A distinct achievement of St. Petersburg’s civil engineers and architects is the new Birzhevoj Bridge spanning the Malaya Neva (the right-hand branch of the Neva) between Vasilyevsky Island and the Petrograd Side, completed in 1960. The project had been a particularly difficult and responsible assignment in civil engineering, for the new bridge replacing the old timber structure had to fit into the architectural landscape of the Vasilyevsky Island Spit, which has largely retained its original aspect. The smoothly rounded point of the island (the so-called Spit) splits the Neva into two branches of approximately equal width: the Bolshaya Neva and Malaya Neva. This circumstance accounts for the strictly symmetrical lay-out chosen for this part of the island by the early nineteenth century Russian architects. On the suggestion of A. Zakharov, one of the architects concerned, the monumental building of the former Stock Exchange (now housing the Central Naval Museum), built by Thomas de Thomon, was aligned strictly with the axis of the Spit. Two rostral columns were erected on either side of a semicircular square; and two evenly graduated ramps led down to the water. Developing the principle of strict symmetry that governed the architectural planning of the area, I. Luchini erected, in the late 1820s, two similar warehouses, one on each side of the Stock Exchange, and a custom-house (now the Institute of Russian Literature) north of it, whose dome seen in the skyline corresponds to the tower of Peter I’s Kunstkammer. The austere monumentality of the architectural whole harmonized perfectly with the fine balance of the individual edifices. It was this principle that determined the architectural aspect of the Birzhevoj Bridge.

The left-hand branch of the Neva is crossed at the Spit by the five-span metal Palace Bridge; hence the decision that the Builders’ Bridge, too, should be a five-span metal structure with a contour generally similar to that of the Palace Bridge. However, its engineers (V. Demchenko and B. Levin) and architects (L. Noskov and P. Areshev) decided in favour of improved, more modern structural elements, and used steel arches. The length of the spans increases gradually towards midstream, as in the case of the Palace Bridge; here, too, the central span is the movable one. Constructed in such a way that it is nearly indistinguishable from the other arches when closed, it does not break the rhythmic lines of the bridge. The Birzhevoj Bridge fits perfectly into the architectural landscape of the Spit and the broad sweep of the Neva.

In November, 1965, five years after the completion of the Birzhevoj Bridge, a second major bridge spanning the Malaya Neva was built. This was the Tuchkov Bridge, which received its name from that of a leading lumber dealer, owner, in the eighteenth century, of a large timber-yard, who had financed, back in 1758, the building of the first wooden span on the same spot. Incidentally, if its name dates back to times past, the bridge itself offers an example of the employment of quite modern engineering techniques. The movable central span comprises two upward-swinging steel bascules. The two side spans measuring seventy-four metres each are bridged by prestressed ferro-concrete structures. Their originality and economy facilitated construction while the graceful lines of the unusually slender girders set off the massive granite piers, convincingly demonstrating the great strength of reinforced concrete. Designed by the authors of the Birzhevoj Bridge, V. Demchenko, B. Levin, L. Noskov and P. Areshev, the Tuchkov Bridge is rightfully considered to be one of St.Petersburg’s handsomest. It is an outstanding example of the modern trend in bridge architecture, which emphasizes austerity and elegance of contour and calls for a new approach to designing problems. The long spans of the bridge together with its simple and clear-cut lines harmonize well with the expanse of the river, striking a new and modern note in the panorama of the Neva’s embankments.

A different tonality, if one may say so, has been given the series of bridges and quays of the Karpovka, a distributary that separates the main part of the Petrograd Side from Aptekarsky Island, its northern fringe. These bridges are on a more modest, more intimate scale, in keeping with the modest width of the Karpovka and its picturesque meanders. At first only timber bridges spanned the Karpovka. The first bridge of reinforced concrete, given the name of Pioneers’ Bridge, was built over it in 1936. This is a handsome arched span, elliptical in shape, faced with granite; the selection of so impressive a finish was dictated by the location of the bridge on Kirovsky Prospekt, the main thoroughfare of the Petrograd Side.

In the 1960s work was begun on a granite facing for the Karpovka’s embankments. Its new quays have a graceful railing with a pattern which, though quite original, is nevertheless reminiscent of St. Petersburg’s old canals. Concurrently with the work on its embankrtients the Karpovka’s bridges were reconstructed. The graceful contours of these new bridges, built chiefly of the standard sectional ferro-concrete structures suggested by “Lengiproinzhproekt”, fit nicely into the Karpovka’s architectural surroundings. The northern reaches of the Neva delta comprise three large islands, namely, Stone Island, Yelagin Island and Krestovsky Island. The area is largely given over to spacious parks.

Here the Neva breaks up into several rather wide subsidiary streams, i. e. the Bolshaya, Malaya and Sredniaya Nevkas and the Krestovka; and into many nameless narrow creeks that criss-cross the islands to link the inland ponds. There is water and greenery wherever one turns, which makes this part of the city particularly picturesque. At present these northern islands of the Neva delta are the realm of recreation and sports.

Bridges, too, are particularly numerous in this region of St. Petersburg. The great majority are relatively small timber footbridges, though there are also a few city-type spans of steel and reinforced concrete. The year 1955 saw the completion of an original pair of bridges at the eastern tip of Stone Island (Kamenny Ostrov), designed by V. Demchenko, B. Levin, P. Areshev and V. Vasilkovsky. These are the five-span metal Kamenno-Ostrovsky Bridge with a movable central span, which links the banks of the Malaya Nevka; and the Ushakov Bridge, named in memory of the famous eighteenth century Russian admiral, which spans the Bolshaya Nevka. The latter is the longer of the two, and in the interests of structural unity the designers made its central five-span part an exact replica of the Kamenno-Ostrovsky Bridge, adding two granite-faced arched spans on either side.

In the early 1950s Soviet architects favoured classical forms; the architecture of the two bridges is an example of this trend. The designers of the Kamenno-Ostrovsky and Ushakov bridges were bent on following the architectural traditions of St. Petersburg’s bridge engineering of the early nineteenth century, and therefore designed the face of the steel girders in the shape of flattened arches. Both of the bridges at the tip of Stone Island present an integrated architectural composition, and their stylized exteriors show good taste. The serenely flowing lines of the bridges are consonant with the surrounding parkland scenery.

By the early 1960s, however, Soviet architects had rejected their stylized imitation of Classicism and had struck out determinedly on a quest of rfew forms that should reflect the characteristic properties of modern building materials and structures. Severity, simplicity and structural logic became the fundamental features of the contemporary sttyle in architecture. These features were reflected in the exteriors of many new ferro-concrete bridges built 6ver St. Petersburg’s canals in the past decade. One of the most interesting examples is the Malb-Krestovsky Bridge, designed and built by Yu. Yurkov and L. Noskov in 1962. It spans the Krestovka, a short creek separating Krestovsky Island from Stone Island. The severe simplicity of its architectural composition goes hand in hand with a kind of dynamic grace; it seems to have been stopped short in an impetuous leap; and there is, indeed, a sort of sportive air about it, quite in harmony with its setting of park and athletic grounds.

On the eve of the October armed uprising the bourgeois Provisional Government had the Nikolayevsky Bridge occupied by cadets of the local military academies; and the leaves of the span were swung open to keep the Red Guards and revolutionary troops from reaching the left bank of the Neva. On October 25, 1917, the cruiser Aurora was ordered by the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee to drop anchor just below the bridge; the cadets were forced to retreat; and the cruiser’s electricians succeeded in closing the span and thereby re-established communication between Vasilyevsky Island and the city centre. When preparations for the storming of the Winter Palace were finished the Aurora, at anchor below the Nikolayevsky Bridge, fired its history-making shot.

Soon after the October Socialist Revolution the Nikolayevsky Bridge was renamed in honour of Lieutenant P. Schmidt, the prominent Russian revolutionary who had led the November, 1905, revolt of the sailors at Sevastopol.

Between 1936 and 1938 the bridge was radically reconstructed in accordance with a project drawn up by G. Peredery, as being no longer able to either handle vehicular traffic or afford passage to modern river and sea-going ships. Long steel girders replaced the arched spans, and a movable section of the bascule type was placed in the centre, where the depth of the river was greatest. From the engineering point of view its characteristic feature was that all the steel elements were joined together by electric welding, without the use of a single rivet. This was a bold technological innovation for the 1930s, and the

Lieutenant Schmidt Bridge became one of the world’s biggest welded bridges of the pre-war years. The original railing with its sea-horse pattern was installed on the reconstructed bridge, but the lampposts had to be changed since they were not strong enough to carry the weight of the tramcar and trolleybus overhead wires. The new lamp-posts were constructed by L. Noskov; and the old ones were transferred to the Field of Mars. The cast-iron arches of the old Nikolayevsky Bridge were also put to good use: they were found to be in such sound condition that in 1953-56 they were utilized in the construction of a bridge over the Volga at Kalinin. The second metal bridge, an iron-arch structure, spanned the Neva at the start of Liteiny Prospekt. Built between 1875 and 1879 by A. Struve, it remained in service for almost ninety years, when, toward the end of the 1960s, it underwent capital reconstruction.

The third bridge, initially named the Trinity (Troitsky) Bridge, linked the banks of the Neva between the Field of Mars and Trinity Square (now Square of the Revolution). It was built over the period between 1897 and 1903 in accordance with a project submitted by the French civil engineering firm of Batignolles. Being specialists in the field of large-scale steel construction, the firm became the winner at the two international contests organized by the St. Petersburg municipal council in 1892 and 1896. Quite a few of St. Petersburg’s civil engineers and architects took part in the final elaboration of the project and in the construction of the bridge, notably N. Beleliubsky, A. Veretennikov, L. Novikov. Moreover, the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts set up a special commission including such leading architects as L. Benois, A. Pomerantsev, G. Kotov and others, designated to examine the decoration projects submitted, some of which were substantially modified. The grand opening of the bridge in 1903 coincided with the official celebration of St. Petersburg’s second centenary.

The Trinity Bridge is characterized by an exceptional harmony of proportions. Its arches gradually increase in span length towards the centre, facilitating the passage of ships and creating an illusion of growing momentum which gives the bridge a peculiar air of lightness and grace.

The three handsome granite arched spans at the north end of the bridge, designed by G. Krivoshein, set off strikingly the tracery of its six steel trusses. The railing, lamp-posts, overhead contact-wire posts and ornate obelisks of the approach from the Field of Mars were designed by the French architects V. Chabrole and R. Patouillard and show the influence of the trend toward the Art Nouveau in architecture that developed around the turn of the twentieth century. In 1934 the bridge was renamed in memory of S. Kirov, the leader of Leningrad communists. In 1966-67 the Kirov Bridge underwent partial reconstruction. The ugly and heavy double-leaf swing span near the left bank was removed as no longer able to handle the river traffic, which had increased following the completion of the new Volga-Baltic waterway, and replaced with a 43-metre single-leaf bascule span. Its pier was connected with the left bank by a reinforced-concrete arch faced with granite, similar in shape to the three old masonry arches of the right bank. The new bascule span was designed under the direction of G. Stepanov and Yu. Sinitsa from “Lengiprotransmost”, the Leningrad bridge-designing organization. The reconstruction resulted in improving the handling of river traffic as well as the architectural exterior of the Kirov Bridge. The Great Okhta Bridge, built between 1908 and 1911 after the design of G. Krivoshein and V, Apysh-kov, spanned the Neva somewhat upstream from where it is joined by the Okhta. Its movable span is situated in midstream, while the side spans are formed of steel arch trusses, 136 metres long, from which the roadway is suspended. While the bridge is well adapted to handle river shipping, its architectural merits are doubtful. The heavy trusses rising above the roadway block the view of the Neva and, notably, the Smolny Monastery, a masterpiece of eighteenth century Russian architecture. The Great Okhta Bridge looks like a plain piece of engineering, which is the result of a purely utilitarian approach to its designing. Before the October Revolution Okhta used to be a workers’ district on the city’s farthest outskirts, so that nobody cared whether the bridge would fit into the panorama of the Neva.

The composition of the Palace (EHwtsovy) Bridge is based on very different architectural principles. This five-span bridge connects the Vasilyevsky Island Spit with the left bank of the Neva near the Winter Palace, and minute attention was therefore given to its architectural decor. The bridge was to be built close to the surface of the water, skimming lightly over it, as it were, so that it should not obstruct the splendid vista of the Neva’s quays. It has two double-span continuous trusses and its central span, measuring about fifty-five metres, is a double-leaf bascule. The length of the spans increases toward midstream, while the contours of the bridge follow smoothly curving lines. The bridge presents an appearance at once elegant and monumental. The long spans and the severity of the mighty granite piers harmonize with the majestic sweep of the Neva and the architecture of its quays.

The Palace Bridge was designed by A. Pshenitsky. Construction was begun in 1912, but the outbreak of the First World War caused the work to be suspended. The bridge was opened to traffic on the eve of 1917, even while its architectural decoration was still unfinished.

The five metal bridges provided, when completed, dependable communication over the Neva in the city’s central area. However, after the October Revolution the growing Leningrad developed a need for a new bridge over the river in the outlying eastern area of former wasteland and tiny villages, where large-scale industrial and housing development was then in full swing. The bridge was built between 1932 and 1936 and named after V. Volodarsky, a prominent revolutionary treacherously assassinated near the site on June 20, 1918.

The Volodarsky Bridge project was worked out by G. Peredery and K. Dmitriev in consultation with A. Nikolsky. The central movable span with its electrically welded steel bascules was one of the world’s earliest specimens of such balance-bridge construction.

The austere and modern appearance of the Volodarsky Bridge fits well into the surrounding architectural landscape. Its fine proportions and noble simplicity of composition make it one of the outstanding achievements of Soviet bridge-designing. The second major reinforced-concrete bridge, named in memory of Alexander Nevsky, the Russian national hero, spanned the Neva in 1965 at a point where it is closest to Nevsky Prospekt. It was designed in “Lengiprotransmost” under the direction of A. Yevdonin; its architects were A. Zhuk, S. Mayofis and Yu. Sinitsa. The traffic intersection pattern at the approaches was worked out by Yu. Boiko, A. Gutzeit and other civil engineers of “Lengipro-inzhproekt” (the Leningrad town-planning and town-building organization).

All aspects of the bridge reflect a trend toward simplicity, economy and engineering efficiency, characteristic of Soviet civil engineering of the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was this trend, in the given case, that determined the number of spans and the type of structure. The width of the movable central span was to be about 50 metres, which would allow ample room for navigation. The remaining six spans, with the maximum span length of 123 metres, were to be bridged by extra-long continuous girders of prestressed reinforced concrete. The most up-to-date building techniques were used in the project. The reinforced concrete girders were constructed of separate complex blocks. Each block was assembled ashore on a special construction site, mounted on a heavy-duty pontoon lighter and slowly towed to the designated bridge piers. Here the ends of the girder block were carefully guided into position over the two piers, the many-ton structure being manipulated with a precision reckoned in millimetres; water was then pumped into the pontoons and the block was slowly lowered to rest on the piers. The same method of towing large-size bridge sections assembled on shore was used in the capital reconstruction of the Liteiny Bridge, designed and built by “Lengiprotransmost” under the direction of L. Wild-grube and Yu. Sinitsa.

The old Liteiny Bridge built in the 1870s was no longer capable of handling the heavy flow of modern city traffic. Its movable span, moreover, was close to the river bank, and had long since become too narrow, and the channel beneath it too shallow, for the sea-going ships arriving in Leningrad by way of the Volga-Baltic Canal.

The underwater sections of the old piers were found still perfectly sound and were therefore allowed to stand. Long, slightly curving steel girders bridge the spans, resting on the piers which have been faced with granite of a light pink hue. The new bridge is not unlike the old one in appearance, yet it has a thoroughly modern look. Its movable single-leaf span of the bascule type is an outstanding achievement of Soviet civil engineering, chiefly on account of its size: the. leaf is fifty-five metres long and thirty-four wide and weighs 3,225 tons, which is a world record. What is more, so massive a bascule is raised to a practically vertical position in the space of no more than two minutes.

The old railing designed by K. Rachau, a St. Petersburg architect, was also retained after undergoing some restoration. It is an object of interest both because of its fine workmanship and also because its pattern includes St. Petersburg’s old emblem representing a shield with two crossed anchors.

The four Horse Tamers groups adorning the bridge were modelled and cast in bronze by P. Klodt, the celebrated Russian sculptor; they brought the bridge fully merited renown. Initially, at the time of reconstruction, only two bronze groups were erected on the west-end abutments, while the abutments at the other end were embellished with their plaster copies. A year later Klodt cast the two groups in bronze; but they were presented as a gift to the King of Prussia and dispatched to Berlin.

Another pair of bronze castings was made, but they, too, remained in place for no more than two years and were sent off, in 1846, as a gift to the King of Naples, while a new pair of plaster copies was set up on the east-end abutments.

Finally Klodt decided to create two entirely new sculptured groups, differing in composition but treating the same theme; and in 1849-50 these were cast in bronze and set up at the east end of the bridge.

These sculptured groups depicting untamed steeds and their trainers are an allegory of Man’s triumph over the forces of nature. The history of world art offers few works in which the theme of Man’s victorious struggle is presented so forcefully and convincingly.

In addition to the impact of their profound message, so consonant with our epoch, the sculptures are a source of high aesthetic enjoyment precisely because the sculptor has embodied his idea in forms of such artistic perfection. His talent has breathed life into the cold bronze and created a stirring Poem of Mankind.

The powerful, handsome beasts are more than merely ornamental, for they contain within themselves systems of metal rods, or bars, to which the chains are anchored. The Lions’ Bridge is an interesting example of the integration of engineering and sculpture.

Much like the lions are the fantastic golden-winged griffins holding the chains of the Bank Bridge which spans the Griboyedov Canal near the Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan.

In excellent harmony with the slender silhouette of the bridge is the fretwork of its railings, reconstructed in 1952 in strict accordance with the original drawings.

The Lions’ Bridge and the Bank Bridge were built in 1825-26 to the design of G. Traitteur, who had at an earlier time designed the suspension footbridge over the Moika, not far from the Main Post Office, after which it is named.

Its chains were supported by obelisks braced by quadrant-shaped metal rails, and embedded in the abutments. The sculptured figures of the Lions’ and Bank bridges were cast from the models by P. Sokolov, author of the well-known Girl with a Pitcher fountain in the park at Pushkin.

The four sphinxes of the Egyptian Bridge, which carries Lermontovsky Prospekt over the Fontanka, are also the work of P. Sokolov.

The Egyptian suspension bridge was built in 1826 by G. Traitteur and V. Christianovich. Today, the only original elements of this bridge are the four sphinxes. On January 20, 1905, a stfing of loaded wagons and a guards cavalry squadron happened to be crossing the bridge at the same time.

Strong vibration set in, and the bridge collapsed. There were no casualties among the men, fortunately, everyone managing to scramble ashore. The Egyptian Bridge was rebuilt in 1955-56. Its steel frame structure is in the shape of a gently sloping arch.

Designed by V. Demchenko, P. Areshev and V. Vasilkovsky, it fits perfectly into the panorama of the Fontanka. The cast-iron sphinxes, now over 150 years old, form an integral part of its composition.

Among the numerous sculpture-decorated bridges of European cities, one of the most famous is the Anichkov Bridge in St. Petersburg.

In the course of the 1820s C. Rossi, an eminent Russian architect, laid out quays along the Fontanka and Moika to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, extended Sadovaya Street all the way to the Field of Mars, and selected sites for new bridges over the two rivers.

The St. Panteleimon’s Bridge over the Fontanka, built in 1823 by G. Traitteur and V. Christianovich, was Russia’s first suspension bridge open for the vehicular traffic. It had a roadway suspended from five wrought-iron chains that passed over two iron pylons and were securely anchored at both ends. Between 1825 and 1837 several cast-iron and masonry bridges designed by P. Bazaine were built over the Moika and the Swan and Voskresensky (Resurrection) canals near the Engineers’ Castle, the Voskresensky just south of the castle, at the time.

The end of the 1820s saw the completion of the First Engineers’ Bridge, which spanned the Moika close to where it branches off from the Fontanka. Its arched span was constructed of cast-iron “box” blocks. Light was provided by torcheres shaped to resemble bundles of spears, and the railing was embellished with plaques depicting crossed swords and shields decorated with the head of the mythical Gorgon Medusa. The arches were adorned with iron castings representing shields, helmets and other items of a warrior’s armour.

At the south-east corner of the Engineers’ Castle the granite quay of the Fontanka’s right bank is interrupted by the rather unusual Second Engineers’ Bridge, – a bridge over dry land. This bridge, built in 1830, used to span the Voskresensky Canal, since filled up. The bridge with its handsome railing was spared, however.

Much the same is the story of another bridge, the one that spans a dried-up watercourse next to the pond of the Mikhailovsky Garden. Built also around 1830, it spanned a creek that connected the pond with the Voskresensky Canal mentioned above. In the mid-1830s two more masonry bridges were built in the vicinity of the Engineers’ Castle, both designed by P. Bazaine.

One, now known as the First Garden Bridge, carried Sadovaya (Garden) Street over the Moika (in 1907-8 its masonry arch was replaced by one of steel); the other, called the Lower Swan Bridge, spanned the Swan Canal. Stylized Roman weapons are the motif of the railing and the lamp-posts of both these bridges.

Their architectural design was possibly worked out by C. Rossi. The St. Panteleimon’s suspension bridge remained in service for eighty-five years. In 1908 the risk of its collapse under the weight of ever heavier traffic caused it to be taken down and replaced with an arch bridge of steel, designed by A. Pshenitsky and L. Ilyin.

To avoid any conflict with its architectural entourage Ilyin introduced into its decor the same motifs, such as spears, shields, etc., that had been used in decorating the neighbouring bridges over the Moika, built in the nineteenth century. In 1967 the so-called Second Garden Bridge, with a span of modern reinforced-concrete construction, was built at the south-west corner of the Field of Mars. Its designers, E. Boltunova and L. Noskov, wished to unite it with the general scheme of the Field of Mars, which included the building of the former

Paul’s Guards Regiment barracks and the former Imperial stables built by V. Stasov, an outstanding Russian architect; and the lamp-posts for the new bridge were accordingly copied from those of the First Garden Bridge, while the railings repeated the pattern of those of a bridge now no longer extant, which had spanned the small river (since filled up) at the Narva Triumphal Gate and had been designed, possibly, also by V. Stasov.

A bit farther downstream from the Second Garden Bridge, where the Griboyedov Canal flows out of the Moika, stands one of old St. Petersburg’s architecturally most interesting bridges. It is composed, as it were, of three parts; the single-span Malo-Koniu-shenny (Small Stables) Bridge over the Moika, the similarly single-span Theatre Bridge over the Griboyedov Canal where it Jssues from the Moika, and a third, “false” bridge.

The latter’s decorative cast-iron arch creates together with the load-bearing arch of the Theatre Bridge a strictly symmetrical composition that completes very appropriately the panorama of the Griboyedov Canal. This unique structure and its arresting architectural decor were worked out by G. Traitteur after the introduction of some minor modifications into the initial project drawn up by E. Adam.

Somewhat earlier (in 1828) E. Adam and G. Traitteur had designed and built the Great Koniushenny Bridge over the Moika on the far side of the former Imperial stables.

Across from the building of the Kapelle the Moika is spanned by the wide Kapelle (Pevchesky) Bridge, built between 1838 and 1840. Like the Red Bridge, it has kept its old railings separating the footwalks from the roadway, though of greater interest is the outer railing – a masterpiece of cast-iron lace-work of beautiful design and meticulous craftsmanship. Both the architecture and decor of the Kapelle Bridge are the work of E. Adam.

The Moika bridges built in the first half of the nineteenth century rightly rank among the outstanding achievements of Russian architecture. Identical in construction (their arches are assembled of cast-iron “box” blocks), their exterior almost always carries some individual traits “Among our capital’s bridges,” wrote V. Kurbatov, a great authority on St. Petersburg’s architecture, “there are some that should figure prominently in the general history of art… We should be proud of them.”

Traffic in Nevsky Prospekt grew apace meantime, and the bridge was soon too narrow to handle it. It was widened, accordingly, by adding footwalks on either side, which rested on metal cantilevers. In early September of 1842, one of St. Petersburg newspapers commented as follows: “St. Petersburg’s liveliest spot was fenced off the other day to screen a passage-way for pedestrians along the left side of the Police Bridge, and this is now the topic of the day. They are building a kind of balcony the entire length of the bridge, which will widen it; or a footway, at any rate. . . and promenaders in the Nevsky will then be able to stroll this winter beyond the Police Bridge, as far as the corner of Admiralty oquare.

In 1844 asphalt blocks were used -for the first time in Russia-to pave the Police Bridge, and in this connection a newspaper reporter wrote the following lines: “I have been admiring daily the experimental paving of the crest of the Police Bridge with asphalt. Cast into cubes, asphalt stands up to the severest tests, for there is probably no other spot where traffic could be heavier than over this bridge.” When tram-lines were laid over it between 1904 and 1907 the bridge was widened again by the addition of several arches of similar construction, and certain alterations were made in accordance with a project drawn up by L. llyin, including the installation of the metal lamp-posts surviving to this day.

The architectural appearance of the city’s first cast-iron bridge is a good example of the way a new structural material can create new architectural forms. Cast iron is nearly five times stronger than granite; with the introduction of this material it became possible to build arches of entirely novel proportions, not so high and more sloping, and to make them lighter and more graceful than the arches of the eighteenth century masonry bridges. The new structure proved very successful and the Hastie project was accepted as a pattern; indeed, it was the world’s first standard metal bridge design which led to the manufacture, in the late 1810s, of cast-iron blocks for a whole series of new bridges that were to span the Moika.

Work on this project was interrupted by the War of 1812. In 1814, however, the first of the series, called the Red Bridge, spanned the Moika at Gorokhovaya Street. Although one hundred and forty years later its cast-iron vault was replaced with a modern structure of steel, the bridge has retained its original appearance, for Soviet experts took particular pains to restore the old granite obelisks with their lamps and gilded globes, as well as the railing separating the roadway from the footwalks – Hastie’s notable contribution to traffic safety.

Next after the Green and Red bridges came the Blue Bridge, completed in 1818. All three, incidentally, owe their names to the fact that the old timber structures had been painted green, red and blue, respectively.

In the early 1840s the construction of Mariinsky Palace was completed in the vicinity of the Blue Bridge.

In 1842-43 the Blue Bridge was reconstructed in such a manner that it came to form an extension of St. Isaac’s Square, attaining a width of nearly one hundred metres, which makes it one of the world’s widest bridges. The Potseluyev Bridge, the fourth cast-iron span over the Moika, was built in 1816 in Glinka Street, near the confluence of the Moika and Kriukov Canal. Potseluyev was the name of a tavern-keeper who used to do business once upon a time on the left bank of the Moika, near the bridge. The name, however, derives from the Russian for “kiss”, and legend prefers a more romantic explanation. There used to be a naval barracks nearby, it says, and sailors leaving to join their ships used to kiss their sweethearts good-bye on the bridge.

In 1907-8 the old cast-iron vault of the Potseluyev Bridge was replaced with a steel arch designed by A. Pshenitsky; nevertheless the general aspect of the bridge remained practically unchanged.

Bridge-building on a serial basis may be said to have been characteristic of St. Petersburg. The principle of standardization was already appreciated by Russian architects in the eighteenth century as being both economical and helpful in giving the rivers and canals of St. Petersburg that aspect of austerity and that unity of composition which became their outstanding architectural feature.

The Lomonosov and Old Kalinkin bridges have fared better than the rest of the seven mentioned, which either have lost their towers (as the Belinsky and Izmailovsky) in the second half of the nineteenth century or were completely rebuilt.

The Old Kalinkin and Lomonosov are among St. Petersburg’s most interesting bridges: their granite towers give them a distinctive appearance, an air reminiscent of the romantic past.

Even so, neither the towers nor the hanging chains serve merely decorative purposes: both bridges were originally built with bascule spans, the towers containing special mechanisms for raising the timber leaves of their central spans to allow the passage of sailing vessels.

Its banks were walled with granite, and the old wooden bridges began to be replaced with new and more durable structures whose timber beams rested on masonry piers embellished with lamp-posts of graceful design.

One of the first to be built in the 1780s was the Matveyev Bridge spanning the canal at its confluence with the Moika. The Pikalov Bridge, which appeared in the same period, spanned the Griboyedov Canal at its confluence with the Kriukov Canal.

During the current century more durable metal girders were laid on the piers of the Matveyev and Pikalov Bridges, but the general lines of both remained practically unchanged and the old lamp-posts were retained. Those on the Pikalov Bridge are particularly striking, built in the shape of graceful obelisks of granite.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries five new triple-span bridges appeared on the Kriu-kov Canal, similar in composition and design to the earlier two. All five were rebuilt considerably later, steel girders replacing the timber beams of the Decembrists’ (former Officers’), Torgovy, Old Nikolsky and Smezhny Bridges.

As to the Kashin Bridge, it was completely reconstructed in 1932; now it has a single arch of reinforced concrete, whose flowing contours set off the swift upward thrust of the St. Nicholas’s Cathedral belfry.

In the 1950s and early 1960s three metal footbridges were added to the picturesque series that spanned the Kriukov Canal. These were the Krasnoflotsky (Red Navy) Bridge over the Moika near a group of buildings known as New Holland; the Krasnogvardeisky (Red Guards) Bridge over the Griboyedov Canal at its confluence with the Kriukov Canal; and the Kras-noarmeisky (Red Army) Bridge over the Fontanka near the mouth of the canal.

The fine lines of the new bridges and their architectural finish faithfully done in the “Old St. Petersburg” style helped integrate them unobtrusively in the general architectural scheme of Old Kolomna.

Where the Yekaterininsky Canal cut across Nevsky Prospekt a masonry bridge was built, in 1766. It was named Kazan Bridge, being nearest to the Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan. As he worked on the project, Illarion Golenishchev-Kutuzov could never have imagined that a monument to his son, Field Marshal Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov, famous Russian soldier and hero of the War of 1812, would be set up seventy years later near his bridge, in front of the cathedral.

A decade later, in 1766, a second stone bridge spanned the same canal at its intersection with Gorokhovaya Street. The arch of its single span was faced with granite quadrae, the smooth ones alternating with others, hewn on all four sides to resemble a flattened pyramid. This gave what was a relatively modest structure a truly monumental look.

While several stone bridges were built in St. Petersburg during the eighteenth century and in later years, this is the only one that has kept its name of the Stone (Kamenny) Bridge, possibly because it brings out exceptionally strongly the singular beauty of stonework.