Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Manchester Bridge is safe insists Hodder


Architect Stephen Hodder has claimed his iconic Corporation Street bridge, which will close for six months to allow for ‘essential safety work’, is not dangerous

Last week Manchester City Council announced that the landmark bridge, which replaced the previous ‘unloved’ link destroyed by the IRA terrorist blast in Manchester in June 1996, would need to undergo a £730,000 overhaul ‘before the bridge became a potential danger’.

However Hodder, who has been asked to work with original design engineers Arup on the refurbishment, played down the safety fears. He said: ‘The bridge is not dangerous, it is just unsightly and it is still being used.

He added: ‘Admittedly the bridge has had a hammering. The boardwalk is terribly worn and because of its iconic nature it does take a lot of traffic.

‘The [link] had not been cleaned for ages and was a due a refurbishment. It has been so successful the only issue for me is the disruption to the public thoroughfare.’

It is understood a new bonded glass glazing system will be installed to replace the existing glass, which was brought in from a hurricane-proof specialist in Florida, and is now delaminating.

According to the council, test have revealed problems with defective glass panels on the 11-year-old hyperboloid walkway, which links Manchester Arndale with Marks & Spencer and Selfridges.

The cost is being split between Manchester Arndale’s joint owners and Manchester City Council, which owns the freehold on the bridge. Each party will pay around £365,000.

City centre spokesman Councillor Pat Karney said: ‘Doing nothing is simply not an option. There’s never a good time for work like this to take place but it is necessary. Ignoring it would have left us with a bigger problem further down the line and been a false economy. We have tried to time this to minimise disruption as much as possible.

‘We would obviously prefer not to have to do this during a difficult financial climate, but allowing the bridge to deteriorate would have been a false economy and incur substantial extra cost.’


Readers' comments (2)

  • If it's 'not been cleaned for ages' then 'doing nothing' has been the preferred option for some time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There seems to have been an ongoing policy of neglect on this bridge - with no one seemingly taking responsibility for its maintenance. Im just wondering if decent housekeeping over its short life would have prevented this? I doubt it would have reached this point if the bridge had been in the care of a private owner.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.