// PAINTING OF PONT NOTRE DAME (NICOLAS RAGUENET, 1756)More often than not, a bridge is used solely as a method of crossing from point A to point B. Unsurprisingly, their formal articulation (a language of precision engineering) attempts no more than to mirror their strictly functional purpose. Occasionally, however, a bridge is imbued with more visual punch. Perhaps it sports a flamboyant structure or dramatic gravity-defying form. Yet most of these still follow the same bridge formula: movement from point A to point B.
In a few rare cases a bridge is thought of a bit differently. It is built for more than its connective properties. These structures are given the ability to contribute more to the city than just a crossing or formal icon. They receive a dual purpose beyond the function of transport and become habitable. These bridges are thickened with program and layered with additional uses. Three examples of this are the Ponte Vecchio of Florence, the Ponte Rialto of Venice, and the Galata Bridge of Istanbul. All three meet the criteria of a thickened bridge, but each does so with a different approach and different results. Comparing the three brings to light some of the issues pertaining to the function of waterfronts in a more general sense.
OVERVIEW
MASSING: LINED SIDES, RELIEF IN CENTER
VIEW: INWARD LOOKING WITH OCCASIONAL BREAKS (CENTRAL PATH/SHOPPING)
PROGRAM: SHOPPING (GOLD, JEWELRY, SOUVENIRS)
LEVELS: SINGLE (PEDESTRIAN), UNUSED UPPER LEVEL
CONTEXT: INTEGRATED INTO CITY THROUGH ARCADE, ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
STATURE: ICONIC, BENEFITS FROM THE NOVELTY OF HISTORY AND WATERFRONT
EXPERIENCE: BEST FROM OUTSIDE LOOKING IN (PICTURESQUE)
PONTE RIALTO (VENICE, ITALY)
VIEW: OUTWARD AND INWARD
PROGRAM: SHOPPING (GLASS, JEWELRY, SOUVENIRS)
LEVELS: SINGLE (STEPPED, STRICTLY PEDESTRIAN)
CONTEXT: INTEGRATED INTO CITY THROUGH NECESSITY (MAJOR CANAL CROSSING)
STATURE: ICONIC, BUT ALSO NECESSARY FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE
EXPERIENCE: LOOKING OUT, OR AT
GALATA BRIDGE (ISTANBUL, TURKEY)
VIEW: OUTWARD LOOKING (PERIPHERAL PATHS/LINEAR SEATING/GLASS WALLS)
PROGRAM: RESTAURANT BELOW, FISHING AND TRAFFIC ABOVE
LEVELS: DUAL (STREET/TRAM ABOVE, PEDESTRIAN BELOW)
CONTEXT: INTEGRATED INTO CITY THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURAL CONNECTIONS
STATURE: WATERFRONT BENEFITS FROM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BRIDGE
EXPERIENCE: UNFOLDS THROUGH USE (LOWER PATHS TUCKED AWAY, SHELTERED)
MASSING
The massing of these bridges probably plays the most significant role in how they operate internally for the pedestrian. The Ponte Vecchio and Ponte Rialto, for example, share many similarities, but each essentially inverts the massing strategy of the other.
// THE PONTE VECCHIO
// THE PONTE RIALTO
// THE GALATA BRIDGE
// MASSING (PROPORTIONALLY TO SCALE, LENGTH IN FEET)
The Ponte Vecchio has a central path with its periphery lined with shops. Despite the windows at the rear of almost each shop, the focus of the bridge is kept inward.
// STREETSCAPE OF THE PONTE VECCHIO
With the exception of the visual release at the center of the bridge, the Ponte Vecchio uses its massing no differently than any other street: visual interest ends at the storefront. However, its place in the world is radically different than almost every other street. Its massing strategy negates the possibility of taking advantage of this context throughout 80% of the bridge’s span. The Ponte Vecchio is happy to extend the streetscape over the water, with very little variation from the standard condition. Obviously, there is great novelty in this condition extending over the water, but an opportunity is missed nonetheless.
// THE PONTE VECCHIO
The Ponte Rialto takes a slightly different approach, but with a very different result. It has a central path lined with inward facing shops similar to the Ponte Vecchio, but it takes the next step and lines the exterior of the shops with additional paths as well. The result is two linear strips of shops sandwiched between foot paths.
// CENTRAL PATH OF THE PONTE RIALTO
// PERIPHERAL PATH OF THE PONTE RIALTO
The outermost paths now have vision out to the city (unlike the Ponte Vecchio where this was reserved for an isolated moment in the center). The Ponte Rialto is careful not to allow its massing to interfere with the spectacle of the bridge. It is an extremely popular urban event both to look at and out from. Although a simple move, layering these paths on the exterior of the bridge changes the dynamic dramatically.
// THE PONTE RIALTO
The Galata Bridge takes a different approach entirely. Its massing strategy is played out in section as well as plan. The upper level is not very different than many other bridges: a central path for the subway (tram), lined with roads for automobiles, all sandwiched between sidewalks for pedestrians. Below, however, the bridge is stuffed with a central core of restaurants, lined by pedestrian walkways at the outer edges.
// UPPER DECK OF THE GALATA BRIDGE
// LOWER DECK OF THE GALATA BRIDGE
This setup maximizes the views outward and creates an active pedestrian corridor along the edge of the bridge at both levels. Also noteworthy is the continuous glass of the restaurant fronts, which allows ample views out, even from a layer back (inside). The Galata Bridge’s massing plays to the strengths of its waterfront context. View is given primacy in the pedestrian experience, reinforcing the unique sense of place the bridge offers.
// DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION AT EDGE OF GALATA BRIDGE
PROGRAM
The Ponte Vecchio and Ponte Rialto have very similar commercial programs inhabiting their indoor spaces. Both cater overwhelmingly to tourists. The shops almost exclusively carry overpriced jewelry and souvenirs. This was not always the case, but the immense popularity of the bridges among visitors has all but sealed this fate. The Galata Bridge, too, has become a staple for tourists, but it manages a very different vibe. Its main program is restaurants, which invites activity that lingers, an interesting counterpoint to the continuous flow of cars and trams above. The bridge also serves as a central point for fishermen to gather, where they can be found at all hours of the day, casting off the edge of the upper deck.
// FISHERMEN ON THE GALATA BRIDGE
The various pedestrian programs of the Galata Bridge engender a layering of activity, all of which are able to turn their attention to the periphery and capture a view of the water. The bridge is able to successfully layer all its activities together without impeding any of them. It’s very easy to forget that this is a major work of infrastructure carrying a constant stream of cars, buses and trams. The pedestrian’s attention is successfully held elsewhere.
// VIEW FROM THE BRIDGES
URBAN CONNECTIONS
Perhaps the greatest criterion that a habitable bridge should be evaluated on is how it ties into the city to draw the public in. An important question becomes: what does the bridge rely on to attract people to it? Is it just a crossing that happens to have secondary program attached? Or is it something more cohesive?
In the case of Ponte Rialto, the simple answer is probably the best. It has become incredibly popular due to necessity. The bridge remains one of only three to cross the Grand Canal, which is undeniably the backbone of Venice. In fact, it was once the only crossing. Its iconic status is almost assured. This does not negate the bridge’s positive qualities, but does constitute the main reason for its popularity.
// THE RIALTO BRIDGE
The Ponte Vecchio benefits from a similar situation, although less so. It is the main link between the popular Uffizi Gallery and Pitti Palace. However, swarms of people still flock to the bridge whether they feel the need to actually cross the river of not. The Ponte Vecchio has garnered it reputation largely from its unique history and picturesque grandeur. Perhaps the tourist would be better served to ogle it from the banks and pass on the opportunity to trek across.
// THE PONTE VECCHIO
Interestingly, the Ponte Vecchio has an upper story (the Vasari Corridor) that physically links the Uffizi to the Palace. Although it’s no longer possible for the public to make use of, the raised corridor ties the bridge to its context both spatially and architecturally. The Ponte Vecchio is truly articulated as part of the city, while remaining an easily recognizable monument. On this front, the bridge is very successful. As a locus for differentiated urban activity that takes advantage of it unique place in the city, it falls short.
// THE VASARI CORRIDOR
Neither the Ponte Vecchio nor the Ponte Rialto are particularly nice bridges to actually spend time on. Rather, they are lovely places to be near, or to stop and take in a view. They are unquestionably iconic, but the novelty of a visit is, however, short-lived. The Galata Bridge, on the other hand, tries to avoid this pitfall. It is a bridge of much larger scale and must tie into Istanbul’s infrastructure more holistically. It does this with underground paths used as road crossings and links to the tram line. The Galata Bridge also benefits from proximity to major urban squares, serving restaurant boats, ferry docks, major bus stops, and a fish market. The bridge is an important pedestrian link between the two European sides of the city. As a connector, the Galata Bridge plays a vital role for the city. It is a hub of activity and transportation, both public and private.
// THE GALATA BRIDGE
The Galata Bridge weaves two important sides of the city together. Meanwhile, it exploits its waterfront position to focus attention outward, back into the cityscapes it is connecting. The Galata Bridge manages to play both the role of connector and destination, a feat that should not be underestimated in urban planning.
THE BRIDGE AND THE CITY
Using the terms of Kevin Lynch, the Ponte Vecchio may be considered a monument (one placed between the two other monuments of the Uffizi Gallery and Pitti Palace). The Ponte Rialto might also be a monument (one that happens to span between two edges). The Galata Bridge, however, would probably be defined as a path (one that connects between large nodes).
The Galata Bridge is not architecturally attention grabbing in the same manner as Ponte Vecchio and Ponte Rialto. It is not monumental in the same sense. Its great length necessitates a flatter proportion and the image of its top surface is dominated by car traffic. The action is tucked underneath or hidden behind a wall of cars. Yet, the Galata Bridge succeeds as a habitable bridge in a way that the two Italian bridges do not. It combines diverse and active programs in a thoughtful layering that brings out the best in each. This is the true opportunity of the urban waterfront: the chance to synthesize the complex needs and desires of the city in a coherent fashion. It is a chance to harmonize competing urban conditions in a prominent place. It is the armature for imageability.
Leave your comment