Vol. CXVIII—3074
The ARCHITECT
& BUILDING NEWS
November 18, 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
Notes and Comments.....................................page 781, 782 Competition Besult . . . . . . . 782 Plastic Yield, Shrinkage and other Problems of
Concrete Design..................................... 783, 784, 798 New Synagogue, Withington, Manchester (Illus
trations) ........ 785-787 Correspondence . . . . . . . .788 Withington Public Library (Illustrations) . . 789, 790 The Parr’s Wood Motor ’Bus Depot (Illus
trations) . . . . . . 790, 791, 814 Books and Publications . . . . . . .792 New Needs and Modern Notions (Illustrations) . 793, 794 Competition Review .......................................................794
Borne Scholarship (Illustrations)....................................795 Whiteways End, Farnham, Surrey (Illustrations) . 796, 797 Professional Societies . . . . . . .798 The Stuttgart Housing Exhibition (Illustrations)- . 799-803 Points from Papers ........ 804 Notes in Brief . . . . . . . . . S05 Building News in Parliament ...... 806 London Building Notes ...... S07, 808 The Week’s Building News................................... 809, 810 Building Contracts Open ....... 811 Building Tenders . ....................................811, 812
Current Market Prices ...... 813, 814 Current Measured Bates.............................................815, 816
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Thee rrc on d en c e about the suggested addition to
WestnynsjnS Abbey still continues, and, rather B&aturally/Nias produced suggestions for various other OlteraiioiS^aiid improvements. We a>re not particularly -impressed with the argument that opposition to jheNmggested Addition argues a lack of faith in the ieapbilfties of our architects. That specious plea was Mvavtced aoijt Waterloo Bridge; although, if there
aothbeen such a widespread agitation concerning
sfructiKe, it is extremely doubtful whether any tarchitiect wopld have been asked to so much as sketch
design for a new bridge at this point. Most architects, iwe feel, would rather be engaged in designing hew buildings than in tinkering about or altering the good bid ones. It is one of the maddening phenomena _nf—the. .present age that most of the interesting or important proposals for new building -work arise out of or involve the destruction or alteration of some fine, complete and beautiful example of the architecture of a past age. With acres of slums in every direction calling for destruction, both architects and the community w’ould be benefited if the erection of our, important new buildings were projected on the sites of these sordid areas instead of at the expense of the diminishing stock of good buildings that we possess. There will, of course, be occasions when the needs of the people necessitate a sacrifice, but they are not to be welcomed. We do not, for a moment, doubt that, if an addition to the Abbey is imperative, the architect will be found who will make a seemly contribution of it. But we are not convinced that the Sub-Committee of the Cathedrals Commission have made out a case on either of their main grounds. They reported that there was no room for more memorials. It is a moot question whether further memorials should be allowed in the Abbey, certainly of the kind that has been allowed in the past; whether the ecclesiastical uses of the church are to be sacrificed to the exigencies of sepulchral sculpture. Even so, the Sub-Committee appears to have overlooked the very considerable space in the Triforium, to which Sir Frederick Radcliffe, a member of the Cathedrals Commission, has drawn attention. And the other ground advanced by the Sub-Committee in support of their proposal, that sepulture or a memorial in a separate building on another site, would not carry the same honour or solemnity as burial in the Abbey, seems to us without point. For unless you made a very decided breach somewhere in the Abbey walls, which few people would countenance, your addition would be no more than a modern outbuilding, however fine, and the sentiment attaching to burial
within long-hallowed walls would be as much absent as if the building was on the other side of the street. Our chief objection to an addition, however, is the fact that it would take up a good deal of the none too large area of open ground about the Abbey, which is so necessary for its adequate setting, and to enable it to be properly seen. If some addition must be made, therefore, let it be on a fresh site—on, say, the site of the Abingdon Street houses, and linked up with a cloister to the main building.
* **** *
The controversy has, however, produced one suggestion, by Mr. Gerald Henderson, for an improvement in the Abbey which is worth consideration. He points out that the screen which shuts out the choir from the nave is neither old nor necessary from a religious point of view. According to him, the western face, containing two 18th-century monuments, was erected in 1831, while the stalls of the dignitaries on the eastern side was set up in 1848, and the present divided organ-case was placed in position in 1884. The removal of the screen would open up a magnificent vista from the -west door; it-would, moreover, remove an impediment that has often proved a nuisance at Coronations and other important ceremonies. Incidentally, though Mr. Henderson does not advance this, it would give, in the nave, more room for the congregation, which is at present limited to the restricted accommodation of the transepts.
******
The present position of the campaign instituted by the Association of Architects, Surveyors and Technical Assistants to establish a scale of minimum salaries for architectural assistants appears to have been misstated in our issue for November 4. We are given to understand that representatives of the A.A.S.T.S. and a sub-committee of the Allied Societies Conference met eighteen months ago, and agreed upon a report which recommended certain basic rates of pay. These were not the scales originally drawn up by the A.A.S.T.S., but were those proposed to, and accepted by, them, and approved by a number of the Allied Societies. They provide for salaries of £3 to £3 10s. per week, according to class of town, for junior assistants with not less than four years’ training, either in an architect’s office or in a recognised school, or both, who have passed the R.I.B.A. Intermediate Examination; and for salaries of from £5 to £6 per week, according to class of town, for assistants, of not less than seven years’ training, who are either Associates or Licentiates of the R.I.B.A., or who have qualified by examination for election as Associates,
The ARCHITECT
& BUILDING NEWS
November 18, 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
Notes and Comments.....................................page 781, 782 Competition Besult . . . . . . . 782 Plastic Yield, Shrinkage and other Problems of
Concrete Design..................................... 783, 784, 798 New Synagogue, Withington, Manchester (Illus
trations) ........ 785-787 Correspondence . . . . . . . .788 Withington Public Library (Illustrations) . . 789, 790 The Parr’s Wood Motor ’Bus Depot (Illus
trations) . . . . . . 790, 791, 814 Books and Publications . . . . . . .792 New Needs and Modern Notions (Illustrations) . 793, 794 Competition Review .......................................................794
Borne Scholarship (Illustrations)....................................795 Whiteways End, Farnham, Surrey (Illustrations) . 796, 797 Professional Societies . . . . . . .798 The Stuttgart Housing Exhibition (Illustrations)- . 799-803 Points from Papers ........ 804 Notes in Brief . . . . . . . . . S05 Building News in Parliament ...... 806 London Building Notes ...... S07, 808 The Week’s Building News................................... 809, 810 Building Contracts Open ....... 811 Building Tenders . ....................................811, 812
Current Market Prices ...... 813, 814 Current Measured Bates.............................................815, 816
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Thee rrc on d en c e about the suggested addition to
WestnynsjnS Abbey still continues, and, rather B&aturally/Nias produced suggestions for various other OlteraiioiS^aiid improvements. We a>re not particularly -impressed with the argument that opposition to jheNmggested Addition argues a lack of faith in the ieapbilfties of our architects. That specious plea was Mvavtced aoijt Waterloo Bridge; although, if there
aothbeen such a widespread agitation concerning
sfructiKe, it is extremely doubtful whether any tarchitiect wopld have been asked to so much as sketch
design for a new bridge at this point. Most architects, iwe feel, would rather be engaged in designing hew buildings than in tinkering about or altering the good bid ones. It is one of the maddening phenomena _nf—the. .present age that most of the interesting or important proposals for new building -work arise out of or involve the destruction or alteration of some fine, complete and beautiful example of the architecture of a past age. With acres of slums in every direction calling for destruction, both architects and the community w’ould be benefited if the erection of our, important new buildings were projected on the sites of these sordid areas instead of at the expense of the diminishing stock of good buildings that we possess. There will, of course, be occasions when the needs of the people necessitate a sacrifice, but they are not to be welcomed. We do not, for a moment, doubt that, if an addition to the Abbey is imperative, the architect will be found who will make a seemly contribution of it. But we are not convinced that the Sub-Committee of the Cathedrals Commission have made out a case on either of their main grounds. They reported that there was no room for more memorials. It is a moot question whether further memorials should be allowed in the Abbey, certainly of the kind that has been allowed in the past; whether the ecclesiastical uses of the church are to be sacrificed to the exigencies of sepulchral sculpture. Even so, the Sub-Committee appears to have overlooked the very considerable space in the Triforium, to which Sir Frederick Radcliffe, a member of the Cathedrals Commission, has drawn attention. And the other ground advanced by the Sub-Committee in support of their proposal, that sepulture or a memorial in a separate building on another site, would not carry the same honour or solemnity as burial in the Abbey, seems to us without point. For unless you made a very decided breach somewhere in the Abbey walls, which few people would countenance, your addition would be no more than a modern outbuilding, however fine, and the sentiment attaching to burial
within long-hallowed walls would be as much absent as if the building was on the other side of the street. Our chief objection to an addition, however, is the fact that it would take up a good deal of the none too large area of open ground about the Abbey, which is so necessary for its adequate setting, and to enable it to be properly seen. If some addition must be made, therefore, let it be on a fresh site—on, say, the site of the Abingdon Street houses, and linked up with a cloister to the main building.
* **** *
The controversy has, however, produced one suggestion, by Mr. Gerald Henderson, for an improvement in the Abbey which is worth consideration. He points out that the screen which shuts out the choir from the nave is neither old nor necessary from a religious point of view. According to him, the western face, containing two 18th-century monuments, was erected in 1831, while the stalls of the dignitaries on the eastern side was set up in 1848, and the present divided organ-case was placed in position in 1884. The removal of the screen would open up a magnificent vista from the -west door; it-would, moreover, remove an impediment that has often proved a nuisance at Coronations and other important ceremonies. Incidentally, though Mr. Henderson does not advance this, it would give, in the nave, more room for the congregation, which is at present limited to the restricted accommodation of the transepts.
******
The present position of the campaign instituted by the Association of Architects, Surveyors and Technical Assistants to establish a scale of minimum salaries for architectural assistants appears to have been misstated in our issue for November 4. We are given to understand that representatives of the A.A.S.T.S. and a sub-committee of the Allied Societies Conference met eighteen months ago, and agreed upon a report which recommended certain basic rates of pay. These were not the scales originally drawn up by the A.A.S.T.S., but were those proposed to, and accepted by, them, and approved by a number of the Allied Societies. They provide for salaries of £3 to £3 10s. per week, according to class of town, for junior assistants with not less than four years’ training, either in an architect’s office or in a recognised school, or both, who have passed the R.I.B.A. Intermediate Examination; and for salaries of from £5 to £6 per week, according to class of town, for assistants, of not less than seven years’ training, who are either Associates or Licentiates of the R.I.B.A., or who have qualified by examination for election as Associates,