lower part of which would be fritted. One side of the truss would be vertical, the other canted. This huge piece of steelwork would slide in position over the tracks in one weekend operation.
Network Rail has been more accommodating than expected, making it possible for people crossing the bridge to be continuously able to enjoy views to East and West. Lighting is an important consideration, not only on the bridge itself but also beneath as it spans Stratford station platforms. Artwork will be given careful attention although, in the opinion of the panel, the bridge promises to be a major work of art in its own right.
Key questions and comments from the panel were: • RZ:What activitieswere expected to take place on the bridge?Would there be a programme to stimulate bridge activities?Has space been allocated for seating or artwork?
• PS: talk of public artmakesme nervous – keep the bridge simple, be careful not to fidget. • PS:What exactlywill you be able to see fromthe bridge as you approachStratfordCity or StratfordTown?Will the pedestrian in Stratford town realise that StratfordCity is actually there just over thehorizon?Will approaches frombothdirections be equally inviting? (Simulations had been shown of pedestrians’ experience of crossing the bridge). Martin Knight responded by emphasising that his current principal concern was deciding how the bridge should terminate at bothends and debouchfromthe centre intoChobhamFarm.
• MBwas concerned about continuity of detailing – e.g. of lighting andhandrails – at both ends of the bridge. The panel agreed that continuity was a critically important design consideration.MBalso asked aboutwhat shade and shelterwould be provided on the bridge. Martin Knight was of the opinion that the high glazed sides of the truss would provide enough protection from the elements for pedestrians, a proposition that the other panel members agreed with, especially given Alex Lifschutz’ warning at a previous presentation about the vulnerability on such bridges of non structural details such as canopies.
• FDthought thatmore consideration should be given to the specification and design of the floor surface of the bridge which appeared from the illustrations to be sharply contrasted in colour and texture with the module and material of the truss.
• RZaskedhowinformation and advertisingwould behandled on the bridge.He found ithard to believe that they would be entirely absent, as shown in the presentation. Martin Knight responded to boththis and the previous question by promising that the next stepwould be exploring a “further population of architectural detail”.
4
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142