Talk:Infinity Bridge

Edit-warring about the name of the designer
See WP:AN3#Edit tennis on Infinity Bridge (Result: Stale) for the result of the edit-warring complaint. The designer in the infobox has been going back and forth between Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates. Editors should be discussing this matter here on the Talk page. If not, it is hard to argue that the IP is reverting against consensus. One of the references (gazettelive.co.uk) does say "The original concept was by Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates." Though the IP's actions aren't attractive, it is unwise for editors on either side of the dispute to continue to revert without any discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The text does clearly state "although only Expedition Engineering were appointed to do the full detailed design." and is referenced. As such I have been reverting out changes from that position unless a new reference and appropriate change to text is made. Keith D (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Refer in particular to references 32 and 33: "...soon after winning the contract, Expedition, TVR and English Partnerships - which owns the North Shore site - decided Spence would not be novated to the Design and Build stage of the contract". The bridge designer was Expedition Engineering, it was only the initial competition that involved both Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates. Aetylus (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The text "The successful competition design was by Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates.[10][11] The subsequent design was led by Expedition Engineering assisted by[12] Arup Materials, Balfour Beatty Regional Civil Engineering, Black and Veatch, Bridon, Cambridge University, Cleveland Bridge UK,[13] Dorman Long Technology,[13] Flint & Neill,[14] Formfab, GCG, GERB, Imperial College,[15] RWDI, Spence Associates, Speirs & Major, Stainton, and William Cook while White Young Green were project managers." clarifies the difference between the design and the competition design. I've updated the infobox to reflect the design proper rather than the competition entry. Aetylus (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

October 2010 discussion
Spence Associates and Expedition Engineering collaborated to produce a design for the Infinity Bridge competition.

On award of the design contract (with Expedition Engineering appointed as the lead consultant) Spence Associates were part of the design team up to the completion of tender information. (This is reflected in the project credit. the terminologoy of which was agreed by both Spence Associates and Expedition Engineering). With the appointemnent of a contactor the services of Spence Associates were no longer retained.

The role of Spence Associates as one of the 'designers' of the project has been recognised in the information board adjacent to the bridge which has recently been amended to reflect their design input. 86.166.170.84 (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked 86.166 for some evidence of this position. I personally think it's odd that Spence Associates aren't listed as one of the designers - it was a RIBA competition in the first place! I can even show you sources that don't mention Expedition Engineering: Guardian, Independent and Building. My proposal would be that editors accept "Designer: Expedition Engineering & Spence Associates", but failing that my more detailed compromise be allowed to stand. Bigger digger (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My other point, when I was thinking about this yesterday, is that it is clearly problematic not to have Spence Associates in the infobox somehow, as witnessed by the editors who come along occassionally and try to change it. They're not trying to be disruptive, the information is in the article, and so it seems like an uncontroversial addition. Bigger digger (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have already removed this several times from the infobox as it is clearly controversial and is really confusing. If the detail is required then the information in is the text. Keith D (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it controversial Keith? Spence Associates were one of the designers, what is controversial about including that information in the infobox? It is sourced. I can see no reason not to include it except for a conversation from a year ago. See Consensus can change. Bigger digger (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was not controversial then we would not have had problems over this in the past. The text indicates that the Spence Associates were involved in the competition for the design but that this only went forward by Expedition Engineering. To single out Spence Associates for inclusion in the infobox from the list is misleading and the text explains the full detail. I think there were a number of other references in the article that were pruned to come up with the version we have now. May be the other main contributors to the article can comment. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Spence Associates receive repeated credit for the design as can be seen in the sources I linked above, and whilst I understand from the sources that EE did the detailed design, I don't understand why that's a reason to exclude them from the infobox. What would be your problem with my compromise version which accurately relates the situation? Bigger digger (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An original design (and the copyright of that design) lies with the individual(s) who can be seen to have originated the design in the form of physical material - drawings/models etc. It does not lie with the people/company that took the 'original design' and then build it. They cannot legally be called the 'designers'.

Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates collaborated to originate the design for the Infinity Bridge and therefore have an equal legal right to be credited as 'the designers'. Not to include Spence Associates in the info box is clearly misleading and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.137.13 (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As per above I have indicated that this should not be in the infobox at the moment and have indicated that we should wait until the regular editors of this article have commented rather than the IP editors. Keith D (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How long do we wait? And could you address my points please? Bigger digger (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know one of the main editors has only made a couple of edits since early this month, I would give it a few weeks until they are back editing regularly. I was going to leave your compromise version but that got removed by someone else. The text adequately describes the situation about the competition and who did the final designs without cluttering the infobox. Keith D (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If the correct design credit is not to be shown then the simplest way is to remove the credit from the info box. If it is to be included then it must contain both Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyhappy02 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I would agree that both should be credited, it's a little bit too WP:BOLD to remove the credit instead - it represented the current consensus. I've withdrawn from editing that info so will leave to others to change. I would suggest changing to my compromise version - Keith D states above it was acceptable to him but it was "removed", however it was actually changed to "Expedition Engineering / Spence Associates". Bigger digger (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probably better to have it removed altogether as that way there should be no edit warring over what should be in the infobox. Keith D (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed earlier that Gateshead Millennium Bridge does not list the designers in the infobox either. Bigger digger (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that the best and most accurate way to show who designed the bridge in the infobox would be to have two boxes: Design - Expedition Engineering;   Competition Design - Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates. This may be slightly unusual, but it is accurate - it matches the agreed wording between the two companies ("The successful competition design was by Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates. The subsequent design was led by Expedition Engineering assisted by..."). Accurate and fair seems like the best option to me... Is it possible to add a "Competition Design" box? Aetylus (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Response:' I have put in two additional entries in the Infobox for 'Architect' and 'Engineering design'. I would like to think this would meet with general approval, however I'll just have to wait and see whose cage this rattles.  The rationale comes from these particular Infinity Bridge articles.  On the Corus Construction site Expedition Engineering is described as the 'Structural Engineer' while Spence Associates are not mentioned.  On The Footbridge at North Shore site Expedition Engineering is described as 'designer' and Spence Associates as 'architect'.   While on The Footbridge at North Shore website attributes the concept to both Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates and the design engineering is attributed to Expedition Engineering.


 * On Building Spence Associates is described as the 'Architect'. On The Institution of Structural Engineers website (disappeared) Spence Associates are described as 'Collaborating Architect' (competition stage).

Stuffed cat (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'row' between Expedition Engineering and Spence Associates was over their relative contributions to the conceptual design, see The Architects' Journal here and here where Spence Associates are described as 'concept architects'.

Unfortunately, the architect/engineer split does not work for this project (and is the essence of the 'row'). The split needs to be between competition (an Expedition/Spence collaboration) and the actual design (done by Expedition with assistance from a range of other companies). The tasks traditionally done by an architect were carried out by Expedition on this project (from defining overall form, to detailing handrails etc), hence the very specific agreed wording between the two companies that the collaboration was at the competition stage. Rather than the engineer/architect split, to be factually correct the split needs to be competition phase (expedition/spence) and design (expedition). Aetylus (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay then let us consider the main stages, undeniable events/contracts, and the leading contributors/participants.  The stages could be described as 'Design competition', 'Design' and 'Build', so I propose these 'names' for entries in the Infobox:


 * Design competition winners (EE & SA)
 * Contracted structural engineer (EE).

Stuffed cat (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) is straight-forward but (2) might be modified to something like 'Appointed design engineer' or 'Contracted lead engineer'.  The key point in the name of course is that EE were contracted to do the detailed design, while SA were not, and secondly that EE were the leading entity and perhaps 'Contracted lead engineer' says it best.  Unfortunately I cannot find any source that explicitly says EE were contracted for the detailed design however some sources use the word 'novated' which amounts to a new and different contract being drawn up to that expected to follow from competition rules.  Your thoughts and opinions please.


 * Point (1) looks sensible. On point (2) EE's role was considerably more than the engineering, and included, amongst other things the role traditionally performed by the architect.  Thier invovlement was also much more than the detailed design, it was for every stage stage of the project from beginning to end.  The appropriate term for part (2) is simply "designer", and it is only the conventional stereotype that there should be both Engineer and Architect on a project that is confusing the issue.   Aetylus (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Because of this problem, I went with the removal of these details from the infobox. I think that this is still what should be done and that the text should be the place that explains the situation. Keith D (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuffed cat (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So we can agree on 'Design competition winners'. As for the second one then - how about:
 * Design contractor (EE)    or
 * Awarded design contract (EE).
 * This means the field names concentrate on the competition and contract rather than the roles.
 * Since everyone is in agreement on the main text, lets use the wording from that -
 * Competition Designers - EE & SA
 * Lead Designer - EE
 * Aetylus (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with 'Competition Designers' or 'Competition Design' is that there were hundreds of competition entries and therefore as many and possibly more designers. Mentioning the unsuccessful ones in the Infobox would be totally inappropriate/unthinkable.  I think we need to go back to your (Aetylus') original comment and quotation.  Although I do need to ask the question - In what way were Spence Associates "successful" regarding the competition.  The answer has to be that they won (with EE) the design competition - they certainly didn't win the contract or succeed to the next phase.  The use of 'successful' sounds a bit of a fudge while 'winning' is clearer, and identifies the uniqueness of the achievement, but it's not that much better.


 * Translating the first half of the quote literally into a 'Name & Value' notation would give:
 * Successful Competition Design - (EE & SA)
 * or the succinct 'Successful Design'. If you like, the word 'Winning' can substitute for 'Successful' which allows for the variation 'Design Competition Winners'.  No mention is made of technical roles or relative contributions here it's just implied that things got done.


 * The remainder of the quote concerns the role of EE in the post competition phase/s. The role is clearly 'Lead Designer' - no room for arguments here - but I don't think it is enough.  We don't want to imply/suggest that EE were lead designers throughout as that would be contentious.  We need to limit it to the post-competition phase.  The problem comes when naming that post competition phase.  The post-competition phase could be called the 'Design phase' however "design" occurs at numerous stages -  I prefer the expression Contract phase.  Rather than just 'Lead Designer' I am in favour of 'Design Contract Leader' or the more cumbersome 'Contract/ed Lead Designer' as EE won the 'design contract' and they subsequently 'led' the design.  The latter suggestion being closest to what you have already suggested.


 * I have scrapped the contentious fields in the infobox as regardless of the outcome of discussions, they are clearly not going to stand.


 * In summary then my suggestions are: - based on your quotation:
 * Successful Design - (EE and SA)
 * Contracted Lead Designer - (EE)
 * Stuffed cat (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Stuffed Cat, I would say that is a very detailed and accurate breakdown of the quote and we should use your suggestion - although for the first part we should use 'successful competition design' to be precise. On a similar vein for the second part, although I would be happy with just 'Lead Designer' (as 90% of design is post-contract) we should probably use your 'Contracted Lead Designer', as it is the most precise description - even if it is slightly cumbersome. Aetylus (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there enough refs for some of these sentences?
Holy smokes batman, some of these sentences have 8, 9 even 12 references for a fairly simple fact! There is no need to provide more than one source if it is reliable and describes what the test says. At the moment it is pretty hard to read due to the excessive numbers of references. Also, facts do not need to be referenced at each point they are given. It is perfectly acceptable to put one or to references at the end of a paragraph, rather than after each sentence or phrase.

I'll have a look through to see if I can trim this out a bit to help make it more readable. If anyone wants to help with that then please do. Quantpole (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I have noticed that an undergraduate paper has been used for a large amount of the text. This is not a peer reviewed piece of work (the 'bridge conference' is part of the undergraduate course) and so should probably not be used in the article, particularly for technical elements. Quantpole (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More description of location please?
Hello, I wondered if someone with the requisite local knowledge would please consider adding a short sentence, maybe in the description section, to explain where this bridge is? I do appreciate that its location is already described in the lead as crossing between things X and Y but if you don't already know Stockton well (or recently!) this is not necessarily all that helpful. I was wondering if you could write a more bottom-up description which says something like "the bridge crosses the Tees at blah (or near Blah Street etc); it is A hundred metres downstream from the Foo Bridge and B hundred metres upstream from the Bar Barrage" or whatever, which it seems to me would nail it in more empirical terms. What do you think? Any yes, of course the maps link does nail it (assuming the co-ordinates are right!) but something in the text which helps in this way would, I think, be very useful. I may be being unusually thick (happens all the time, actually) but on my first reading - and I was last in Stockton in 2007, you see - I was not at all sure where it was, wondering if in fact it replaced the other rather nice pedestrian bridge closer to the town centre. I cured this uncertainty by looking at the maps, yes, but the sentence I'm asking for would have given me more direct access to the knowledge. Go on, please write it for me, you know you want to; and I will go and put the kettle on for you. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks Stuffed_cat, that's brilliant! DBaK (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 one external links on Infinity Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718123442/http://www.wyg.com/media/pdf/case_studies/Teesside_Stockton_Footbridge.pdf to http://www.wyg.com/media/pdf/case_studies/Teesside_Stockton_Footbridge.pdf


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080709042142/http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-and-tees-valley/stockton-focus/2008/02/18/the-latest-addition-to-the-river-tees-skyline-is-taking-shape-and-you-can-watch-its-progress-online-84229-20495519/ to http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-and-tees-valley/stockton-focus/2008/02/18/the-latest-addition-to-the-river-tees-skyline-is-taking-shape-and-you-can-watch-its-progress-online-84229-20495519/


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718123534/http://www.wyg.com/5projects/projects.php?m=5&s=1&project=6 to http://www.wyg.com/5projects/projects.php?m=5&s=1&project=6


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718063355/http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/news/article.cfm?articleid=3333&paneldisplay=true to http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/news/article.cfm?articleid=3333&paneldisplay=true


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081012151433/http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/ to http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930170540/http://www.istructe.org/activities_events_awards/Pages/SA09-InfinityFootbridge.aspx to http://www.istructe.org/activities_events_awards/Pages/SA09-InfinityFootbridge.aspx


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303222855/http://www.door-way.co.uk/clevelandbridge/sectors.aspx to http://www.door-way.co.uk/clevelandbridge/sectors.aspx


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711011615/http://www.flintneill.com/storage/pdf-documents/new-data-sheets/FN%20Flyer%20-%20Infinity%20Bridge.pdf to http://www.flintneill.com/storage/pdf-documents/new-data-sheets/FN%20Flyer%20-%20Infinity%20Bridge.pdf


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222203039/http://www.door-way.co.uk/clevelandbridge/index.aspx to http://www.door-way.co.uk/clevelandbridge/index.aspx


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110905041626/http://www.bbcel.co.uk/capabilities/bridges/540_north-shore-footbridge to http://www.bbcel.co.uk/capabilities/bridges/540_north-shore-footbridge


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091207050250/http://www.betterpublicbuilding.org.uk:80/finalists/2009/ to http://www.betterpublicbuilding.org.uk/finalists/2009/


 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.finditinurbanliving.co.uk/


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091221004517/http://www.metropolismag.com:80/story/20091216/building-with-light to http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20091216/building-with-light


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105220537/http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/news/balfour-beatty-update-september-2007 to http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/news/balfour-beatty-update-september-2007


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090106230042/http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/news/balfour-beatty-update-january-2008 to http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/news/balfour-beatty-update-january-2008


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100527223308/http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk:80/entertainment-in-newcastle/ to http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/entertainment-in-newcastle/


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130927022123/http://www.visitengland.com/ee/Events/Stockton-On-Tees/Show-or-Display-Ceremony-/833996/Infinity-Bridge-Opening-Celebrations.htm to http://www.visitengland.com/ee/Events/Stockton-On-Tees/Show-or-Display-Ceremony-/833996/Infinity-Bridge-Opening-Celebrations.htm


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110809072504/http://www.teesvalleyunlimited-investment.co.uk/news/story/storyid=129 to http://www.teesvalleyunlimited-investment.co.uk/news/story/storyid=129


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101122081023/http://www.corusconstruction.com:80/en/news_and_events/awards/structural_steel_design_award/2010/ to http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/news_and_events/awards/structural_steel_design_award/2010/#44018


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719151750/http://www.concrete.org.uk/awards/awards2009/awards_civil.asp to http://www.concrete.org.uk/awards/awards2009/awards_civil.asp


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215020100/http://www.thegreenorganisation.info:80/GABEA.asp to http://www.thegreenorganisation.info/GABEA.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Infinity Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100119015057/http://www.finditinurbanliving.co.uk:80/ to http://www.finditinurbanliving.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Infinity Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004062750/http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2008/11/24/firm-looks-to-infinity-and-beyond-51140-22325950/ to http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2008/11/24/firm-looks-to-infinity-and-beyond-51140-22325950/


 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120181437/http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/overview-of-the-scheme to http://www.northshorefootbridge.com/overview-of-the-scheme

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)