If there is any doubt this marks progress, consider the change in visions of a new bridge over nearly a decade, as shown below. The Peace Bridge Authority in 1996 unveiled a mundane "twin span" concept, offered in either concrete or steel versions, but devoid of excitement. Now, imagination can carry dreams as well as vehicles through an internationally important gateway. There is a huge difference between then and now, and future design work can improve on that picture.

The Christian Menn concept, its roadway piercing two soaring cable-stayed pylons framing Lake Erie to the south and the Niagara River and historic Peace Bridge to the north, offers the drama and beauty long sought by proponents of a "signature" bridge.

Many people have not understood the value of building a beautiful bridge. But there is no place where that is more vital than Buffalo. This region suffers from its snow-bound reputation, which can translate into people not wanting to move and live here. No one comes or stays because of a bridge design, but it can help project a modern, vibrant, active sense of place that can attract people and make everyone prouder to live here.

Next this idea heads for a decision by the Bridge Authority, Buffalo and Fort Erie, called the "Partnering Group," and eventual formal approval in a year-long environmental review process. The concept is then opened to competition by world-class architects already expressing interest in taking this bridge idea to final design.

Menn, a world-renowned Swiss architect, may have an edge in that bidding, because this is his concept. But the list also includes the famed Figg Engineering Group, which teamed with Menn on Boston's iconic new Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge. And the mix also includes the hottest name in bridge design worldwide right now, Spanish "starchitect" Santiago Calatrava. By law, the Partnering Group can't favor anyone now - but after the environmental process concludes, the best in the world are on tap to take the drawings to reality.

The 32-member design jury deserves praise for efficiently capping nearly a decade of meandering attempts by favoring one of the most inspiring proposals, and by a wide and binational margin. That decade, launched when a private-sector "SuperSpan" concept emerged in response to the mundane 1996 official bridge design at least drew the public into this regionally important decision for the 21st century.

The burden now shifts to the Partnering Group, which must consider some details outside the jury's jurisdiction. Greater lane capacity, for example, must be considered while still justifying even the need for this bridge to the federal highway administration. Our advice: Build wisely by building wide, because the relatively modest add-on investment in six lanes now will pay dividends deeper into this, and the next, century.