tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6470543006314152962.post5974935575690590123..comments2024-03-11T16:49:27.614+00:00Comments on The Happy Pontist: Iconic vs laconic - you decide!The Happy Pontisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15252272118786667592noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6470543006314152962.post-84269817096556246942008-09-13T23:25:00.000+01:002008-09-13T23:25:00.000+01:00It seems the future of this bridge will be fought ...It seems the future of this bridge will be fought out in the fields of politics, with the real technical issues largely left hidden. Its design engineer, Matthew Wells, <A HREF="http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/09/11/row-brews-at-bridge-over-troubled-water-61634-21793363/" REL="nofollow">has stated</A> that a bridge <I>"of similar size and span and of exactly the same construction and arrangement has been constructed a decade ago without any difficult or on-cost or excessive maintenance regime"</I>. Quite which bridge he means is hard to guess, but if anyone knows, I'd be glad to hear.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, design architect Stephen Spence suggests that if his design of the North Shore Footbridge <A HREF="http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/We-can-have-iconic-bridge.4488047.jp" REL="nofollow">can be built without problems</A>, then his River Wear design must be okay too. I'm told, but can't find an online source to confirm, that his North Shore design ended up costing over three times the original budget; and there is controversy over exactly how much of the design concept was Spence's and how much was by Expedition Engineering. In any event, comparing a relatively conventional arch footbridge to the unique River Wear design is essentially irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>Sunderland Council's Phil Barrett responds to Spence by noting that <I>""The design is novel and there is therefore a higher risk that the cost estimate would increase as the detailed design develops."</I> This is odd: it's understandable that the designers will underplay quite how startling a departure from conventional cable-stayed design their proposal is; but here is the council downplaying the same point. "Novel" doesn't really do justice to the audacity of a bridge where the mast has no back-stays and at the same time inclines towards its deck, something only attempted before on a small footbridge, not a highway bridge on this scale.<BR/><BR/>Notable amongst all the hot air (from all sides) is that the public is being asked to rely entirely on the word of the various protagonists: none of the technical material which might assist an open and transparent evaluation has been made public. This includes the original competition entry; the reports of the technical panel and judging panel; the subsequent independent peer review; or the basis of the council's cost estimates, which have vastly inflated compared to Spence and Techniker's original figures. I've asked Sunderland City Council for copies of some of this, but had no response. It would be nice to hope, however, that before the present public consultation comes to an end, the debate can move beyond ill-informed rhetoric and allow a more rational judgement of the bridge's merits.The Happy Pontisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15252272118786667592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6470543006314152962.post-14854012997745471132008-09-11T15:13:00.000+01:002008-09-11T15:13:00.000+01:00It's a fairly standard clause, and it's th...It's a fairly standard clause, and it's there for reasons of public policy: without it, entrants could not be assured that the process of award would be fair. Of course, the River Wear Bridge Competition wasn't Sunderland's first attempt to get this scheme off the ground: they had a previous exercise which only attracted three entrants. The rumour was that most designers avoided it because there was a perception the whole thing was stacked in favour of a California-base starchitect. If they go away from the Spence/Wells design, they will now need a new procurement exercise to again ensure fair competition, but D&B tenders for a "bog-standard" bridge would satisfy this.<BR/><BR/>You are right that it makes the choice of jury absolutely key. A <A HREF="http://happypontist.blogspot.com/2008/09/secret-bridge-unveiled-and-you-can-see.html" REL="nofollow">previous commenter</A> on this site suggested the jury included two "bridge building experts", but has not replied to tell us who these supposed experts actually were. I would be genuinely interested to know, because any jury faced with a clearly innovative design has a difficult choice to make: turn it down because they fear it can't be built; or accept that to do so can hinder innovation and prevent genuinely new ideas emerging.The Happy Pontisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15252272118786667592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6470543006314152962.post-88411713370671242332008-09-11T12:53:00.000+01:002008-09-11T12:53:00.000+01:00Reading the council documents I was struck by the ...Reading the council documents I was struck by the fact that the cabinet really had little choice in the appointment of the designer since the competition rules did not allow the jury 'recommendation' to be overturned. The only alternative to accepting the recommendation was to turn it down and hence make the competition void. Perhaps this is a standard clause, but it raises the question of accountability and the importance of taking great care in the choice of the jury.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com