An Eye-Opening Bridge - Pushing the Limits: New Adventures in Engineering - page 60

London.” Such was the setting the new footbridge would have to be in keeping with and, moreover,
complement.
Potential design competitors were informed that the footbridge “will provide a dramatic new
vista of the existing crossings upstream and the sweep of the Tyne as it curves to the south down-
stream.” In addition, the appearance from the other bridges naturally had to be considered in the
design. Beyond the aesthetic considerations, however, there were some practical matters to which
designers had to attend. The footbridge, which would be located at the convergence of two planned
bicycle routes, would have to be accessible to cyclists and accommodate as many as 1.5 million
pedestrian and cycle crossings each year. Finally, the bridge would need to incorporate an opening
mechanism to allow ships to pass.
The brochure made it clear that multidisciplinary teams would likely be necessary to produce a
design “of sufficiently high technical and aesthetic merit.” Teams could be led by a civil engineer,
a structural engineer, or an architect, “but any contracts or agreements entered into as a result of the
competition will be based on civil engineering model documents.” To be considered for short-list-
ing, teams were expected to submit the names of all member firms and how they fit into the team's
structure; details of qualifications and experience, especially with regard to bridge design and con-
struction; and examples of previous bridge projects, especially opening designs, along with lists of
clients. Entries at that stage were restricted to six pages of text on letter-size paper, plus drawings
and photographs. Among the criteria for being short-listed were “evidence that the team has under-
stood the unique nature and qualities of the site” and “experience of compatible team working.”
Approximately six short-listed teams were expected to be invited to submit a design, which was
to be due about six weeks after they were provided further information in the form of a technical
brief that would spell out such details as the opening and closing sequences for the bridge's opera-
tion, each of which was expected to be completed within two minutes. Each short-listed team would
receive two thousand pounds upon receipt of a satisfactory submission of a design, and the winning
team would receive an additional three thousand. The winning design would be submitted to the
Millennium Commission, a British organization for funding such projects. In other words, a design
team was guaranteed no more than two thousand pounds for its efforts, and even the winner might
see no more than five thousand, for there was no guarantee of a contract to execute the design.
Though the details may vary, the process for generating ideas for a new bridge across the Tyne
is typical of design competitions, which have been held since ancient times. In the fifth century
B.C., for example, the Athenian Senate invited architects to submit designs for a war memorial on
the Acropolis. The young United States of America held design competitions in 1792 for both the
White House and the U.S. Capitol, and in 1802 New York City did so for a new city hall and court-
house. In England, a famous design competition for a building to house the Great Exhibition of
1851 drew almost 250 entries, none of which was judged to be adequate. Ultimately the exhibition
was housed in Joseph Paxton's late entry of an iron-and-glass structure that came to be known as the
Crystal Palace. On continental Europe, in the early twentieth century, the Swiss developed rules for
engineering-design competitions that have led to some of the most innovative and attractive con-
crete bridges in the world. In Australia, on the other hand, the architectural-design competition for a
new opera house in Sydney resulted in a striking structure that was recognized worldwide but that,