38 CONTEXT 178 : DECEMBER 2023 Column-head reinforcement, structural plating and a widened bridge pier (Photo: Douglas Campbell) Structural plating (Photo: Douglas Campbell) The continuity of column-head detail compromised (Photo: Douglas Campbell) ² Scottish Law Times, Issue No 658, 1997, Sweet and Maxwell ³ ‘£33m bill to move bridge two inches’, Guardian, 12 October 1999 ⁴ Scottish Roads Archive Website ⁵ Scottish Roads Archive Refurbishment Film (1990s), Glasgow City Council with Scottish Executive ⁶ Historic Environment Scotland Designation Enquiry/ Designation, November 2020 ⁷ Historic Environment Scotland, Designation Policy and Selection Guidance (last updated 4 December 2020) The Strathclyde Regional Council v WA Fairhurst and Partners judgement by Lord Abernethy in 1996 established that, despite the passage of time, there remained a case for the designer to answer, and ruled that part of the regional council’s case that the bridge was subject to flexural tensile stress contained sufficient averments of a departure from normal and proper practice to go to proof.² Reportedly an out-ofcourt settlement was reached.³ Extensive remedial work significantly impacted the bridge’s structural design. It comprised a re-engineering and associated replacement of the bridge’s principal supporting structure, its piers and bearings. During 1991 the banks of the River Clyde were reinforced to resist further thrust from bridge’s foundations. The main part of the £30 million remedial works was undertaken between 1996 and 2000. Following casting of temporary supports and jacking of the bridge deck, all original bridge piers were entirely removed and replaced with a new pier support system.⁴ In the words of a Transport Scotland documentary around the time, ‘fundamentally changing in its method, the bridge’s system of articulation’.⁵ Replacement piers were nearly three times the thickness and extended through the full depth of both bridge decks, prejudicing the design concept of the bridge reading as two visually independent parallel structures. Beams cast about the tops of the first row of supporting columns, north and south of the river, with other anchor points, visible on the underside of the bridge, allowed post tensioning and reinforcing. The beams’ angular form projects beyond and below the slender original columns, interrupting the visual continuity of the structure as the elevated road deck meets the bridge. Jacking and repositioning of the bridge decks, replacement of piers and reinforcing the structure were undoubtedly necessary and may well have been part of a successful, awardwinning engineering solution (it was indeed quite an engineering feat), but the form and finish of the works is far removed from the clean lines, visual lightness and character of the original design, detracting significantly from the bridge’s aesthetic. Nevertheless, following public consultation the Kingston Bridge was listed at Category C in November 2020 (not Category B as originally proposed). This listing continues to sit uneasily in the panoply of 20th-century bridge listings, of which there are a good many fine examples, including the athletic 1984 Kylesku, airy 1971 Erskine Bridge or elegant 1964 Forth Road Bridge. They are crossing events redolent of their period, brimming with design endeavour. The Kingston Bridge seems very different. It remains difficult to reconcile its design, subsequent loss of structural authenticity and original fabric and the resultant harmful changes to its appearance with a decision to list in terms of design or architectural interest.⁶ It begs the question, what is design quality and how should that contribute to architectural interest? While key factors, set out in Annex 2 of Historic Environment Scotland’s Designation Policy and Selection Guidance⁷ are not intended to be an exhaustive list, nor necessarily a template, it is interesting that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=