1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 : 10 : 11 : 12 : 13 : 14 : 15

The Manchester Bridge

A bridge on the same site, however, still seemed to be the most desirable because it would form a companion to the Point Bridge, and with proper integration of new with existing approaches at the Point, traffic moving between the North Side and the South Side could be handled with great ease. Also, with private bridge companies now obsolescent, it was conceded that the City would have to construct the new span. It would also have to be constructed of steel; not only was timber not a viable material for early twentieth century bridges, it had also become too expensive. (43)

Accordingly, at the general election of 3 November, 1908, the question of increasing the City's indebtedness in the amount of one million dollars was approved. In the early part of 1909 sixty thousand dollars worth of bonds were sold to cover the cost of preparing preliminary plans and this work was immediately begun. A contract was advertised in June 1910 and bids were received during June and July of that year for building the three main piers. (44) Before the contract could be awarded, however, a decree from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nullified the bond issue of 1908. For the moment this effectively stopped work but in the election of 6 November, 1910, another bond issue was approved and the work went forward once more.

The bridge was designed under the direction of the Department of Public Works of the City of Pittsburgh with Joseph G. Armstrong as Director, and N. S. Sprague, Superintendent of the Bureau of Engineering of the Department, as superintendent of the work, assisted by T. J. Wilkerson of the Division of Bridges. Booth & Flinn, Ltd., of Pittsburgh, were the general contractors for whom M. J. Feeney was general superintendent. Emil Swensson was consulting engineer. (46)

In March 1911, bids were again advertised for the three main piers of the "North Side Point Bridge" at an estimated cost of $210,000. The lowest bid of $182,750 was submitted by Dravo Contracting Company and the contract was awarded to them in April of the same year. (47) These piers constructed of concrete faced with Beaver sandstone were completed by October, 1912. They were supposed to have been completed by January of that year, but an accident occurred in construction of the river pier which delayed the work. The final cost of the substructure (the piers) was $196,000. (48)

During the summer of 1912 bids were advertised and received for the two steel truss spans of the superstructure. On 16 August, 1912, the contract was awarded to the American Bridge Company at $297,792. Because of the delay on the substructure work could not be begun on the spans until 1 August 1912, and it was completed 5 November, 1913. The final cost for the two spans was $300,000. (49)

The superstructure consisted of two truss spans of the modified Baltimore type with subdivided panels, each 531 feet long, with a clearance of 70 feet above harbor pool level. The spans were heavy, being designed for a solid floor of buckle plates, concrete, and wood block paving. The roadway was 36 feet wide and flanked on each side by 12 foot sidewalks, making in all a 60 foot deck. (50)

During the summer of 1911 plans were started for the approaches. During the latter part of that year an Art Commission was appointed to deal on an aesthetic basis with the public works of the City of Pittsburgh and henceforth all bridge plans had to be submitted for approval. Late in 1911, also, the Commission had introduced into City Councils, ordinances authorizing the advertisement and submission of competitive plans for the approaches, and this acted to stop the work that the Department had been doing on this part of the project. It was not until 29 April, 1913, that the Department could once more continue with its own plans.

The work was advertised and the first bids were received on 15 July, 1913, but owing to the fact that all bids exceeded the amount of money available for the construction, they were rejected. The plans were then revised and bids were re-advertised. Bids on the revised plans were received on 3 November, 1913, and the contract was awarded 23 December, 1913, to Booth & Flinn, Ltd., of Pittsburgh. Construction was begun 9 January, 1914. Plans were then begun for paving the main spans and approaches and the contract was awarded 30 December, 1914. Work was begun on the paving early in 1915 and completed during the first half of that year. (52)

The north approach consisted of a series of 6 reinforced concrete arches of varying spans and a long fill between concrete retaining walls -- the total length of the approach being about 865 feet. The clear spans of the arches were 85 feet; 73 feet, 6 inches; 63 feet, 5 inches; 54 feet, 8 inches; 47 feet; 40 feet, 4 inches, the longest span being adjacent to the 531 foot river span. The arches rested on concrete pile foundations. The retaining wall construction had a length of about 442 feet and the entire approach was on a 4.9383 per cent grade. (53)

The south approach at the Point had a total length of about 913 feet and consisted of two concrete arches with clear spans of 73 feet, 6 inches and 85 feet, together with 728 feet of retaining wall construction on about a 5 per cent grade. Since this approach joined the already existing ramp of the Point Bridge, the combination resulted in a Y, one arm of which branched to cross the Monongahela and the other the Allegheny, an echo, perhaps, of the old tri-partite bridge schemes of the nineteenth century. (54)

Finally the Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph reported on 9 August, 1915, that -- "As a climax to almost 7 years effort, balked at several instances by legal procedure, the new $1,000,000 Point Bridge leading from the Point district over the mouth of the Allegheny River was dedicated at 2 o'clock this afternoon, Mayor Joseph G. Armstrong christening the structure Manchester Bridge. (55) Speeches were made by the Mayor, John M. Goehring, President of City Council, and Attorney Charles W. Dahlinger. (56) The North Side, particularly the old Manchester section, was in gala attire for the occasion, the actual dedication ceremony taking place at the north end of the bridge."

Not only did the opening of an important bridge become an occasion of public rejoicing in the earlier years of this century -- rejoicing with banners, processions, and speeches -- but the portals of the bridge itself-the entrances and exits -- were still accounted worthy of some architectural accentuation and commemoration. Our present day, which is not one of ceremonies and respects, will have none of this "superfluous" adornment. A bridge is a bridge, its passage is not memorable, its gate is not glorious, nor is its terminus splendid. But responsible citizens in the teens of our century still felt that art should be called upon to bless the rigors of the new technology and ratify municipal pride. Art was accordingly called upon.

This was also the age of the City Beautiful, the last grand-flowering of the Renaissance-Baroque ideal of city planning. This ideal had no small part in the formation of Pittsburgh's Municipal Art Commission in 1911 and for the term of its existence it was to be dominated mostly by Classical ideas of Beauty and Order. As we have already seen, it took its duty very seriously in regard to the Manchester Bridge.

When the bridge was dedicated it was still naked of any ornamental adornment. As we have already seen, bridges at the "historic" Point were considered worthy of special recognition. The first Point Bridge, in itself a kind of early technological cathedral, possessed great quasi-Egyptian pylons as anchor piers, between which traffic moved. The homely wooden tunnel of the Union Bridge had vernacular Italianate wooden architectural screens at both portal -- portals which imitated stone.

The Manchester Bridge had been originally designed to incorporate stone portals, but they were never constructed. Perhaps the best account of the bridge portals is contained in a magazine article of the time (57) -- "Highly sculptured ornamental portals are to be added to the North Side Point Bridge, Pittsburgh, at a cost of about $60,000. Stone archway portals were designed, but for various reasons, principally that of cost, they were abandoned. New plans are the result of a year's study by the Pittsburgh Department of Public Works in cooperation with the Municipal Art Commission. General plans were shaped mainly by Stanley L. Roush, architect, in collaboration with the sculptor selected for the work, Charles Keck, of New York City.

Several drawings and a photograph of a small scale model are reproduced here. (59) The steel portals to which the ornamental work will be fixed is already in place, being part of the original design. Although the bridge is of the regular curved-chord type with inclined end posts, a vertical portal was provided at each end with posts footing over the end pins; and the top lateral system was extended out to this portal in order to deliver the wind shear to it. This steel gate was to have formed the core of the ornamental stone portal and the designers held the view that by actually transferring the wind forces to the plane of the vertical portal, the stone portal would place true emphasis on a structurally vital element, namely that which secures the stability of the bridges.

"The stone portal would have concealed the steel portal, but the new cast iron, steel and bronze design utilizes the general outline and appearance of the steel portal with the addition of surface ornamentation. 'It was the idea', states the architect, 'to evolve an ornamental portal which would harmonize with the steel structure, all needed members to be shown, and the ornamental parts made subordinate to them.' In the evolution of the design, sketches of various possible portals were prepared by the Department and submitted to the Art Commission and the latter selected the design that promised the best result.

"More extensive drawings were then made and development of the main ornamental elements was elaborated in conference with the sculptor and a half-inch scale model was constructed. When the Art Commission passed on the model . . . construction contracts were let. A further process will be to prepare quarter-size models for final criticism and revision and then full-sized models for the foundry.

"The Cost of the two portals will be $4,000 and changes in the steel work of the portals about $5,000 more."

The ornamental portals were finally affixed in 1917. (60) On the Pittsburgh side are shown kneeling on either side of the Arms of the City of Pittsburgh, Christopher Gist, the pioneer, and Guyasuta, a local Indian chief. The Northside portal had a coal miner and a mill worker on either side of the same municipal escutcheon. On the upright of each portal were fixed ornamental lighting fixtures and flag staffs. The flag poles were removed some years ago, but the lighting fixtures and other cast iron ornaments are, since the demolition of the bridge in 1970, in the possession of the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation. The bronze reliefs are now in storage, later to be affixed to the north pier of the bridge which is to be retained for that purpose. (61)

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 : 10 : 11 : 12 : 13 : 14 : 15