Trying to find information on when any of this Transformational Regeneration Area (Scottish Urbanism in Disguise) will open exactly is more difficult than trying to find a "street" name when having a 15 minute traipse aboot Cumbernauld...

Has @UR been let in on any dates?

There is no re-connection of Sighthill to the city centre -- there was already a bridge in place and that was removed.

So now we have spent a lot of money to get a fancier bridge.

Funny how in times of ongoing austerity well connected -- no pun intended -- hobby horders still seem to find a way.

Looking at the design and design drawings it does not appear to be particularly wheelchair/mobility impaired/ elderly friendly. The southern approach has a circuitous ramped route which I assume is meant for all mobility levels, but there appears to be few stopping-points with flat resting areas along the route. In addition, this curved route does not appear to have any kind of handrail and once you get to the top of the ramp and onto the bridge proper, there is no access to a handrail due to the planting buffers on either side. The north side does not look particularly user friendly either.
Looking at the Design and Access statements all of which can be accessed via the City Council Planning Portal,
https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PHKNIPEXFPK00
there is little or no mention of wheelchair users or the mobility impaired, and one wonders whether an audit for disabled users has been undertaken or if user groups have been properly consulted. Given that this project is one of the flagship regeneration projects in the city, I think it is important to scrutinise the supposed main access to this new neighbourhood and the idea that safe and ready access for all is a priority. Perhaps I am mistaken, and the project sponsors have adequate answers to these queries, but I still think these questions are worth asking.
I think that given the considerable change in level between Townhead and Sighthill the obvious solution for accessibility would have been the installation of lifts – there are many precedents throughout Europe- but for whatever reason this has been rejected as a design solution most likely due to cost and maintenance. During the original consultations on Sighthill – 5 or 6 years ago many of us suggested that a ramped solution was sub-optimal, but we didn’t expect that there would be so few handrails in evidence in the final design.
I do not know who at the City Council is responsible for scrutiny of the bridge, but perhaps someone from Neighbourhoods Regeneration and Sustainability or Sustrans could comment.

I wonder who is quicker; The Tories U-Turning after yet another disastrous policy distracted the public or FBOT posting negatively on an Urban Realm article?

Blue illumination at night looks creepy combined with corten brown. At least that'll keep junkies away, if that was the idea.

I actually think this looks great and will be well used. Yes there was a bridge there before but it was absolutely knackered.

Agree with Steve. It looks like decent quality and different. Look forward to using it.

I think the answer to the accessibility issues is in the name -- Sighthill.

While they are it could the middle class welfare of Sustrans take a look at Montrose Street?

Bit of a climb / drag / detour to get to Cathedral Street from Ingram Street.

Fantastic looking bridge from the motorway although the design easily distracts your vision. Could have turned out just like all the others but the Cor-ten looks superb.

I'd like to know what is being done about cycle access on the south side. At the moment, you can approach the bridge from the quiet, one-way road, North Wallace Street, and cross Baird Street at the crossing to get to the ramp on to the bridge. However, if coming in the opposite direction and because of the one-way road, there is no option but to go on to the busy (A804) Baird Street. In my view, North Wallace Street needs to be two-way for cyclists.

@10, I think the eventual solution is the North Hanover St Avenue.