Vol. CXVIII—3072
ARCHITECT BUILDING NEWS
October 28, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Rolls Hodse, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E.C.4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, Londoij, E.C.4
Principal Contents
Notes and Comments ..... Pages 679, 680 Redecoration of Euston Waiting Hall (Illustration) . 681 Correspondence............................................................................682 Professional Societies.................................................................682 New Offices at Leek (Illustrations)......................................682-685 Digswell Lodge, Welwyn Garden City (Illustrations) 686-688 Wren Vignettes—II. (Illustrations)................................... 689, 690 Book Reviews.........................................................................690 Seventh Church of Christ, Scientist, Kensington (Illus
tration)...............................................................................691
The Architecture of an Industrial City—I. (Illustrations)
692-696 Legal Notes ...................................................................696
Points from Papers............................................ 697, 698 Notes in Brief............................................‘ 698 London Building Notes............................................ 699, TOO The Week’s Building News ................................................701, 702 Building Contracts Open.....................................................703
Building Tenders............................................ 703, 704, 706 Current Market Prices............................................ 705, 706 Current Measured Rates ................................................ 707, 708
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Lord Lee of Fareham has been speaking his mind about, the dilatory methods of the public authorities
teang with the Thames bridges question in LotSoii; in regard to which the Royal Commission, ovesi which he presided, was instructed to enquire anreport. with all possible speed. It is now nearly
that the report was delivered, since when no effective step has been taken. Mr. Percy Simmons, the Chairman of the L.C.C. Improvements Committee, naiiiains that the position of the Council is quite gleaij; Ithat the Royal Commission’s report made the jepnbaiion of Waterloo Bridge and the building of hAn w double-deck bridge at Charing Cross an integral scheme, and that they are entitled to go very closy into the feasibility of the Charing Cross structure before taking any steps at all. It is not clear to the majority of people why the practicability of the Charing Cross bridge should need such prolonged enquiry. There is no difficulty on the engineeringside, and one must presume, therefore, that^ the financial implications are frightening the Council, as they have for the past twenty years. But there seems little wisdom in boggling now over the cost of a bridge which London must have and should have had thirty years ago, if its responsible authorities had acted with prevision and ordinary wisdom.
* * *
For some time past there has been an uneasy feeling that the London County Council, while paying lipservice to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London, and to the Government’s expressed intentions with regard to those findings, were secretly determined to side-track or nullify them if possible, and go on with their original scheme for destroying Waterloo Bridge and doing nothing at Charing Cross. The long delay in preparing the report about the proposed Charing Cross bridge has certainly given colour to that feeling, and Lord Lee’s recent remonstrance was probably impelled by a desire to clear the air. It must be said that Lord Falmouth’s speech last week at the City of London Debating Club has heightened this suspicion. A former member of the L.C.C. Bridges Committee, he revived the old proposal for a new and widened Waterloo Bridge, which would cost so little, save so much, and avoid the necessity of considering any other expenditure on bridges for many years to come. His Lordship seems concerned less about really providing for London’s increasing traffic needs than making an appearance of doing so at the least possible cost. The congestion of the Strand, one of London’s main east to west thoroughfares, which would result
from a greatly widened Waterloo Bridge, is too appalling to be thought of. This objection to the old L.C.C. scheme has been stressed again and again by competent traffic and town-planning authorities, and the Council have always shirked, or equivocated over, the point. We were told that there would be no congestion; hut, if there was a wonderful tunnel under the Strand, it would take the cross traffic—a tunnel, with impossible gradients, which, incidently, would block up half the western arm of Aldwych. That fantastic idea was quickly dropped. Then to meet the always trenchant objection, it was rumoured that the new Waterloo Bridge would be a double-decker, carrying traffic over the Strand to the top of Bow Street. Nothing was said about the southern end, which would end 100 feet up in the air. Then the Strand was to he side-tracked altogether by. a new east to west thoroughfare somewhere on the line of Covent Garden. This, it is needless to add, would entail an expenditure of millions; a rather heavy price to pay to get over the intrinsic faults of a thoroughly bad scheme to which some members of the Council have, apparently, committed themselves. It is not surprising, in face of Lord Falmouth’s renewed advocacy of it, that Sir Lawrence Weaver reminded him that the L.C.C. loyally accepted the report, and pertinently asked whether he spoke for the L.C.C. •Lord Falmouth apparently speaks for himself, but still talks about the necessity of economy, forgetful that London is losing money daily through failure to grapple effectively with the traffic congestion. Still, if economy is the one matter to be studied, why does not he turn his attention to the waste of money on the, from a traffic standpoint, perfectly useless Lambeth Bridge.
-
********************
Mr. Neville Chamberlain, on the occasion of his recent visit to Manchester, laid stress on the necessity of voluntary agreement between contiguous local authorities on matters, such as regional planning, affecting their mutual welfare. He warned them against forcing the pace. “ To give a joint representative Committee executive power is no doubt attractive, because it promises quicker progress; but local authorities do not readily lightly part with their own powers, and it seems to me that sometimes the longest way round is the shortest way home. It is better to begin with advisory functions, and only to accept executive powers when these are voluntarily surrendered.” From the broad standpoint, this is sound common sense; but, considering the time it has taken to get the Town Planning Acts really moving,
ARCHITECT BUILDING NEWS
October 28, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Rolls Hodse, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E.C.4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, Londoij, E.C.4
Principal Contents
Notes and Comments ..... Pages 679, 680 Redecoration of Euston Waiting Hall (Illustration) . 681 Correspondence............................................................................682 Professional Societies.................................................................682 New Offices at Leek (Illustrations)......................................682-685 Digswell Lodge, Welwyn Garden City (Illustrations) 686-688 Wren Vignettes—II. (Illustrations)................................... 689, 690 Book Reviews.........................................................................690 Seventh Church of Christ, Scientist, Kensington (Illus
tration)...............................................................................691
The Architecture of an Industrial City—I. (Illustrations)
692-696 Legal Notes ...................................................................696
Points from Papers............................................ 697, 698 Notes in Brief............................................‘ 698 London Building Notes............................................ 699, TOO The Week’s Building News ................................................701, 702 Building Contracts Open.....................................................703
Building Tenders............................................ 703, 704, 706 Current Market Prices............................................ 705, 706 Current Measured Rates ................................................ 707, 708
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Lord Lee of Fareham has been speaking his mind about, the dilatory methods of the public authorities
teang with the Thames bridges question in LotSoii; in regard to which the Royal Commission, ovesi which he presided, was instructed to enquire anreport. with all possible speed. It is now nearly
that the report was delivered, since when no effective step has been taken. Mr. Percy Simmons, the Chairman of the L.C.C. Improvements Committee, naiiiains that the position of the Council is quite gleaij; Ithat the Royal Commission’s report made the jepnbaiion of Waterloo Bridge and the building of hAn w double-deck bridge at Charing Cross an integral scheme, and that they are entitled to go very closy into the feasibility of the Charing Cross structure before taking any steps at all. It is not clear to the majority of people why the practicability of the Charing Cross bridge should need such prolonged enquiry. There is no difficulty on the engineeringside, and one must presume, therefore, that^ the financial implications are frightening the Council, as they have for the past twenty years. But there seems little wisdom in boggling now over the cost of a bridge which London must have and should have had thirty years ago, if its responsible authorities had acted with prevision and ordinary wisdom.
* * *
For some time past there has been an uneasy feeling that the London County Council, while paying lipservice to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London, and to the Government’s expressed intentions with regard to those findings, were secretly determined to side-track or nullify them if possible, and go on with their original scheme for destroying Waterloo Bridge and doing nothing at Charing Cross. The long delay in preparing the report about the proposed Charing Cross bridge has certainly given colour to that feeling, and Lord Lee’s recent remonstrance was probably impelled by a desire to clear the air. It must be said that Lord Falmouth’s speech last week at the City of London Debating Club has heightened this suspicion. A former member of the L.C.C. Bridges Committee, he revived the old proposal for a new and widened Waterloo Bridge, which would cost so little, save so much, and avoid the necessity of considering any other expenditure on bridges for many years to come. His Lordship seems concerned less about really providing for London’s increasing traffic needs than making an appearance of doing so at the least possible cost. The congestion of the Strand, one of London’s main east to west thoroughfares, which would result
from a greatly widened Waterloo Bridge, is too appalling to be thought of. This objection to the old L.C.C. scheme has been stressed again and again by competent traffic and town-planning authorities, and the Council have always shirked, or equivocated over, the point. We were told that there would be no congestion; hut, if there was a wonderful tunnel under the Strand, it would take the cross traffic—a tunnel, with impossible gradients, which, incidently, would block up half the western arm of Aldwych. That fantastic idea was quickly dropped. Then to meet the always trenchant objection, it was rumoured that the new Waterloo Bridge would be a double-decker, carrying traffic over the Strand to the top of Bow Street. Nothing was said about the southern end, which would end 100 feet up in the air. Then the Strand was to he side-tracked altogether by. a new east to west thoroughfare somewhere on the line of Covent Garden. This, it is needless to add, would entail an expenditure of millions; a rather heavy price to pay to get over the intrinsic faults of a thoroughly bad scheme to which some members of the Council have, apparently, committed themselves. It is not surprising, in face of Lord Falmouth’s renewed advocacy of it, that Sir Lawrence Weaver reminded him that the L.C.C. loyally accepted the report, and pertinently asked whether he spoke for the L.C.C. •Lord Falmouth apparently speaks for himself, but still talks about the necessity of economy, forgetful that London is losing money daily through failure to grapple effectively with the traffic congestion. Still, if economy is the one matter to be studied, why does not he turn his attention to the waste of money on the, from a traffic standpoint, perfectly useless Lambeth Bridge.
-
********************
Mr. Neville Chamberlain, on the occasion of his recent visit to Manchester, laid stress on the necessity of voluntary agreement between contiguous local authorities on matters, such as regional planning, affecting their mutual welfare. He warned them against forcing the pace. “ To give a joint representative Committee executive power is no doubt attractive, because it promises quicker progress; but local authorities do not readily lightly part with their own powers, and it seems to me that sometimes the longest way round is the shortest way home. It is better to begin with advisory functions, and only to accept executive powers when these are voluntarily surrendered.” From the broad standpoint, this is sound common sense; but, considering the time it has taken to get the Town Planning Acts really moving,