Grazie alla rete internet una lettrice di questo blog ha individuato un comunicato stampa di Santiago Calatrava del 10 maggio 2007. In questo comunicato si nota come l’architetto fa presente che le difficoltà nella realizzazione dell’opera (sia i ritardi che i problemi di accessibilità) sono tutti colpa del Comune di Venezia.
In particolare, riguardo l’accessibilità:
Finally, the absence of accommodation for persons with disabilities has been falsely attributed to Santiago Calatrava’s supposed desire for a more pure design. This is simply not true. A number of designs were proposed that would have accommodated the needs of persons with disabilities. The decision to eliminate these accessibility options was made by the Comune di Venezia, which considered its existing system of transport for persons with disabilities to be entirely adequate, requiring that no special provisions for access were needed on this bridge.
La domanda che ci si pone ora sorge spontanea, non risultando risposte ufficiali a questo comunicato da parte del Comune: a questo punto della vicenda, dove sarà necessario adeguare il ponte alle vigenti normative in modo diretto e non tramite la soluzione “ovocoso” (e le associazioni disabili hanno già fatto presente che agiranno nelle sedi competenti) chi si assume la colpa (e gli oneri) di aver consentito lo sviluppo di un’opera non a norma di legge?
Statement From the Office of Santiago Calatrava: Quarto Ponte sul Canal Grande
NEW YORK, May 10 /PRNewswire/ —
When Santiago Calatrava was given the honor of this commission to create a new bridge over the Grand Canal, he was enormously excited about the opportunity to contribute something beautiful to the very beautiful city of Venice.
Since then, the many delays during construction and the unsubstantiated challenges to the design and engineering have been extremely disappointing and professionally embarrassing. It is now time to respond to the misrepresentations in the press, and to address the questions which persist.
The recent claims that the bridge will damage the embankment on which it lands are false, like every other technical issue raised in the past. The weight of the bridge will be borne by foundations that rest on solid ground well below the embankment, a resistant layer of rock and earth that has been further compacted and strengthened by hydraulic rams. In addition to the detailed engineering studies of the bridge’s foundations conducted by this office, the calculations were recalculated and rechecked by independent specialists in ground mechanics in Zurich, as well as by consultants to Comune di Venezia and ICMQ in Milan. All of these consultants and agencies approved the final design of the bridge.
As for the delays in the project, and the resulting costs, this was also entirely the responsibility of the Comune di Venezia, and was not something over which Santiago Calatrava had any control. From the time that the design and cost estimation were approved by the Sopraintendenza degli Edifici Pubblici di Venezia and every other responsible agency, the project has been in the hands of the Comune, under the direction of Salvatore Vento and Roberto Scibilia.
First, it took three years to obtain the necessary permissions to build the bridge. Venice is not an easy place in which to build, and it is, of course, necessary to be extremely careful of both the city’s historic built environment and its unique geological characteristics. The Sopraintendenza and other agencies quite properly require many permits and authorizations throughout the construction process, and this adds to the time required to complete any project.
Secondly, in contrast to our previous experience in building more than 25 bridges around the world, our office was not engaged for site supervision, nor were we consulted about the selection of contractors. Comune di Venezia selected the lowest bidder as general contractor for the fabrication and construction, who then engaged a sub-consultant for the steelwork who had little or no prior experience in bridge building. These decisions have caused many time delays and additional costs.
Finally, the absence of accommodation for persons with disabilities has been falsely attributed to Santiago Calatrava’s supposed desire for a more pure design. This is simply not true. A number of designs were proposed that would have accommodated the needs of persons with disabilities. The decision to eliminate these accessibility options was made by the Comune di Venezia, which considered its existing system of transport for persons with disabilities to be entirely adequate, requiring that no special provisions for access were needed on this bridge.
We share the impatience of the people of Venice with the delays in construction and their eagerness to see the bridge completed. We believe that the challenges to the bridge are the result of opposition from a few individuals, who do not want to see the bridge built, for reasons of their own. We are confident that when the bridge is finished, it will become a welcome and lasting addition to the treasures of Venice.
Distributed by PR Newswire on behalf of Santiago Calatrava
