Vol. CXVIII — 3058
ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
July 29, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Bolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E. C. 4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London, E. C. 4
Principal Contents
The Loudon County Hall................................................ Page 171 Notes and Comments...................................................................172 Competition Results...................................................................172 Leas Cliff Hall, Folkestone (Illustrations)............................ 173-175 Competition News (Illustrations)......................... 176-179, 181-186
Professional Societies..........................................................180
Personal Notes................................................................... 180
The Geneva Competition (Illustrations)....................... 187-195, 202 Memoranda. IV. — Aluminium Paint (contd)....................... 196
The Stadium at Lyon (Illustrations)............................ 197, 198, 200
Book Reviews.................................................................... 202 Legal Notes.............................................................. 204, 212 London Building Notes....................................................... 206
Contracts Open..................................................................... 208 Building Tenders................................................................... 208
Current Market Prices.................................................210, 212 Current Measured Bates...................................................... 214, 216
THE LONDON COUNTY HALL
It must be a matter of great regret to architects generally, and Londoners in particular, that Mr.
Ralph Knott’s great building on the Thames bank has remained so long unfinished, the absence of the bay at the northern end giving a somewhat lopsided appearance to the structure and robbing it of much of its fine sweep. The report of the Establishment Committee, considered at last Tuesday’s meeting of the London County Council, recommending the further postponement of the completion of the building, prolongs the disappointment. It is not that the extra accommodation that would be afforded is not required; it is actually badly needed. Space is not only required for departments of the Council housed in sixteen other buildings, but also for extensions of other departments already accommodated in the existing structure. The capital commitments of the Council in respect of housing, bridges, street widenings, etc., are such, however, that the Committee have adjourned the consideration of the completion of the Hall until the financial obligations of the Council in other directions are more definitely known.
On the face of it, this cautious attitude seems wholly commendable; but one would like to be a little better assured that the Council’s work does not suffer by having to be carried on in seventeen other buildings instead of one, and that it is really an economy to continue the present scattered arrangement.
The question is apparently still undecided whether the uncompleted portion is to have central corridors, with offices on both sides, or whether they are to be on one side only. In the completed portion of the building, the rooms are on one side. It was a condition of the competition for the building that they should be so, though critics were not wanting then who thought that, however ideal or desirable such an arrangement might be in theory, in practice the Council was hardly justified in embarking on a system of planning that was then deemed too extravagant by even the most progressive commercial office builders. The Council’s Establishment Committee now favours central corridors with rooms on both sides, which would mean an addition of £55, 000 to the estimated cost of £600, 000 for carrying out the completion on the original lines.
Although the Council’s Establishment Committee is of opinion that the time is not opportune to proceed with the completion work, we are by no means convinced that they will gain anything by waiting or
that the future really holds out any promise of more propitious times from a financial point of view. And the Kingsway Improvement is a very striking illustration that the Council, even with the best intentions, can be penny wise and pound foolish. For over twenty-five years the disposal of the building sites on these new thoroughfares has dragged along, and there is still a considerable area to be taken up. Had the Council adhered to its original intention to undertake the building of shops and offices along these thoroughfares, it would have been in an immeasurably stronger position financially through the scheme, and it would have had finer streets. Even if, as has been contended, the Council has benefited through the delay by getting higher ground rents for the more recent lettings, as a result of the rise in values, they might have been getting increased rack rentals and over the whole period.
In the same way the Council’s policy of letting I dare not wait upon, I would in regard to the County Hall completion does not, on the face of it, make for economy. Assuming that they have to borrow the £600, 000, or £650, 000, and that interest and sinking fund charges total £35, 000 or £40, 000 a year, we question whether the sixteen additional buildings required do not cost more, quite apart from considerable expense in telephones, extra messengers, etc., involved to keep the Council’s scattered sections in touch with one another. No doubt some of these sixteen additional buildings also belong to the Council, but the fact that no rent is paid out for them does not justify the ignoring, in this calculation, of their freehold value or annual letting return.
From the æsthetic point of view, there is no question at issue. The building ought to be finished and finished speedily. It has not had the best of luck. Numerous alterations, not always for the better, were imposed upon the original conception; its erection was hung up during the War, and the finished portion had to be completed when building costs were at their highest peak. There have been sharp divisions of opinion upon the merits of the design, as there have been also about the great work of a distinguished architect which faces it across the river. Time has, however, removed the grievance of one critic who complained of the brilliant red of the tiles upon the roof; and, probably, most of the other criticisms are of like value. Since, however, delays are proverbially dangerous, we are all for completing the building forthwith, lest disappointment to-day becomes tragedy to-morrow.
ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
July 29, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Bolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E. C. 4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London, E. C. 4
Principal Contents
The Loudon County Hall................................................ Page 171 Notes and Comments...................................................................172 Competition Results...................................................................172 Leas Cliff Hall, Folkestone (Illustrations)............................ 173-175 Competition News (Illustrations)......................... 176-179, 181-186
Professional Societies..........................................................180
Personal Notes................................................................... 180
The Geneva Competition (Illustrations)....................... 187-195, 202 Memoranda. IV. — Aluminium Paint (contd)....................... 196
The Stadium at Lyon (Illustrations)............................ 197, 198, 200
Book Reviews.................................................................... 202 Legal Notes.............................................................. 204, 212 London Building Notes....................................................... 206
Contracts Open..................................................................... 208 Building Tenders................................................................... 208
Current Market Prices.................................................210, 212 Current Measured Bates...................................................... 214, 216
THE LONDON COUNTY HALL
It must be a matter of great regret to architects generally, and Londoners in particular, that Mr.
Ralph Knott’s great building on the Thames bank has remained so long unfinished, the absence of the bay at the northern end giving a somewhat lopsided appearance to the structure and robbing it of much of its fine sweep. The report of the Establishment Committee, considered at last Tuesday’s meeting of the London County Council, recommending the further postponement of the completion of the building, prolongs the disappointment. It is not that the extra accommodation that would be afforded is not required; it is actually badly needed. Space is not only required for departments of the Council housed in sixteen other buildings, but also for extensions of other departments already accommodated in the existing structure. The capital commitments of the Council in respect of housing, bridges, street widenings, etc., are such, however, that the Committee have adjourned the consideration of the completion of the Hall until the financial obligations of the Council in other directions are more definitely known.
On the face of it, this cautious attitude seems wholly commendable; but one would like to be a little better assured that the Council’s work does not suffer by having to be carried on in seventeen other buildings instead of one, and that it is really an economy to continue the present scattered arrangement.
The question is apparently still undecided whether the uncompleted portion is to have central corridors, with offices on both sides, or whether they are to be on one side only. In the completed portion of the building, the rooms are on one side. It was a condition of the competition for the building that they should be so, though critics were not wanting then who thought that, however ideal or desirable such an arrangement might be in theory, in practice the Council was hardly justified in embarking on a system of planning that was then deemed too extravagant by even the most progressive commercial office builders. The Council’s Establishment Committee now favours central corridors with rooms on both sides, which would mean an addition of £55, 000 to the estimated cost of £600, 000 for carrying out the completion on the original lines.
Although the Council’s Establishment Committee is of opinion that the time is not opportune to proceed with the completion work, we are by no means convinced that they will gain anything by waiting or
that the future really holds out any promise of more propitious times from a financial point of view. And the Kingsway Improvement is a very striking illustration that the Council, even with the best intentions, can be penny wise and pound foolish. For over twenty-five years the disposal of the building sites on these new thoroughfares has dragged along, and there is still a considerable area to be taken up. Had the Council adhered to its original intention to undertake the building of shops and offices along these thoroughfares, it would have been in an immeasurably stronger position financially through the scheme, and it would have had finer streets. Even if, as has been contended, the Council has benefited through the delay by getting higher ground rents for the more recent lettings, as a result of the rise in values, they might have been getting increased rack rentals and over the whole period.
In the same way the Council’s policy of letting I dare not wait upon, I would in regard to the County Hall completion does not, on the face of it, make for economy. Assuming that they have to borrow the £600, 000, or £650, 000, and that interest and sinking fund charges total £35, 000 or £40, 000 a year, we question whether the sixteen additional buildings required do not cost more, quite apart from considerable expense in telephones, extra messengers, etc., involved to keep the Council’s scattered sections in touch with one another. No doubt some of these sixteen additional buildings also belong to the Council, but the fact that no rent is paid out for them does not justify the ignoring, in this calculation, of their freehold value or annual letting return.
From the æsthetic point of view, there is no question at issue. The building ought to be finished and finished speedily. It has not had the best of luck. Numerous alterations, not always for the better, were imposed upon the original conception; its erection was hung up during the War, and the finished portion had to be completed when building costs were at their highest peak. There have been sharp divisions of opinion upon the merits of the design, as there have been also about the great work of a distinguished architect which faces it across the river. Time has, however, removed the grievance of one critic who complained of the brilliant red of the tiles upon the roof; and, probably, most of the other criticisms are of like value. Since, however, delays are proverbially dangerous, we are all for completing the building forthwith, lest disappointment to-day becomes tragedy to-morrow.