Archinect has received photos of the newly opened Simone Veil Bridge, designed by OMA/Rem Koolhaas and Chris van Duijn in Bordeaux, France. The project spans 549 meters (1,801 feet) in length and is 44 meters (144 feet) wide, connecting the communes of Floirac and Bègles over the Garonne River.
OMA said this about their unusual bridge programming: "It abandons any interest in style, form, and structural expression in favor of a commitment to performance and an interest in future use by the people of Bordeaux. Cars, modes of public transportation, and bicycles all have their own lanes, with the largest by far dedicated to foot traffic. The width of the bridge’s platform is doubled to create 28 meters of neutral, unprogrammed space that can be used for any cultural or commercial purpose, such as farmers’ markets, art fairs, bicycle rallies, car club meetings, and festivals for music or wine."
Partner Chris van Duijn added: "Our design for the Simone Veil Bridge is like a stage but without the theatre. In an era of icons and landmarks, it is very special that the city of Bordeaux decided to build this anti-iconic design."
22 Comments
Guys, OMA has PEAKED.
Next time i see another utilitarian structure, of where there are millions, my concept will be "anti-iconic" DONE!
Someone, not in the know, is going to see it and say, "Oh, what a boring bridge." "But it's OMA," they'll reply. "Well, that's different." Though in 25 years or so, the answer might be "So what?"
Maryam Jafri gets credit for the picture above.
Precious few artists, even in the wake of modernism’s varying efforts to demystify and deconstruct originality, would wish to see their work labeled “generic.” Maryam Jafri is a notable exception. Of course, it is not Jafri’s project itself that bears this dour tag, but rather the curious subgenre of consumer good that she depicts and reproduces. In a flawlessly realized installation of small photographs and objects (most purchased, some reconstructed using photographs adhered to boxes), Jafri explored the phenomenon of the unbranded product, prompting a rereading of these minimally packaged items in the context of the history of art and graphic design.
https://www.artforum.com/events/maryam-jafri-4-218607/
These are marvelous times.
"It abandons any interest in style, form, and structural expression in favor of a commitment to performance and an interest in future use by the people of Bordeaux."
Actually the bridge design has merits. It's the statement that gives pause.
I agree with Gary, it really does have its merits. But stuff like this should be baseline infrastructure that comes out of the city engineer's and city architect's office, not something you have to hire OMA to give you.
That's the state of the industry though.
That said, I would have liked to see some more sectional play, maybe some opportunities to get down near the water or a dropped stage/ performance area that you could view from the bridge. Probably could have put in a stramp or something to make it happen - I hear those are cool.
Why not hire OMA? Would their be a huge savings for the project if the city engineer did it, would it be better? I'm genuinely interested in what people think the cost/quality tradeoff between these options would be.
Oh, I think in our current climate and education/ political milieu you do pretty much need to hire OMA to get this. Even if it is just having the cajones to propose something so banal but so functional. And yes, I can imagine their design fees for this were not insignificant, though probably a pittance compared to construction costs.
Or, if anybody cared at all..... (Charles Bridge, Prague)
I like the conceit. Give the public the most bang for their tax bucks. It's High Brutalism, at least in ethos. Interesting that it came from OMA.
I'd prefer a more sturdy divider between the vehicle and pedestrian sections. Seems like the goal was to have the option to shut the entire bridge down to cars during special events and convert the whole thing to pedestrian use... Is that really necessary though? You can already park a Boeing on the pedestrian zone....
The conceit works if you have interesting scenery. Instead they have a dirty river and some mediocre social housing to look at.
Bored-Oh Bridge
A bridge can do much to set the tone, reinforce identity, and lift even the most average of communities, in my neighborhood, the one above.
OMA's solution represents the opposite pole from an "expressive" train wreck that Liebeskind or someone else of that ilk would have done here. It's embracing reticence to an extreme degree, yielding a design that will be considered dull by many. It skates on (and perhaps crosses) the border between simplicity and lack of ambition.
Look at their other proposals in the thumbnails, above. Really, I see several I prefer.
OMA enters its self referential nadir. Sarcasm without wit.
I love it when architects claim something is 'functional' or anti-iconic because a design looks bad. The piers would be curved if truly functional. Btw, being iconic is a function. That said, it's just a bridge.
For comparison here is the 2,000 year-old Roman-built Alcantara Bridge in Spain.
OMA does not claim this is a functional bridge. They are saying it is a stage sans the scenery, which is to be provided by the people themselves. It is ironic that the same people who rail against the ego-driven monster architecture of the last generation are equally pissed off that there is no ego at all in this project.
The old stuff you like is great, but it is of that time not ours. If OMA is great at anything it is at recognizing what the fuck is going on around us and reacting to the moment. That is something important that the project shares with those old buildings, in a way that an all-out copy of those very same old bits of history would not.
It is also, btw, a pretty ambitious project. From my point of view it is beyond hopeful. Can the city cooperate enough to make use of it in the way it is intended? Will the city actually gather here in spite of all the politics of othering going on? If they do, it may be one of the great places of hope in Europe, actual evidence of civil society in action. It is brilliantly hopeful, maybe even naive for letting real people carry so much of the weight. I cant help but support that vision.
Will, I agree that not everything needs to be iconic, but i sincerely do not feel that this bridge really lets the people set the scenery. If that was the intent, the structure would almost disappear by tectonic means or architectural trickery. The amount of thought put into the discussions for this project is probably way more than what OMA spent on it. My bet is that they took and engineer's drawings, changed the railings and stamped "OMA" on it.
And that's probably the point - OMA can put out a lame piece with words like "anti-iconic" attached to it, and the likes of us will discuss it to no end. lol.
"The old stuff you like is great, but it is of that time not ours"
...and there it is, the lie told by modernism that refuses to die. If you believe in that fairy tale, no harm, but brainwashing students that they can only use modernist styles is to undercut their ability to serve modern people who are inherently eclectic, to say nothing of the contexts they will work in. I share your optimism about the social vision you articulate, but the snake oil of what is a legitimate style in today's world is a con job that no one buys. If modernism or traditionalism moves you, I say go for it. The world needs passionate work, regardless of style.
have to agree to disagree, Thayer-D. The technology used to build the examples above is not common anymore, just to start. Neither are the loads, the purpose, or the culture that go with it. Architects did not disqualify classical architecture from what is built today, That happened with our participation, but we have never had that kind of power. And certainly dont have it now.
The visual expression of architecture has not always been a direct expression of the technology used to build. See the marble clad concrete structures of ancient Rome or the plaster covered medieval half timbering of Northern Europe and countless other examples.
This is why architects used to be called artificers, because how a building made one feel was always considered more important than its structural facts. If the two align, all the better, but this obsession with structural honesty is a 19th century creation employed by the desire to erase history after the calamitous results of World War One. There was also an aping of cubist art forms as a means to set one self apart as well as break away from the eclecticism of the belle epoch, but this was an academic obsession not shared by the public.
If you continue to believe this propaganda, no problem, but to pass this on to young students is academic malpractice and not backed up by the historical record, another reason modernists tried to erase history, like any authoritarian trying to gas light the public.
so many things to respond to there, but I don't have the time or interest in extending the thread further . Let's just agree to disagree, no? I'm very comfortable with history truth be told. We sit down for a bowl of sake every thursday...
If the bridge is not used as intended, Bordeaux is stuck with a wide, banal span across a muddy river, which will feel empty and imposing by its size, at best just pointless. OMA's language is precious, and their ambition may not be hopeful but hopelessly naive and self-serving. There can be a kind of arrogance in self-effacement.
It's what we see in a lot of architecture now, a belief that if we build large, fairly nondescript spaces, people will flock together and transform the world. Lost, the possibility that good design might inspire them.
What's not at all clear is why the bridge is an ideal spot for the projected activities. There have to be better places throughout the town—plazas, parks, libraries, civic halls, converted warehouses, etc. There better minds in the community will have more flexibility to put them to use. If the better minds aren't there, at least the residents will have something to look at.
And from the pictures in the post, it looks like this area needs an esthetic lift, one that might inspire and forge identity, perhaps fuel ideas and behavior, something everyone would see from afar, just in the course of going through the day-to-day, and have their spirits raised. The St. Johns Bridge, in my comment above, has had tremendous influence in shaping the identity of its neighborhood in Portland. People get married under it. Or come just to take pictures. Festivals and various productions are held in the park beneath. You can find images of it everywhere, in logos, store signs, in pictures that hang on living room walls. Its image anchors the local newspaper. Its construction, in fact, was the result of local activity.
Above, from the thumbnails, what I assume is an OMA early plan.
The Charles Bridge whose photo I posted is 600 years old, the Alcantara Bridge is 2,000 years old. Both are still in use and are, in that sense, the very definition of contemporary. If you are going to improve on them you would have to wait a bit to see if you accomplished your goal. And how have bridge loads changed over time? And try building a new Alcantara Bridge without banks of computers and construction machines that have their own computers.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.