•
Rating: The Constitution Bridge (a low-arched bridge made of steel, glass, stone, and trachyte: here more technical details) also known as "Calatrava Bridge," named after the Spanish architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava, one of the most famous and appreciated contemporary bridge designers, who donated the project to the city of Venice in '97, is the fourth pedestrian walkway, following, in order of construction, Rialto (1591), Accademia (1933), Scalzi (1934) crossing the Grand Canal in the lagoon city.
Object of criticism, which we will discuss later, even before the project was approved, delivered in 2008 after more than 5 quite troubled years of work, it is, according to Calatrava himself, a "philological" conceptual achievement (but not a definitive one, obviously) for his important career: and furthermore, I believe there would be few architects who would not think this of a work placed in the Venetian "capital." Situated to connect the Santa Lucia Station area with Piazzale Roma, with a steel structure reminiscent of the cartilaginous framework of a great marine predator and flooring that echoes, or should, that of other Venetian bridges (except for the Accademia, for obvious reasons), it enjoyed true media fame during its construction, like the passage of the main structure under Rialto or the controversy over its inaccessibility to disabled people, something that will be resolved (or already has been: at the time of writing I do not know if the work has been completed) by a cable car located under the bridge structure. Calatrava, in this regard, pointed out that such controversies should concern all of Venice, which, for obvious historical and geographical reasons, is certainly not a city without architectural barriers: the author agrees with this opinion since once one has crossed the bridge, those with such physical problems immediately find at least three almost insurmountable obstacles, and the issue could easily be resolved by granting free vaporetto access to those who qualify for it due to various infirmities (something that would be worthy of a civilized country that evidently we still are not).
Before giving a personal and questionable artistic judgment on the work, a quick excursus on the criticisms (I do not report those of a political nature and therefore unfounded, regardless).
The first issue raised was the actual usefulness of a fourth bridge on the Grand Canal (given also the resulting cost): according to the "diehard" and resident Venetians, it was not needed but personally, I believe they like to revel in a sort of complacency in feeling a bit decadent ("venexia 'a more"*) thus not entirely reliable, and I have been able to personally appreciate its usefulness on particularly "dense" days. The second concerned supposed stability problems which, for the time being, have been disproven by all reports. The third, namely regarding architectural barriers, I have already touched on, while the fourth I agree with: the steps of the bridge have a rise-to-run ratio that is too variable, making the crossing quite annoying.
The fifth is of an artistic nature and deserves a special, albeit brief, in-depth analysis:
Many have frowned upon the work's excessive "contemporaneity" in contrast to the rest of the city. The issue can only be addressed by deciding what Venice should be: if it's chosen to be a jewel enclosed in a chest, the issue has a basis but if, instead, it's considered as something alive, then the criticism loses substance. It is important to choose, quickly anyway: I opt for the latter hypothesis. Another way to approach the issue is to realize that the city is not in all its components a "splendor" and that there are aesthetically quite questionable places: one of these is, indeed, the "ugliness" of Piazzale Roma, and personally, I believe placing a work by the Spanish architect nearby has somewhat "gentled" the "panorama."
However, I must say that, although I greatly appreciate other works by Calatrava, the structure aesthetically does not convince me: perhaps because I find it less "daring" than others by the designer: almost as if he had been intimidated, not by the controversies we hope and believe, but by the city itself, and the result remained somewhat suspended in a middle ground that ends up perplexing everyone or almost everyone.
Finally, hoping not to have bored you too much with my musings, an inevitable thought escapes me to Frank Lloyd Wright who in '52 designed the renovation of Palazzo Masieri on the Grand Canal (it would have been the only work on European soil by the great American architect) but was blocked for "political" reasons: it's nice that, even 50 and more years later, something has changed...
...and anyway, let us remember that a bridge is only meant to unite and not to divide.
*"Venice is dying"
Loading comments slowly
