/rating_on.png "1 Star")
/rating_half.png "5 Stars")
(20 votes, average: 4.65 out of 5)
Loading ...Neil Gillespie of Reiach and Hall reminisces upon a short lived masterpiece: “I travel regularly back and forth across the Forth Bridge to my hometown of Dunfermline. I have joked that for many years I have been engaged in missionary work in Edinburgh. To pay to enter the Kingdom of Fife always seemed right to me. Seriously though it did seem correct in these days of sustainability and accountability that to pay a price for my gas guzzling was entirely appropriate.
How it was lit up at night
“The estuary scene is magnificent with two memorable engineering wonders spanning the Firth. It was a great challenge to add another, albeit wee, addition to this setting.
“We thought very hard about our response. The canopy took the form of a distorted crystal inclined to the rail bridge with a more than a nod to the North. We then fought very hard to see it realised well.
“Less than a year old, the canopy sadly became a very early and easy casualty of politics through tolls being scrapped by a new SNP administration. We are pretty sanguine about what we do as architects buildings are there to be useful. An unimaginative government felt it was useful to them at that moment that the canopy vanished.
“The canopy is featured in a Dutch publication, A10 New European Architecture, of current European works, a first for us. The canopy had actually gone by the time the publication came out who knows others may be bemused by its absence.
“They say that if you lose a leg that your senses tell you that it is still there. Now as I approach the Bridges I still smile as I travel under the spectre of its pure form. It’s even better at night when the lighting invades the crystal!!”
This was a fantastic eye-catching structure that was so short-lived. It was beautifully lit at night – maybe there are images that show night views?
Would have been nice to move it elsewhere just to keep it but suppose that might have been a tad pricey
The standard which R&H reach is extremely admirable, and Neil Gillespie is a fine practicing architect, however, the bulk and in-elegance of this canopy amazed me, especially in the context of two beautifully engineered structures beside it. It had a definite, overt and naive ‘dutch’ influence, a desire to be radical without knowing why. In addition the dark brick building which goes along with it (i assume also by R&H?) is pretty dreadful.
If the comment form nick above is from someone who works for the architects, you may want to let others sing your praises rather than trying to do it yourself
Honestly! Frankly, it was ugly and should never have been built. To accuse the Scottish government of being unimaginative is truly petulant. Would you have them renege on their manifesto in order to keep you ‘vision’?
Let’s not forget that this project was sanctioned by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority whos sole task is to waste public money and be dictatorial in their attitude towards motorists. Even before the plans for the new toll booths were drawn up, the SNP had made it clear that they intended to abolish tolls, yet FETA pushed through the construction of them – and they were even built in the wrong place.
But, hey, it’s all public money and it’s a bottomles pit so what does it matter?
I have no doubt that a lot of thought and care went into the design of this structure but sorry guys this is a truly hideous and ultimately pointless structure.
I guess on an architect’s wages you can have the luxury of paying tolls. But for many commuters it was very imaginative to get rid of these tolls and this eyesore.
No doubt Neil would have liked the tolls to remain. Could this be so that this tax on the workers of Fife could fund future contracts for Reiach and Hall?
You must be kidding. Not only where the Tolls built in the wrong place, but it never fitted in with the 2 magnificent structures that are still there. A toll booth and canopy shouldn’t cost what that did and should have just been a functional structure.
There was nothing wrong with the previous Tolls, what’s that saying? If it ain’t broke…..!
Although this website is an admirable gesture to stop architecturally elegant buildings from being demolished, surely there could have been a more worthy first few candidates, including this one.
One of the key requirements of architecture is that it serves a purpose. Whilst many other buildings possibly could be converted into use for other purposes, surely this structure has no purpose any more.
To accuse a government of being ‘unimaginative’ in this case is inappropriate. The reason this structure was demolished was to ensure that tolls were not brought back in by future administrations, hence (paradoxically perhaps) leaving a lasting legacy.
In general, whilst I applaud the sentiment of highlighting the reasons why buildings should not be demolished, surely that’s where the time and effort should be focused rather than ‘mourning’ lost buildings.
There is a real danger that this site ends up being a whingeing ground for architects and alienates the general public – it’s already started…..
Why not start a ‘jewels that must be kept’ or ‘great architecture currently under threat’ website – it would be much more useful.
Whilst modern architecture has the capacity to both infuriate and inspire, I feel sorry for this website that BBC has brought so many talkative non-architects here
What a laugh! Dry your eyes…it took far too long to build, it blocked the view, it was built in the wrong place (if you all remember) and it was the usual triumph of form over function that starts me greetin’ in frustration.
Why can’t architects design to achieve both aesthetic form and sesnsible functionality? The “canopy” wasn’t even waterproof…on a wet day your arm still got soaked handing over the toll money.
I wonder how Neil Gillespie will explain his comments to students he tutored at Edinburgh College of Art, citing in his day that ‘we architects can’t be so precious about our designs’. How does the shoe feel on the other foot Neil?
Sorry to say it but as someone who drove under each day of its existence I never noticed its architectural merit. The photo makes it look wonderful but from the approach by a driver I never saw anything special. Take note architects remember to look at it from the view point of the users not just from the kindest perspective.
Why do you have to make a statement in such a location? Is it not enough to let the location and the existing structures do the talking. Is it not sufficiently fashionable to design something diminutive which does not attempt to boost your own ego by trying to live vicariously off the glory of other buildings?
It appears that the architect in question was more concerned at saying “look at me look at me look at me” than designing something which was a) functional and b) sympathetic.
And as a result of the architect’s lack of sympathy, they can scarcely expect the public to provide theirs when natural selection takes place.
Jimbob
Posted June 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Whilst modern architecture has the capacity to both infuriate and inspire, I feel sorry for this website that BBC has brought so many talkative non-architects here
Quick stop them! The plebs who actually use our buildings actually have the audacity to give their opinions! Shock Horror!
Won’t be long before its deemed we need tolls on it afterall, and then another Toll building is commisioned at the publics expense. Why do they pull these buildings down? Is it not cheaper to keep them there? Will the young vandals just attack it if its empty? Why not turn it into giant bird sanctuary? Something, anything is better than pulling it down.
I never even knew that building (had) existed…short time lived right enough. Looks smart from the photos.
On clear anti-cyclonic nights Neil Gillespie’s crystalline structure focussed stellar energy on ma baldy heid and helped me feel at one with the universe as I parted with the coins required to visit or pass through the Kingdom of Fife. Had it been built some years earlier it might have become a ‘must see” site for the UFO-logists who come up to see Rosewell and the Lang Whang for themselves tho I doubt Tam Dalyell MP would have changed his favoured TV interview backdrop from the Rail Bridge to the Toll Plaza. (He started using the former when he realised that constituents would tell him that they’d seen him on the tele tho they could seldom recall what he’s said. He resolved to have that iconic structure in the background of TV interviews and he continued to use it even when it was no longer in his constituency.)
I remember visiting Reich and Hall’s offices as part of a Architecture night-school course at Edinburgh Uni and being excited by the sketches of the toll booths.
Subsequently, I’ve been exiled to Somerset and trips home have become occassional – I only ever saw the erected canopy once but I picture it in my head every time I approach the Kingdom from the south – and probably always will.
This was a fascinating structure- it will be missed.
A distoreted crystal ?
How about a rectangle on legs with a wee bit shaved off !
All these modern “steel-glass” buildings with much plastic and cold colors that are mainly build today are ugly and become much more ugly within some years….. The Scottish people have so nice old buildings, made with real big stones.. These buildings should still be made! They are looking phenomenal and after some years they even look better in some cases.
I mean who would visit a ruin of a 200 years old rotten glass-steel building?? Answer: Nobody. Who visits castels and old (real ones) houses? Answer: Everybody likes it! We even like to go and visit ruins! Check out Athen! Its a collection of rotten stones but we love it!
So,.. dear architects… Please give us buildings that our grandchilds can visit for their vacations! We dont like this glass shit.
Sorry for the spelling..and all the mistakes… Im wasting my workingtime for this and have no time left to proofread.
Our son is actually nutty regarding lego together with star wars lego – thank you for the data!