Two main roads, the « Hauptstrasse » in Weil am Rhein, Germany, and the « Rue de France » in Hunningue, France, are situated on the same axis. To emphasize this highly symbolic and visual connection between the two countries, the footbridge is put along the axis and not into it for the view not to be disturbed. This visual connection is enhanced by the physical one, as the design of the bridge is a response to the situation. The technical challenge is evident.
The three-country bridge between France and Germany has an asymmetrical cross section. Hence, two principals underlie the design. First of all the bridge is an arch bridge with a span of 229,4 meters, which is a world record for a pedestrian arch bridge. Engineers have specific formulas for defining the type of bridge in relation to its span. Thereby the engineer's reflex here was to build a suspension bridge.
It underlines the extremely strong symbolism of the very important gesture of spanning between France and German, which was conceived as drawing a bow between the two countries. Developing this sense as the intrinsic motivation behind the structure of the bridge, we thought that there might also be advantages, not just disadvantages, of spanning rather than suspension.
This turned out the be the case, the completed bridge was shipped in one piece to the site. This would not have been possible with a suspension bridge whose assemblage in situ would also have been much more expensive.
The second significant feature of this bridge is the manner in which the genius loci, the spirit of the river landscape and the elements of the particular on-site situation, were integrated into the design. This was mainly achieved in the decision to position the anchorage points of the bridge at the former departure points of a ferryboat that travelled across the Rhine between the two shores. This served to integrate a pre-existing line-of-sight extending from the urban fabric of the two border cities via two main streets directly opposite each other.
Putting the bridge deck at a high level, as it is generally done, would have created a barrier in between the line-of-sight, thus separating instead of connecting the two countries. This problem as well as a desire to integrate the pre-existing decision not to put the arch bridge exactly on axis, but rather to shift it slightly to one side. Further, the inclined south arch leans against the north arch in a way that opens up the space and makes it possible to maintain eye contact from one riverside to the other. Although suggested by engineers, a symmetrical bridge would not have been suitable in this context.
