Produced by the designers themselves, notice how the impression is all light and airy, the interior of the bridge somehow magically open and welcoming, whereas the reality of the damn thing as built is that it looks clunky and ungainly, and the interior is dark and depressing. As built, all the supporting structures seem vastly heavier and lumpen than the delicate parts shown in the impression.
The same with the view from the lift side -- the towers were open in the impression but, as built, have acquired additional glazing bars that reinforce the impression of some sort of prison, while the overbridge is no longer floor-to-ceiling glass but has been made mean and enclosed.
Why do they do this? Do they think we're too stupid to notice?
4 comments:
I've been told (by a railway official) that "overbridges" (what sort of bridge goes under?) must have solid sides "to maintain users' modesty". You can just about deduce what he meant.
Never trust an architect.
They are all poofs.
(Well, the one that I know is)
Viollet: it's actually a technical term from the early days of railways -- an "overbridge" crosses over the railway, whereas an "underbridge" carries the railway line over a road or river, etc.
And solid sides are unnecessary -- there are a number of options including frosted glass and that amazing glass where you can only see through it from specific angles -- you could align it so no-one standing below could look up. Though since every new walkway at airports worldwide is floor-to-ceiling plate glass and I can't find a table anywhere that has modesty boards, this sort of thinking seems to be going out of fashion everywhere else.
I'm sure they've overcome this at Sheffield station by using floor to ceiling frosted glass, which gives a pleasant exterior and bright interior passage-way.
Post a Comment