back   back to menu

English english language

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.


Intellectual property of this report and of the design drawings is owned by General Engineering s.r.l.

author of the text: arch. Manfredo Romeo other contributes have been mentioned in related paragraphs

- General Engineering Workgroup -


Final Design Report

back   back to menu
ani.gif (16635 bytes)
GENERAL ENGINEERING - P.zzale Donatello 4 - 50132 Firenze - Italy - ph. +39 055 2345256 - fax. +39 055 2476074