Bicycle Superhighways in Copenhagen Capital Region

Copenhagen Capital Region Bicycle Superhighway Network
The Bicycle Superhighway Network in Copenhagen Capital Region. Orange: Built. Black: Planned and financed. Dotted: Planned but awaiting financing.

The Capital Region of Denmark is continuing its investment in Supercykelstier – or Bicycle Super Highways. With five new routes completed on May 2, 2017, 115 kilometers have been added to the three initial routes. The goal is to make inter-municipality bike trips easier for the citizens of the region. The super highways are being developed on largely pre-existing cycle tracks.

In the Capital Region, 60% of all trips less than 5 km are made by bike. This falls to 20% for trips more than 5 km. While the region is great for intermodality, connecting bikes with trains, the plans for the Bicycle Super Highway network target increasing the latter number through constructing 28 routes that connect and pass through 23 municipalities. These will give bicycle users newer, wider cycle tracks, better street surfaces, pre-green lights, in addition to better lighting and traffic calming measures where needed. This will create 3 million more bicycle trips a year, which has the potential to reduce the number of car trips by 720,000 a year. This will save the region 34,000 sick days and give a 7.3 billion DKK (€1 billion) economic gain per year.

New routes, building on success
206km of the network will be finished by 2018, out of 467 km in total. The first two routes, Farumruten and Albertslundruten, have experienced a growth in the number of bicycle users of 61% and 34%, respectively, since they were built in 2012. Those two routes, in addition to the third one, Ishøjruten built in 2016, are hub to tip routes connecting Copenhagen Municipality with surrounding municipalities. The new five routes help shape the network; adding not only more hub to tip routes (Allerødruten and Frederikssundruten), but also ring routes (Indre Ringrute connecting Sundby to Østerbro, and Ring 4 ruten from Albertslund to Lyngby-Taarbæk) and a route between outer municipalities (Værløseruten).

The five new Cycle Super Highways have cost 154 million DKK (€20.7 million), while the same road length for motorist highways would cost 17.71 billion DKK (€2.38 billion). Municipalities expect an increase of 1.5 – 2 million bicycle users with the new routes running.


Copenhagenize Design Company’s Idea Catalogue for all the municipalities in the Region, as commissioned by the Capital Region in 2014.

Dialogues and Efforts
The project came with challenges on both regional and local scales. Funding the superhighways required a particular approach; normally municipalities are totally financially responsible for building their bicycle infrastructure, but some of the municipalities couldn’t afford building the superhighways or preferred to cut it from their budgets. This caused a threat that more municipalities would leave the project as its rationality depends on its continuity through all municipalities.

The solution that overcome this, so far, has been a 50% state subsidy so that municipalities only have to cover 50% of the costs. However, challenges for this approach will rise again in the future as no municipal funding exists for the project after 2019. The experience of the two initial routes also highlighted responsibilities for the municipalities during the operation of the superhighways; the Gladesaxe and Furesø Municipalities – both on the Farumruten – improved lighting conditions, asking bicycle users what their favored type of lighting was. While the Allerød Municipality focused also on traffic calming measures; building a “2 minus 1” way on Bregnerød Skovvej, a road with one track for motorists and traffic in both directions.

The municipalities have reached an agreement where each of them is responsible for running and maintaining its own part of the route(s) in close dialogue with the others. The success and rationality of a superhighway is achieved by the success of each of its individual parts in different municipalities, which raises the question of what form this superhighway will adapt to in rural, forested or urban areas along the way. It also highlights the importance of bringing all municipalities on board and keeping both the inter-municipality and citizen-government dialogues ongoing.

The Mayor Challenge
In an attempt to convince some of the more sceptical mayors in the outlying municipalities, seven of them were invited to switch to the bike for their transport needs for one month. Their health was measured before and after and, based on existing cost-benefit models, the result was clear. On average they were 11 years younger, based on their improved health.

Copenhagen Bicycle Superhighways projected on Barcelona Copenhagen Bicycle Superhighways projected on London
The Copenhagen Capital Region Bicycle Superhighway Network projected on Barcelona and London. This does not included the vast network of existing cycle tracks in the various municipalities, of which there are over 1000 km.

Copenhagen Bicycle Superhighways projected on Paris Copenhagen Bicycle Superhighways projected on Toronto
The Copenhagen Capital Region Bicycle Superhighway Network projected on Paris and Toronto

Copenhagen Bicycle Superhighways projected on Montreal
The Copenhagen Capital Region Bicycle Superhighway Network projected on Montreal.

For more information about the routes, check the website:
http://supercykelstier.dk/

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage

Copenhagen’s Fantastic & Stupid Bicycle Bridge Inderhavnsbro

Copenhagen’s Inderhavnsbro – Inner Harbour Bridge – Photo: City of Copenhagen

It’s no secret that Copenhagen continues to invest massively in bicycle infrastructure like no other city on the planet. The network is already comprehensive and effective but the City continues to add important links, especially over the harbour and the canals.

One of the more recent additions is the Inner Harbour Bridge – Inderhavnsbroen in Danish – that spans Copenhagen Harbour at a key, strategic and iconic point. It links the city center at the end of the postcard picture perfect Nyhavn with the Christianshavn neighbourhood and the southern neighbourhoods beyond.

It is one of a series of 17 new bridges or underpasses for bicycle traffic that have been added to the City’s transport network in the past few years.

The Inner Harbour Bridge was riddled with problems and was extremely delayed, as you can read here. Now, however, it’s been open since July 2016.

Let me be clear… I’m thrilled that we have a new, modern link over the harbour to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians. I am over the moon that the number of cyclists crossing daily exceeds all projected numbers. The City estimated that between 3000-7000 cyclists would use the bridge but the latest numbers are 16,000.

It’s a massive success. But sometimes you can see the forest for the trees. I’m sorry, but Inderhavnsbro is a stupid, stupid bridge.

It fulfills it’s primary function of allowing people to cross a body of water. But it is a cumbersome, beastly thing that is completely and utterly out of place in the delicate urban, historical and architectural context of its location. A fantastic overcomplication of the simple, timeless art of bridges that open and close. Designed by an architect named Cezary Bednarski from an architecture bureau will roots in two countries where cycling is no longer mainstream transport, it has failed miserably in respecting the basic concepts of bicycle urbanism and the established standards for infrastructure and facilities. By the looks of it, Studio Bednarski didn’t even bother to understand them.

Inderhavnsbro - Inner Harbour Bridge - Copenhagen

The nickname for the monster is the “kissing bridge” and it is flawed in so many ways. After millenia with perfectly functional designs to cross water like drawbridges and swing bridges, this architect decided to overcomplicate the concept. The bridge meets in the middle, where the two sides “kiss”. A nice, giggly idea on a distant architecture office desk but quite stupid in practice. It proved incredibly difficult to make the giggly idea work.

Crossing the bridge by bicycle involves two sharp turns – two chicanes. Chicanes designed by someone who doesn’t ride a bicycle. Cyclists are shunted sharply and rudely towards the middle of the bridge and back out to the side again. Perhaps the idea of getting the two sides to “kiss” was too difficult with the length of the bridge or the width required to make the kiising part work. The quirky kissing idea is the primary objective, at the expense of common sense. The primary visual gimmick is that the glass panels change colour as the bridge opens. Oooh. Wow.

For a century, Best Practice standards for details like chicanes have been in place. We know what curvature works best for comfort and for safety. These chicanes pose serious problems and they are clearly visible for anyone to see. You can see from the bicycle tracks in rain that people just cut the corners of them.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

A more serious concern is the many skidmarks you see on the bridge as you head downwards in either direction. I stop and study them every time I cross. Have a look when you cross. There are always fresh ones. They stop before the glass barriers, but I figured out why, as you can see in the photo, above.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge

People crown the bridge in the middle and then get speed up, but many people fail to realise that the architect wasn’t capable of a straight line and they slam on the brakes and hit the glass. I don’t know if anyone has gone over the edge into the water, but the physics provide a perfect storm.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
Look at the glass barrier in the above photo. The City has realised there is an issue and have slapped up a large, red and white warning sign to try and help people realise that it’s a dead-end.

If you need to put warning signs on a design, it is basically a crappy design. Period.

The grade to get up the bridge also ignores Best Practice standards for bicycle infrastructure. In this article you can read how most standards were established in the 1920s and 1930s. The architect probably thought “bike” and a spandexy dude on a race bike popped into his head. I have seen a few people get off and walk up the incline, but most just muscle their way up. The bridge is too steep. It is not designed for a mainstream bicycle city and the architect didn’t bothering researching the fact that we have 40,000 cargo bikes filled with kids and goods in Copenhagen.

On all the other bicycle bridges in Copenhagen a simple boom will drop to the sound of a simple ringing bell to stop cyclists and pedestrians when the bridge is opening. Compare that simple design to the huge, groaning barriers that rise like creatures from the black lagoon on the Inderhavnsbro. Comical overcomplication.

Another detail is that there are no ramps on the stairs on the pedestrian side – unusual in Copenhagen – but necessary. That is easily fixed, compared the rest of the nightmare.

Is using municipal funding to experiment with giggly, freestyle designs really a good idea? The bridge was also funded by a philanthropic fund – but does that mean that we don’t have to be rational when we get free stuff?

I can easily and rightfully criticize the architect who failed miserably at his task, but lest we forget there was a jury of Copenhageners who actually looked at this and voted “YES!” So there are many fools at this party.

Inderhavnsbroen - Inner Harbour Bridge
There are so many moving parts that breakdowns will be inevitable. It’s already happened a number of times. Ships have been stuck on the wrong side because it couldn’t open. The little tent, above, appeared suddenly and was in place for more than a week. That’s hardly good for mobility. A fancy schmancy bridge in Kiel, Germany, ended up having so many problems that another bridge was built next to it, to be used when the fancy bridge breaks down. Is that where we are heading in Copenhagen?

The bridge is nothing more than “magpie architecture“. A shiny object that attracted the favour of the people who selected it. Seduced by bling and fake innovation instead of being guided by timeless rationality and basic design principles. It follows in the sad tradition of Squiggletecture, where bridges and facilities are designed by architects who don’t understand the users.

What’s more, in an attempt to appease the wealthy sailboat crowd, the City of Copenhagen agreed to let the bridge open 30 times a month – far more than the six times a month that the other main links over the harbour – Knippelsbro and Langebro -open. This bridge will be unreliable as a transport option for people who are just trying to get to work or education once the sailing season starts.

The basic principles of Danish Design – practical, functional and elegant – were sadly forgotten in the choice of this bridge. The shine will wear off and, I fear, we’ll be faced with more expensive problems.

Facepalm.

Go to Homepage
[xyz-ips snippet="backlinks"]