fans.

Looks like another Houston troll is lost.


Poooooooooor Houston.

Still doesn't change the fact the the ditchbridge is a ridiculous eyesore. I wouldn't expect that it is going to deliver Dallas to the promised land anytime soon. Few opinions of Dallas will be changed by the ditchbridge.

BTW, I live in Dallas - went to the Houston Texans thread to wish them luck and saw nothing but Cowboy fans trolling - so I thought I'd join the fun. I hate the Cowboys because they are a constant disappointment.

Houston will be just fine with an ugly pointless bridge 1 mile from downtown Dallas.

To be honest, I don't really prefer either city over the other. Moderator cut: language You guys can't handle the fact that no one in the world is much interested in buildings with out of season christmas lights blinking on them all year. People in Houston don't seem to care what anyone thinks of them. They are what they are. Good-Bad-Whatever. It's the world's problem. Not theirs. Dallas tries too hard and fails too often.

Dallas looks kind of like a boring version of suburban Las Vegas only without the fun.

[Blue Light]

Originally Posted by kenshi

Are you unaware that there is a river under it and there will one day be a lake? I really feel like an intellectual giant in this thread as I can't comprehend why people keep thinking it's a bridge over dry land. Here, look at this map. You see the grayish stuff on the ground at the middle of the bridge? That's water believe it or not. And some day, there's going to be a whole lot more of it. So yes, they needed a bridge there because cars can't drive through rivers.

I officially acknowledge that there is a ditch containing smelly raw sewage running under the bridge. I wouldn't hold my breath that there will ever be a lake under the ditchbridge within the lifetime of anyone posting at city-data.

Pooooooooooooooooor Dallas.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by busterkeaton

There is some water under that bridge, sometimes, yes. The question is," did it need to be done at such a high price tag, when other areas of this city could use some help?"... and also, why the need and want to develop West Dallas, now? Where was the West Dallas cheerleaders at before this bridge was erected? I guess the land wasn't ripe for investment until a fancy($$$) bridge was put in place? Looks like some home owners are gonna get their homes swept out from them like their Arlington brethren ala Jerry Jones.

You do realize that there was going to be a bridge fancy or not? The non-fancy version was going to be $85-90 million without any of the donations. There's this misconception that just because the bridge looks different that it was ridiculously more expensive than it would have been otherwise. Sorry, but the money was never going elsewhere. I think some people are going to be really angry about the I-30 bridge reconstruction. Its going to consist of 4 bridges(2 frontage, 1 for each directions). The 2 frontage bridges will be designed by Calatrava and will each consist of two long arches that span most of the length of the bridges. Oh No more spans!! And get this, the two main spans are NOT being designed by Calatrava or TxDOT. They just might end up as fancy, cable stayed or arched bridges if that's what the winning design is. OH NO!!!! And they may end up cheaper than TxDOT's standard fare and require less mainentance. Oh me oh my! OH NO!