Gutachten Dresden_englisch_dritte f.indd - Fakultät für Architektur ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 Figure 5.12 Graphic depicting the original planned bridge cross-section Source: DRNBW 1998
fare, in particular its gradient. (Source: Statement by Dr. Glaser during the “Elbe Bridges Workshop,“ pages 9 and 10, 28-29 May 1996). Consequently, the “International Design Competition for a New Elbe Bridge at Wald- schlösschen“, which followed in the same year, took the route pursued to this day as its basis, namely an Elbe Valley bridge with a subsequent tunnel through the northern Elbe hillside. Other key traffic engineering guidelines required that the two bridge heads feature multilevel intersections. A total width of 26.50 metres for the cross-section of the bridge was specified in the competition guidelines. It was stated that the bridge should have two lanes measuring 4.75 meters in width as well as a public transport area to be accessible if required and including an integrated tram line. In addition, it was stated that the bridge should also feature a pedestrian and cycle path, each 3.5 metres wide. The winners of the design competition were the Kolb/Ripke team of architects in Berlin, Thomas Kolb, Henry Ripke; Eisenloffel/Sattler Engineers in Berlin; Daniel Sprenger, Landscape Architect; Henning Jesse, CAD Design Office, Berlin. The winners were subsequently commissioned to undertake further planning. Traffic-related planning guidelines changed during the course of planning stage. Instead of reserving the middle of the bridge for trams, plans were altered to include additional lanes for private transportation in both directions. As a result, there would be two lanes running in each direction, that is, a total of four lanes, each 3.25 meters wide. The original plans for a tram line were replaced by a bus line. In addition, several types of multilevel access to the northern bridge head were examined. The competition specifications originally required a multilevel intersection at the Radeberger Strasse/Stauf- fenberger Allee junction but this requirement was dropped. As an alternative solution, the option of a largely multilevel junction at Bautzner Strasse was pursued further (see building specifications, section 4.2). On 18/02/2003, the city of Dresden submitted a request for approval of the plans. Approval was granted on 25/02/2004. This constitutes building permission. On 07/09/2004, the city council voted to block the funds for the project, but this move was vetoed by the mayor on 23/09/2004. In a local referendum held on 27 February 2005, 34.4% of those eligible to vote cast a “yes“ ballot to the Waldschlösschen Bridge. (Source: Dresdener Amtsblatt [Dresden Official Journal], 03/03/2005) This means that approx. 68% of the citizens who took part in the referendum voted in favour of the bridge (51% voter turnout). Bidding for the project began in August 2005 and is now completed. 67
Page 1:
Visual Impact Study (VIS) of the
Page 5 and 6:
1 Introduction 1.1 Background to th
Page 7 and 8:
1.3 Structure of the study The stud
Page 9:
In the time allowed for the study (
Page 12 and 13:
12 1200 Castle on the Taschenberg 1
Page 14 and 15:
14 1694 -1733 Augustus the Strong p
Page 16 and 17: 16 Figures 2.3, 2.4 Boundaries of t
Page 18 and 19: 18 Sites are ‚works of man or the
Page 20 and 21: 20 Figure 3.1 Boundaries of the spe
Page 22 and 23: 22 1850 1910 1940 1992 Figure 3.2 M
Page 24 and 25: 24 Figure 3.3 Dresden city map, 189
Page 26 and 27: 26 Figure 3.6 Adolf Lohse, Schloß
Page 28 and 29: 28 Figure 3.8 Theodor Lehnert, Phot
Page 30 and 31: 30 Figure 3.10 Development plan, No
Page 32 and 33: 32 Figure 3.11 Theodor Friedrich, p
Page 34 and 35: 34 Figure 3.12 Plan of the Elbe riv
Page 36 and 37: 36 Figure 3.13 Festival hall for th
Page 38 and 39: 38 Figure 3.14 Visual relationships
Page 40: 40 Figure 3.16 Lookout points in th
Page 43 and 44: created lookout points must be give
Page 45 and 46: 4 Perception and depiction of the s
Page 47 and 48: in Meißen” by Eberhard Kieser an
Page 49 and 50: for the national press when making
Page 51 and 52: Robert Geissler’s lithograph, pro
Page 53 and 54: 4.3 Conclusion Evidently, artists f
Page 55 and 56: 5 The planned “Verkehrszug Waldsc
Page 57 and 58: Plan 1862 Plan 1891 Plan 1898 5.1 H
Page 59 and 60: Plan 1900 Plan 1905 Plan 1934 see f
Page 61 and 62: Plan 1967 “Between 1960 and 1970,
Page 63 and 64: crossing somewhere in the Dresden m
Page 65: nach 1945 [Road and Traffic History
Page 69 and 70: 5.3 Building specifications for the
Page 71 and 72: current Käthe-Kollwitz-Ufer route
Page 73 and 74: The bottom chords below the bridge
Page 75 and 76: idge pylons were enlarged by expand
Page 77 and 78: Marien Bridge The Marien Bridge des
Page 79 and 80: The Old Carola Bridge The Old Carol
Page 81 and 82: etween Übigau (Washington Strasse)
Page 83 and 84: 5.5 Conclusion When the longitudina
Page 85 and 86: 6 Analysis of field-of-view impact
Page 87 and 88: c. the 3D model of the design of th
Page 89 and 90: using GPS co-ordinates. This techni
Page 91 and 92: entire panorama. The field-of-view
Page 93 and 94: The best method of realistically si
Page 95 and 96: Source: author’s illustration/aer
Page 97 and 98: entire panorama. It can be assumed,
Page 99 and 100: South Bank 09. Dome of the Frauenki
Page 101 and 102: View Sequences 1. Sequence A Elbe v
Page 103 and 104: Details 1. Stauffenbergerallee In S
Page 105 and 106: Waldschlösschen pavilion, the Elbe
Page 107 and 108: Because of the currently complex si
Page 109 and 110: 7 Conclusions/Recommendations It is
Page 111 and 112: as the effect of diffuse winter lig
Page 113 and 114: Nor may the assessors outline any a
Page 115 and 116: Text sources / Image sources Aussch
Page 117 and 118:
Kultur- und Naturerbes der Welt von
Page 119:
Imprint Commissioned by Dr. Roland
show all

Gutachten Dresden_englisch_dritte f.indd - Fakultät für Architektur ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?