Imagine you're a client looking to build a new bridge in a prominent spot. Any crossing at this location is going to be in the spotlight, and you want to make sure that the bridge gets the attention for all the right reasons. The obvious way to procure a 'landmark' bridge for this type of crossing, and one which is increasingly common, is to launch an international design competition and throw it open to all engineers and architects.
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 s
