In this chapter it is reported final architectural
design in a summarised format: only final conclusions have been described
with the aim of giving clear final indications. Nevertheless it is not
possible to evaluate and understand the current design work without
referring to next chapter, (chapter 4), of this report, in which main
design issues have been analysed progressively, (since the beginning of
the assignment), and have been developed with wide explanations of the
adopted final decisions and philosophical design approach. Moreover other
chapters, (6-9), have been inserted in this report concerning design
matters that had to be further investigated, analysed and explained. Those
chapters are, of course, all part of the final design report and may be
considered as the prosecution of current chapter.
3.1 Basic
organisation of current Pilot Project and main warnings
Current Pilot Project for
the Bridge of Mostar has been structured following a peculiar organisation
purposely worked out for this intervention.
On one side it has been
founded a special Institution which is called PCU (Project Co-ordination
Unit) which represents the City of Mostar and it is the official Employer.
PCU is in strict contact with the PCU TA (Project Co-ordination Unit
Technical Assistance) that actually co-ordinates, contractual and
technical matters, timetables and deadlines and finally verifies the right
performing of the assignments.
A special Commission of
UNESCO together with the ICE Commission (International Commission of
Experts) have been established in order to approve and verify all the
design and technical works.
The WB (World Bank) has the
control of the financial administration of the whole intervention and has
provided consultants and representatives to be updated on the technical
developments of the works.
Considering all the above,
it should be pointed out that GE (General Engineering) has worked out a
design following the assignment requests, but everything is obviously
linked to the approvals, modifications and requests of all the mentioned
Institutions, that may at any time change its contents partially or
globally, being their will a must for the final design. For the aforesaid
reasons General Engineering may be not considered responsible for any
technical or theoretical modification to the design that could take place
either at this stage, either in the future developing of the works, unless
modifications have been agreed with General Engineering Workgroup.
Conditions which instead may lead to any design changes may be the
following:
-
better design
approaches or devices are proposed to GE and agreed by GE Workgroup
-
some other information
(technical or historical) come to our knowledge
-
some unforeseen
difficulties arise during the performing of the works
Being this intervention of
wide international interests and quite atypical and peculiar, General
Engineering welcomes any different proposals to the design concerning
either technical, either theoretical matters, and will evaluate carefully
any contribute and any advise coming from any side or place. Therefore
General Engineering deems that the contents of the design should be spread
out trough an information campaign, (held by the PCU), that may contribute
in collecting observations and critics. General Engineering will instead
consider as useless contributes those ones which are given by people that
are not informed on the contents of the current design and of related
issues widely explained in this report.
Another matter that should
be pointed out related to the architectural design is the following:
due to deadlines and
contract obligations General Engineering has been compelled to work out
the final architectural design while the laboratory tests were ongoing and
while the structural design was stopped waiting for the laboratory tests
results. It is well known how much structural and architectural design are
linked in a bridge structure, and how much important are laboratory tests
results for a restoration intervention and of course this has led to leave
some design decisions not properly defined and postponed to the Work
Supervisor. General Engineering may be not considered responsible of the
above matters as well.
In this report, and mostly
in this chapter, together with design remarks, some additional advises and
warnings are given for the execution of the works but the following should
be clearly stressed:
-
General Engineering is
not responsible of any additional advice given for the performing of
the works, which should be anyhow managed and decided by the Company
in charge of the rehabilitation works.
-
No constraints, limits
and impediments are here given for the methodology and the procedures
to be followed for the works.
-
Basic objective of the
report is to determine some requisites and characteristics of the
final results and not how this results are obtained and performed.
-
General Engineering is
not involved in any matter concerning the yard, the way works are
performed and temporary works or structures needed.
-
The Company that is in
charge of the rehabilitation works is supposed to know perfectly the
methodology to follow for the construction of a stone bridge, and this
report may be not considered as a manual in which all the instructions
and warnings are given.
3.2 Main objective of the
assignment
As specified in the Inception report (see §1.1) and in
the Phase A report (see §1.1), here next it is confirmed the main purpose
of this assignment: the aim is to rebuild the bridge as it was before war
(see §5.4.1 p.49 of ToR: "This section refers to the part of the
reconstruction or remedial works that will be carried out, and the result
of which should be a structure identical to the one prior to
destruction"). Many other completely different design approaches
would have been possible in that site, (e.g.: contemporary architecture
bridge inserted next to ancient surroundings and ruins), but decision
about this matter was already defined and General Engineering was not
required and not supposed to make any proposal. The mentioned design
choice, of an identical structure, will be therefore assumed as the Client
request and as Mostar citizen's wish for the future of the Old Bridge with
no further analysis and comments.
|