Sensational-Adelaide.com

Never mind that if were getting something like Helix bridge, we'd have columns and columns written about how it's too over the top, garish, doesn't fit in with the setting, etc. etc.
As for the price difference, does it occur to them at all that labour and construction prices might be different in Australia compared to Singapore, and that distance isn't the only defining factor in bridge costs?

And AdelaideNow seriously think people will flock to sign up to the pay wall when it goes live later this week...

That article was a load of rubbish written by a bored journalist with too much time on their hands.

God they are so tiresome. Ridiculous article

And Melvin Mansell has the hide to state that The Advertiser "constantly and strongly champions its state" (see ACC thread).

Bollocks.

Talk about thin-skinned; a journo writes an article about a better and cheaper bridge than ours. All energy on this forum is wasted on throwing dirt on the guy who wrote the piece and on his rag. Instead we should learn from it and make sure that we build something outstanding next time.

Reb-L wrote:Talk about thin-skinned; a journo writes an article about a better and cheaper bridge than ours. All energy on this forum is wasted on throwing dirt on the guy who wrote the piece and on his rag. Instead we should learn from it and make sure that we build something outstanding next time.

Did you read the article? It's full of scare quotes and out of place snide comments. He calls the bridge " "functional" " in scare quotes. Then says that maybe we should have built something grander, oh but wait it was too expensive anyway. It's a pointless article.

monotonehell wrote:

Reb-L wrote:Talk about thin-skinned; a journo writes an article about a better and cheaper bridge than ours. All energy on this forum is wasted on throwing dirt on the guy who wrote the piece and on his rag. Instead we should learn from it and make sure that we build something outstanding next time.

Did you read the article? It's full of scare quotes and out of place snide comments. He calls the bridge " "functional" " in scare quotes. Then says that maybe we should have built something grander, oh but wait it was too expensive anyway. It's a pointless article.

I think you are missing his point; what he's saying is that we could've gotten more for less. We are getting a simple structure without any weather protection but paying more per meter for it than the 'grander' one in Singapore.

Its more expensive because its span will be over 100m. The helix bridge has pilons ever 15m or so this adds mega buck due to the engineering and materials that are needed. Having anything grander wouldnt have passed Council, it was already dumbed down due to the visual impact of the original proposal. It is pointless proposing something that would never get built.

Reb-L wrote:

monotonehell wrote:

Reb-L wrote:Talk about thin-skinned; a journo writes an article about a better and cheaper bridge than ours. All energy on this forum is wasted on throwing dirt on the guy who wrote the piece and on his rag. Instead we should learn from it and make sure that we build something outstanding next time.

Did you read the article? It's full of scare quotes and out of place snide comments. He calls the bridge " "functional" " in scare quotes. Then says that maybe we should have built something grander, oh but wait it was too expensive anyway. It's a pointless article.

I think you are missing his point; what he's saying is that we could've gotten more for less. We are getting a simple structure without any weather protection but paying more per meter for it than the 'grander' one in Singapore.

His point is either disingenuous or terribly ignorant. I don't hold any kind of engineering degree and even I can tell the difference between the two designs as well as the relative costs of labour.

Reb-L wrote:

monotonehell wrote:

Reb-L wrote:Talk about thin-skinned; a journo writes an article about a better and cheaper bridge than ours. All energy on this forum is wasted on throwing dirt on the guy who wrote the piece and on his rag. Instead we should learn from it and make sure that we build something outstanding next time.

Did you read the article? It's full of scare quotes and out of place snide comments. He calls the bridge " "functional" " in scare quotes. Then says that maybe we should have built something grander, oh but wait it was too expensive anyway. It's a pointless article.

I think you are missing his point; what he's saying is that we could've gotten more for less. We are getting a simple structure without any weather protection but paying more per meter for it than the 'grander' one in Singapore.

What was his point?
He may as well compare a watermelon to a banana.

My real gripe with this article is that its just the latest of many that politicise and run down every new development. On its own its just an article but it follows so many similar negative articles. just in regard to the bridge there have been negative articles on: the bridge not being wide enough, the length of the bridge, trees cut down to build it, rowers unable to use the river, the cost, that it does not go over memorial drive, that its going to the wrong spot, skateboarders will use it. And I have probably missed some. Nothing can get built in Adelaide with out the Advertiser giving greater voice to the naysayers. There has never been so much happening in Adelaide and all we read is the worst in every thing!

There is a letter to the Editor in today's Advertiser from Tom Koutsantonis.

He points out that the Reiverbank footbridge is in fact 255 metres long, not 150, which makes the bridge only $160K per linear metre which is 36% cheaper than the $250K/m of the Helix Bridge.

He also states:
The "superior features" of the Helix Bridge, such as a "computer controlled lighting system to set the mood at night and view platforms with stunning panoramas of the city skyline" have also been incorporated into the design of the Riverbank footbridge.

He also points out the Riverbank footbridge will only take a year to build whereas the Helix bridge took three years.

The Editor did reply that the 150m figure came from the original official press release in July 2012. They also stated that they have asked Tom when the length was extended and why this didn't change the $40 Million price tag. Tom is yet to respond.

So perhaps we are getting value for money after all (not that I personally thought otherwise).

In other words, what we all knew, the Advertiser was simply wasting resources again to create controversy to lift their bottom line.
Even less surprising is that they did not bother to check their facts before publishing their article.

rev wrote:In other words, what we all knew, the Advertiser was simply wasting resources again to create controversy to lift their bottom line.
Even less surprising is that they did not bother to check their facts before publishing their article.

We must thank them for that paywall!