But it's not simply a question of announcing the rules and waiting for the innovative showcase designs to flood in - it is a precarious balancing act between the different parties involved; the result can stand or fall depending on the way in which the process is managed.

Play your cards right and you could end up with an internationally-renowned structural icon which will put your city well and truly on the world map; get it wrong and you could be facing massive budget overspends and disgruntled designers.

Once a client has taken the decision to use a design competition to produce a concept for the new crossing, the next stage is to decide the type of competition, and develop the brief. This may sound like a simple step, but the way in which the competition is organised and managed, and the efficacy of the design brief can make or break the result. For a seasoned client the process is daunting enough - ensuring that loopholes are closed, the process is fully explained, transparent and fair, and that nothing is left out of the competition documents - but those with limited experience of using such means of procuring their infrastructure may be stumped before they even start.

Often they will choose to set up and run the competition in-house, with advice from the council's architect or chief engineer, but another option is to use the services of a specialist organisation such as the RIBA Competitions Office, an offshoot of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

This body has been involved in organising design competitions for more than two decades, but the vast majority of its work is for building projects. The first bridge competition that was organised in this way was for a new footbridge over the River Great Ouse in Bedford, in the south of England, in 1995. According to RIBA competitions manager Louise Harrison, this came about because the enlightened local authority wanted to get a design that was more than just functional. The borough council's architect approached RIBA to organise an open competition for ideas, and the result was the dramatic 'Butterfly Bridge' designed by Wilkinson Eyre Architects and Jan Bobrowski & Partners. Not only did this start a trend in design competitions as a method of procuring bridges, it also launched a career in bridges for an architectural practice that was relatively unknown in the industry.

The benefits of having a third party advise and run competitions is clear - it introduces a certain independence and impartiality to the proceedings, ensuring that the correct procedures are followed and that the process of selection is seen to be fair. This can help the client to attract more entries, as it gives competitors more confidence in the outcome. In addition, the staff of the competitions office can use their experience to tailor the process to ensure as far as possible that the client gets the desired result.

But as impartial as the organisation may be, it has a core objective to increase the extent to which architects are employed. This is reflected in the fact that RIBA-organised competitions are steered by an architectural adviser and require teams to include, if not be led by, an architectural practice - a requirement that not every engineer (or architect, for that matter) believes is appropriate or necessary.

Jorg Schlaich is one such dissenter: "Don't invite architects with engineers of their choice," he suggests, "but do invite engineers with the partners of their choice, if any - architects, landscape architects, product designers or whoever."

The effect of such a trend is seen as having a negative effect on the design of some bridges. Juan Sobrino of Pedelta says that there is a new fashion for involving architects in bridge design because of the media impact they generate. "This is creating false and deceptive structures using public resources," he claims, although recognising that some of the fault lies with the poor communication skills of many engineers. "We need to offer more creative solutions," he says, "otherwise the future role of bridge engineers will be confined to using structural analysis software to calculate the estimated deflection to six decimal places." Those who feel they are not capable of creating beautiful structures should collaborate with an architect or other professional, he adds.

Even architects are commenting that the pendulum seems to be swinging too far the other way. Wilkinson Eyre partner Jim Eyre acknowledges that there is now a precedent in bridge competitions to have an architect involved - for example in the recent contest in Stockton-on-Tees (Bd& no 33) only architect-led teams were allowed to enter, and the same trend has been noted in other European countries, particularly France.

"When we started doing competitions, the designs were largely structural," he recalls, "but just lately, some of the entries in competitions in the UK show signs of going through a 'rococo' phase, even to the extent of becoming rather camp. It seems as if designers are trying to invent a new aspect to bridge design, which is worrying - I fear there may be a backlash, and not only against architects. We should never forget about the structural aspect of the design," he warns. "The architect's role may be a creative one, but it should also be a team role. And it is a shame to exclude some of the best engineers because they feel no need to work with architects."

Consultant Whitbybird has gone to what some would consider extreme lengths to overcome the requirement of working with an architect. As director Des Mairs explains, the bridges division has always had an in-house architect who has been involved on all the company's bridge designs, but it has now registered itself as an architectural practice to clear the hurdles put up by some competitions.

He believes that there have been occasions where the client has not read Whitbybird's submission fully and has not put them on the shortlist because at first glance, the team appeared not to include an architect. "There was information in the document about our in-house architect, but clients are very keen to have a combined team, and may have overlooked our expertise."

Flint & Neill partner Ian Firth says that his company values design competitions, but he takes offence at the fact that it now seems impossible to enter them without an architect, which is a shame. "Even the best architects recognise that the engineer has to take the lead at some point or other, and it is primarily the engineer's task to get it right," he says. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there are few architects with experience of designing bridges, and in some competitions, none of the shortlisted architectural practices have bridge designs in their portfolio.

Despite this, the suggestion that open design competitions - where the contest is thrown open to all comers - are hugely valuable in stimulating innovation is not disputed by the bridge industry. Such contests provide opportunities for young designers or small consultancies which might not have the resources or experience to prequalify for limited competitions.

RIBA’s Harrison says that clients often have mixed feelings about the type of competition they wish to sponsor, particularly if entries are to be anonymous. "If they are going down the competition route, then they already know that they want something a bit special, but we have to judge how comfortable they are with the possibility that they may select a design by a totally unknown name," she explains. Often a compromise is reached by having an anonymous first round, then shortlisting six teams for interview, followed by a second round in which the designers are identified. While this may make the client feel more comfortable, it does little to bring forward fresh talent, she admits.

Obviously the more the client limits the number of designers in the competition, the more they are restricting the range of designs, but conversely, the results may still be stunning and the cost estimates and construction method proposals are likely to be more reliable when they are prepared by consultants with wide experience.

'Limited', or 'invited' competitions are those where the client hand-picks a number of consultants - anything from two up to five or six is common - and this type of competition generally finds favour among designers for a number of reasons. Firstly, the chance of success is higher with fewer competitors, and secondly, all invited competitors usually receive some kind of remuneration for their work.

Views among designers on the merits of design competitions are mixed - they may be seen as a necessary evil, a way of winning work, or they may be viewed as essential for injecting creativity into the bridge industry. They also signal an alternative mindset on the part of the client, says Schlaich.

"Competitions open the door for more creative designs, for more variety," he says. "A client who has the courage to invite a competition is willing to set aside standard solutions," Schlaich believes. But it is difficult to say which route is the most effective, he adds. Open competitions give young talent a chance to compete on an almost equal footing, but can be very expensive and hold little attraction for established consultancies. Schlaich has been involved in competitions with as many as 85 companies participating. In comparison then, 'invited' competitions are more attractive - a minimum of three and a maximum of six competitors is considered appropriate. "They should receive a reasonable remuneration plus prize money and of course it must be clear that the winner gets the job," he suggests.

The question of financial recompense is a thorny one indeed - designers have become wise to the fact that competition entries can be arduous and expensive to produce, especially if the client demands a selection of views and models, and they now weigh up the potential outlay against the chances of winning very carefully before making the commitment, especially in open competitions.

One of the participants in a recent competition described the process as 'an abuse of competitors' time' because of the extremely onerous list of requirements that had to be submitted. Where clients demand a model, the cost of this can wipe out the honorarium in one fell swoop, never mind any other documents, images, or reports.

Professional fees for what may often be four or five individuals on the team usually have to be written off - in some cases, Firth says, the payment barely covers the printing costs. Small wonder then that some companies give the work to their graduates as a 'bit of fun'.

Sometimes, getting onto the shortlist for a design competition is just the start of the problems - one individual says that if he'd known what the process of a particular competition involved, he would never have taken part. On the other hand, he admits, it's very difficult to turn it down if you are invited - it puts out the wrong messages to the industry and other potential clients.

What clients pay and what they demand from the designers varies wildly from one contest to another, but Harrison says that her office recommends linking the two, if only in a very crude way. "We suggest a payment of £1,000 for each A1 panel they ask for," she explains. "We ask for a minimum submission - after all, the competitors shouldn't be taken for a ride - and we try very hard to dissuade the client from asking for a model, as we know how costly these can be to produce." But the sad truth is that some clients still expect to get something for nothing. "Sometimes it's difficult to persuade them that the teams need paying at all," Harrison admits. In open competitions, the winner and second place team should receive a prize, she says, whereas in invited competitions, each team should be paid a sum.

Poul Ove Jensen of Dissing & Weitling is frank about the issue of payment. "For a designer, a competition is a chance to win a design contract, as well as being an opportunity to explore new markets and, if he is lucky, to make the headlines. But the flipside of the coin is that competitions are so expensive.

"Where the competitors have been selected by the client, there should be reasonable compensation. And by reasonable, I mean an amount that actually covers the costs. Competitions are enormously expensive and even if you win, the prize money is normally not enough to cover the costs, not to mention overheads and profit."

All the same, he accepts that they are here to stay: "Competitions are terribly expensive and exhausting, but they are vital for the whole industry because designers are forced to push the limits. Competitions also provide an opportunity for newcomers to enter the industry - without Poole Harbour Bridge (Bd&e no 6) and Stonecutters (Bd&e no 21), Dissing & Weitling would not have achieved its current status in the bridge market. At the same time we know that in order to maintain this position, we have to win again."

Leonhardt, Andra & Partner executive director Holger Svensson gives an example of the huge costs that can be incurred in a single design competition when it is open to all. A competition to design a new south bridge over the Overhavel River in Germany attracted 83 entries in the first round. All but five of these entries were accepted for the shortlist, and each shortlisted team had to prepare six drawings and two models, 1:500 and 1:200. "Assuming costs of only £20,000 per team," says Svensson, "total costs of more than £1.5 million were incurred. Such an effort is hardly justifiable!" It is not only in open contests that competition is so hot, however - some 29 teams were prequalified for the Waldschlossen Bridge across the River Elbe in Dresden, making the chances of winning even slimmer than usual. This is thankfully rare though, more often the field is likely to contain only a few competitors.

Eyre acknowledges the role that competitions have played in giving his practice the chance to break into the bridge market; after winning the competition for South Dock footbridge in London, Wilkinson Eyre won five competitions on the trot and is now one of the biggest architectural names in the industry. And he also agrees that payments, particularly for competitions in the UK, are generally pitiful. "I have never come across an honorarium that actually meets the costs of entering," he says.

Competitions in France tend to have a much more realistic level of payment or prize money, he explains, although the amount of information required for the entry is generally correspondingly larger. In the long term, opines Eyre, the loser may actually be the client. If the payment is very low, the amount of work that designers will put into their entry will be minimal, and the client increases the risk of ending up with an unfeasible or expensive solution; it is up to the client to assess the risk profile to understand the dangers more clearly.

But he is more sanguine about the ups and downs of the competition process, and the huge difference in approach taken by each client. The fact is that almost all of the bridge work carried out at Wilkinson Eyre is won through design competitions, and although the practice thinks carefully about whether to enter each contest, once the decision is made, the process is seen as a positive one. "I enjoy them," says Eyre. "It's a process that doesn't eliminate exciting and interesting ideas for landmark projects, and we will certainly carry on doing them, but only the interesting ones."

Whether or not a client gets the design they want in the end can sometimes be a game of chance, but there are a number of steps that can be taken to ensure the optimum conditions exist to nurture it. No matter what care has been taken over selecting the candidates and drawing up a shortlist, if your jury has no professional guidance, you may as well abandon the whole process at the start.

As Schlaich says, "The success of a competition depends in equal parts on the quality of the entrants and that of the jury. Whereas this is obvious for the entrants, the role of the jury cannot be over-emphasised. If the jury members are too conservative, the competition is pointless, but if they do not base their judgement on sound engineering before discussing visual matters, and burden the client with a costly and doubtful signature bridge such as the Erasmus Bridge in Rotterdam, the client will try to avoid building that bridge, and will not use a competition process again in the future. Hence it makes no sense to participate in a competition where the jury does not contain bridge engineers of high standing and with design experience."

Such experience is key, says Consulting Kortes managing director Esko Jarvenpaa, because they need to be able to assess how realistic a project is on only the minimum of information. "You cannot ask competitors to make all the calculations and drawings, the members of the jury must understand if the proposed idea is realistic and could be developed further, without the calculations." But he also warns that if the jury is not familiar with recent progress in the international bridge industry, it may make decide on a design that is too conservative. Even in Finland, he says, one often hears comments about something being an example of the first use in the country.

The very nature of design competitions, particularly open ones, is that the entries will be 'weird and wonderful' designs, says Firth, and this means that the jury should be sufficiently experienced to be able to assess these proposals. "You need to have someone who knows about structures," he says. Not only that, they should carry sufficient weight not to be overruled by the rest of the jury - very likely a panel of local politicians and business people.

Whatever happens, the final decision should be made by a panel, rather than an individual, and there should be clear guidance to the jury as to what they should be assessing and what weighting each aspect should be given.

Rules for the competition should be set at the start and kept to, says Bob Lloyd, former project manager of major works at the Hong Kong Highways Department, and also chairman of the aesthetics committee for the Stonecutters Bridge competition in Hong Kong (Bd&e no 21). The decision in this case was taken by an executive panel, which was advised by two evaluation committees - one for technical issues and one for aesthetics. "Don't change the rules during the course of the competition," he advises. "For example, one committee may wish to have its favourite design included in stage two despite the other committee ruling it out as unacceptable under their criteria. If the rules as drafted do not allow it, then so be it," he says.

The Stonecutters competition has been cited by many as an example of a well-organised and well-run example, despite the rather controversial outcome that the winners of the competition were not awarded the detailed design contract. Hong Kong procurement law meant that the contract for the detailed design had to be put out to competitive tender, a fact which was clearly stated in the competition rules, and the Halcrow/Flint & Neill/Dissing & Weitling/SMEDI team was not successful in its bid.

But those who took part highlight the fact that the rules and procedure were stated from the start, the judging process was transparent, and the brief and competition manual were clear and well-written.

Lloyd recommends preparing a design competition manual in advance, which will include an executive summary, the competition conditions, the brief, the agreement for preparation of design proposals, the prequalification submission guidelines, the evaluation of prequalification submissions, the directives for technical evaluation and aesthetic evaluation, the notes to the executive panel, details of the panel and committee members, and the competition results. This document should be made available to all competitors and transparency in the manner the competition is managed should be maintained throughout its life.

One valuable process, most designers agree, is some kind of interaction with the client - either at the initial stages of the competition, at the halfway point, or failing that, some kind of feedback after the decision has been made. A question and answer phase is fairly common once the brief has been sent out, with all teams receiving the answers to all the questions. Less common is the chance for teams to discuss their ideas with the jury during the competition process, or to present their design in person at the final submission. This type of competition is very valuable, says Jorg Schlaich - while recognising that it leaves little chance for newcomers to shine.

Without input from the client, the designers may feel that they are working in a vacuum; this can be good if the client is totally open about what type of bridge they want, but can lead to a lot of wasted time if the client already has some ideas, even if they have not been stated in the brief.

Any options which are not acceptable to the jury should be clearly pointed out in the competition brief - Svensson recalls the competition for the Schornbachvalley Bridge in Germany, where LAP won first prize for its design of a single superstructure with the concrete road supported on two steel trusses.

Afterwards, says Svensson, federal rules requiring separate superstructures for each carriageway prevented the state from building the single superstructure; instead the third place design with two superstructures was built. "This unsatisfactory outcome could have been avoided by excluding single superstructures from the design competition," he suggests.

Other competition results have caused controversy by the fact that the jury has chosen to ignore its own selection criteria in favour of a design that breaches the guidelines. Such actions undermine the confidence of designers, and make a mockery of the competition process.

Feedback to losing teams is rarely offered, although designers will usually request it directly from the client. Harrison says that RIBA-organised competitions are concluded by the publication of an assessor's report, written by the architectural adviser. This document relates the judging process and explains the decision; it is the official account of the competition and becomes a public document.

Another contentious issue for competitors is the funding for the proposed bridge. Budget is almost always an issue; in most cases clients say how much they have to spend on the bridge and competitors are invited to design something that fits the budget. But unless the judging panel can call on the advice of an experienced bridge engineer to assess whether the design can be built for the budget, setting such constraints is not necessarily fruitful.

In other cases, a more pragmatic client might invite competitors to submit their design along with an estimated cost. For the UK's Leamouth Bridge competition, for example, Mairs reveals that no budget was set. "Each team had to cost their bridge, and a quantity surveyor assessed the entries," he says. The entries were diverse in cost, he recalls, and the winner - his team's entry - was not the cheapest.

Without experienced advisers and tight cost control, the client can lose out if construction costs soar above the budget that has been set. Furthermore, there may only be limited opportunities for 'value engineering' as the concept design has been publicised widely and cannot be adapted.

But designers may also lose out if the client has not got the funding set aside to built the structure. One such infamous competition was the design of the UK's Poole Harbour Bridge, where enormous effort was expended over three phases of the contest by some 62 teams. Not long after the winning design was announced to great fanfare, the scheme was dropped when the government decided to cut back on road-building plans.

Firth recalls the similarly unsatisfactory endings of two other competitions in which he has been involved. A team of Flint & Neill Partnership, Studio Bednarski and Innostructura won the competition to design the new Lansisatamankatu Bridge in Helsinki, where the client had not set a budget, saying that a landmark design was more important.

The team won with an US$18 million proposal for a stunning cable-stayed bridge, but the finance had to be approved by a higher committee. This body took the view that the bridge was too expensive and abandoned the scheme for a cheaper proposal. The winning team was given no opportunity to redesign its bridge, or tailor it to the available budget; "In fact we never even received formal notification that our design had been dropped," says Firth.

A similar problem occurred on a project in Jersey, he recalls, at which the first round included presenting the design at a full day's public consultation. After the winner had been chosen, the client went on to a second round of public consultation, during which the public voted not to spend the money at all.

Whether or not to involve the public in the choice of a winner is a difficult question, admits Harrison. While clients like to think that they are 'consulting' the public - usually their electorate - Harrison suggests that it is more useful to regard it as a 'public information' process. "It is better to ask for public comments than public votes," she says, "unless you are prepared to accept the public's choice." Local residents may be invited to take part in a visual assessment of the scheme, perhaps commenting on the shape, colour, size and so on of the structure. Asking them to register a preference is more risky. In the recent competition for a new footbridge in Stockton-on-Tees (Bd&e no 33) the client went to great lengths to consult the public, inviting them to vote on the shortlisted proposals, and promptly selected the one that came second in the public's list. Few would argue that the client should not get the final choice, but as Harrison warns, "they have to be able to justify their decision."

WINNER TAKES ALL

How do you win a bridge design competition? Architect Donald MacDonald, who has experience of judging as well as entering such competitions, offers a few words of advice.

1. Make sure that your design goes beyond what people are expecting, but you must be equally confident that it has a logic to it that can be explained both to the jury/peer review panel and to the public.

2. Ensure that you have talented designers on your team - those who can come up with interesting and innovative ideas and new ways of solving problems.

3. You also need a manager who can tame these ideas and make them practicable, so that the design is actually buildable.

4. Although it sounds obvious, make sure you read the brief extremely carefully and ensure that you have complied with absolutely every requirement. Jury members may have to trawl through hundreds of pages of information, and making your entry simple and easy to read will give it a better chance.

5. Understand the politics of the competition - for example by knowing who is on the judging panel so you can take an educated guess about what they will be looking for.

6. Make sure that your presentation is clean. Hire a graphic designer if necessary.

7. It is essential to have a spokesperson who is very good at public speaking, who is able to communicate enthusiasm for the scheme and who has leadership qualities and does not simply want to please everybody (especially where public consultation is necessary).

8. Only enter competitions in areas that you completely understand, don't be tempted to move outside your expertise (eg a footbridge designer entering a long span bridge competition).

9. Analyse how the new bridge will fit into its location and community, and design something appropriate. You may need a landscape architect or planner on your team to achieve this.

10. Set up an artificial deadline before the final deadline and try to meet it, after which you can spend the remaining time reviewing your entry and making sure it complies with all requirements.

11. Use a professional photographer or illustrator to produce great images. Don't forget the drama of nightlighting, the details of colours, textures, and so on. If you have the freedom to do so, choose the views carefully, perhaps include views from the driver's, pedestrian's, and sailor's perspectives.

ANYTHING BUT BRIEF

Submission requirements for competitions can vary hugely - from a couple of A1 boards to scale models, environmental impact reports and numerous renderings from particular viewpoints. Two recent competitions offered an identical honorarium of £10,000 (approximately US$17,000) but the submission requirements were vastly different as can be seen below.

Competition A

* four A1 boards. Materials may include drawings, photographs, text and any other two-dimensional representation.

* six copies of an A4 written report. Should include an initial feasibility study and risk assessment, preliminary cost analysis and short account of the construction programme.

* one 1:200 scale model of the proposed scheme. Each design team will be supplied a base model of the surrounding area of the bridge, onto which each team's model can be placed.

* one summary digital image

Competition B

* eight A1 boards

* general arrangement drawing

* completed approval in principle form

* completed finance section

* 1:200 model of the bridge with immediate context in material of the entrants' choice

* digital model with design proposals inserted

* two digital images for publicity

* three copies of a written report, which should be a maximum of 10,000 words

* design mission statement

* material study indicating the preferred materials for the structures and public realm state

* concept sketches indicating

** pedestrian/cycle traffic pattern

** movement/activity patterns

** relationship to existing and proposed transport infrastructure

** gathering points

** sunlight/shadow formation

** security

** lighting

** street furniture family

** social impact

* relationship to the concept of a linear park identified in the city plan - impact of the proposed structures on microclimate

* bridge structure interacting with existing, proposed and surge tide levels

* accurate contextual information to allow the visual assessment and understanding of the project, contextual drawings, sketches, photographs, indicating scale comparison with surrounding context

* visual impact of the bridge as viewed from all rail, road and other gateways to the area, from other prominent positions on both sides of the river, and along the axis of two main streets

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend