Vol. CXVIII—3073
THE ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
LNovember 11, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Rolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E.C.4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Begistered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludqate Circus, London, E.C.4
Principal Contents
Notes and Comments ..... pages 747, 748 New Cinema at Beaconsfield (Illustrations) . 749, 751-3 Professional Societies.......................................................750
Correspondence . . . . . . . 754, 761 Lloyds Bank, Muswell Hill (Illustration) . . . 755 Corrie Lodge, Virginia Water (Illustrations) . . .757 Points from Papers ...... 758-761 A Mediaeval Tile Finial (Illustrations) . . . .762 The Housing Exhibition at Stuttgart (Illustrations) 763-767 Notes in Brief . . . . . . . .768
Messrs. Lewis’s New Building, Birmingham
(Illustrations)......................................................769
Building News in Parliament ...... 770 Legal Notes.......................................................................770
London Building Notes ...... 771, 772 The Week’s Building News................................... 773, 774 Building Contracts Open . . . . . . .775 Building Tenders..........................................................775, 776 Current Market Prices ...... 777, 778 Current Measured Kates ....... 779, 780
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Westminster Abbey has provided the architectural sennit ion of the past week. It arose upon the report of A Sub-Committee of the Cathedrals Commission appbihted by the Church Assembly, and deals with (the 01 estion of providing additional space for national ,monju(hents and memorials. The Sub-Committee came £0 ihe conclusion that there is no available space in thduAbbey for further memorials; they were opposed to t&e removal of any of the existing monuments; and the (ismissed the idea of building, on another site, a Eall of Fame ’1 to receive future national me ials, being of opinion that, whatever the archi
tectural merits of such a hall might be, it would be lacMng in all the profound associations, historical and religious, which the Abbey furnishes. We may en- Horse this last conclusion without agreeing to a previous dictum that the Abbey has held for centuries a position as the place where the nation treasures the memory of the illustrious dead. This sentiment, in our view, is one of comparatively recent growth. Had the tradition and the sentiment been as long and continuous as the report suggests, it is unlikely that the Abbey would be cluttered up with the graves _ and monuments of so many, no doubt worthy, but entirely undistinguished people of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries. Probably when the Abbey ceased to be the burial place of kings, less vigilance was exercised on the claims of those admitted to sepulture. Even since public opinion began to centre upon the Abbey the idea of a national Vahalla or Pantheon, many famous men have been buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral. It is only within the past two or three decades that the sentiment has crystallised so strongly in fact as to demand that only those whom the nation desires to honour shall be admitted to burial within the Abbey walls. In ruling .out all idea of removing existing monuments, the Sub-Committee seems to have lost sight of the fact that it is doubtful whether the Abbey ever possessed the attribute of a national Vahalla before the present century, and that, if effect is to be given to such a conception, some reconditioning of the interior is desirable to fit the building for this purpose.
* * *
The Sub-Committee’s preliminary conclusions left them no option but to propose an extension of the Abbey buildings, which they suggest might take the form either of an additional north aisle, or, what they regard as a more satisfactory solution, a new building to be erected on the vacant ground alongside Henry VII’s Chapel to the east of the Chapter House.
It is noteworthy that, with the exception of Lord Hugh Cecil, the Sub-Committee consisted entirely of ecclesiastics, and it may explain why solutions so generally condemned by architects, and, if one may judge from correspondence in the Press, so unpopular with the public, have been put forward. We can understand why the parent Cathedrals Commission have published this report of their Sub-Committee without comment, and as a means of testing technical and public opinion. It is apparent from the resulting Press articles and correspondence that the idea of weeding out the unimportant monuments in the Abbey has a good many advocates, and there are others who would have the cloisters utilised to provide further space. It is not so certain, however, that space within the Abbey is actually exhausted. Sir Frederick Radcliffe, one of the Cathedrals Commissioners, has drawn attention to the large area which the Triforium affords. A stairway could be contrived for public access to this part of the Cathedral, and it would be no less honour to have a memorial here than in some modern addition. The report will lead to a ventilation of public opinion on the question, which both the Cathedrals Commission and its Sub-Committee are agreed is urgent. But why the latter should boggle at weeding out the existing memorials is somewhat obscure. There has been little or no clerical opposition to disinterring the bones of those buried in the City churches it was desired to destroy, or to removing Captain Coram from the chapel of the building which formed his lifework and his monument.
* * *
Though the excerpts we gave last week from the Presidential address at the A. A. summarised fairly completely the main indictment of modernism in architecture, it would hardly be fair to Mr. Jenkins to omit to state that he followed this recital of recent Continental extravagancies in design by a statement of his objections to the material—reinforced concrete —in which those designs were carried out. These were scheduled under the headings of colour, form, suitability as a building material and ease of erection. We fear that we can hardly subscribe to this drastic condemnation of a novel and very useful building material; and judging from the discussion that followed, in which Mr. Stanley Hamp, Mr. Howard Robertson, Professor C. H. Reilly, Mr. Robert Atkinson and others participated, the President hardly carried his audience with him in a total condemnation of the modernistic spirit. If one can generalise, it would be to say that while no one was disposed to
THE ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
LNovember 11, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Rolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E.C.4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Begistered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludqate Circus, London, E.C.4
Principal Contents
Notes and Comments ..... pages 747, 748 New Cinema at Beaconsfield (Illustrations) . 749, 751-3 Professional Societies.......................................................750
Correspondence . . . . . . . 754, 761 Lloyds Bank, Muswell Hill (Illustration) . . . 755 Corrie Lodge, Virginia Water (Illustrations) . . .757 Points from Papers ...... 758-761 A Mediaeval Tile Finial (Illustrations) . . . .762 The Housing Exhibition at Stuttgart (Illustrations) 763-767 Notes in Brief . . . . . . . .768
Messrs. Lewis’s New Building, Birmingham
(Illustrations)......................................................769
Building News in Parliament ...... 770 Legal Notes.......................................................................770
London Building Notes ...... 771, 772 The Week’s Building News................................... 773, 774 Building Contracts Open . . . . . . .775 Building Tenders..........................................................775, 776 Current Market Prices ...... 777, 778 Current Measured Kates ....... 779, 780
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Westminster Abbey has provided the architectural sennit ion of the past week. It arose upon the report of A Sub-Committee of the Cathedrals Commission appbihted by the Church Assembly, and deals with (the 01 estion of providing additional space for national ,monju(hents and memorials. The Sub-Committee came £0 ihe conclusion that there is no available space in thduAbbey for further memorials; they were opposed to t&e removal of any of the existing monuments; and the (ismissed the idea of building, on another site, a Eall of Fame ’1 to receive future national me ials, being of opinion that, whatever the archi
tectural merits of such a hall might be, it would be lacMng in all the profound associations, historical and religious, which the Abbey furnishes. We may en- Horse this last conclusion without agreeing to a previous dictum that the Abbey has held for centuries a position as the place where the nation treasures the memory of the illustrious dead. This sentiment, in our view, is one of comparatively recent growth. Had the tradition and the sentiment been as long and continuous as the report suggests, it is unlikely that the Abbey would be cluttered up with the graves _ and monuments of so many, no doubt worthy, but entirely undistinguished people of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries. Probably when the Abbey ceased to be the burial place of kings, less vigilance was exercised on the claims of those admitted to sepulture. Even since public opinion began to centre upon the Abbey the idea of a national Vahalla or Pantheon, many famous men have been buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral. It is only within the past two or three decades that the sentiment has crystallised so strongly in fact as to demand that only those whom the nation desires to honour shall be admitted to burial within the Abbey walls. In ruling .out all idea of removing existing monuments, the Sub-Committee seems to have lost sight of the fact that it is doubtful whether the Abbey ever possessed the attribute of a national Vahalla before the present century, and that, if effect is to be given to such a conception, some reconditioning of the interior is desirable to fit the building for this purpose.
* * *
The Sub-Committee’s preliminary conclusions left them no option but to propose an extension of the Abbey buildings, which they suggest might take the form either of an additional north aisle, or, what they regard as a more satisfactory solution, a new building to be erected on the vacant ground alongside Henry VII’s Chapel to the east of the Chapter House.
It is noteworthy that, with the exception of Lord Hugh Cecil, the Sub-Committee consisted entirely of ecclesiastics, and it may explain why solutions so generally condemned by architects, and, if one may judge from correspondence in the Press, so unpopular with the public, have been put forward. We can understand why the parent Cathedrals Commission have published this report of their Sub-Committee without comment, and as a means of testing technical and public opinion. It is apparent from the resulting Press articles and correspondence that the idea of weeding out the unimportant monuments in the Abbey has a good many advocates, and there are others who would have the cloisters utilised to provide further space. It is not so certain, however, that space within the Abbey is actually exhausted. Sir Frederick Radcliffe, one of the Cathedrals Commissioners, has drawn attention to the large area which the Triforium affords. A stairway could be contrived for public access to this part of the Cathedral, and it would be no less honour to have a memorial here than in some modern addition. The report will lead to a ventilation of public opinion on the question, which both the Cathedrals Commission and its Sub-Committee are agreed is urgent. But why the latter should boggle at weeding out the existing memorials is somewhat obscure. There has been little or no clerical opposition to disinterring the bones of those buried in the City churches it was desired to destroy, or to removing Captain Coram from the chapel of the building which formed his lifework and his monument.
* * *
Though the excerpts we gave last week from the Presidential address at the A. A. summarised fairly completely the main indictment of modernism in architecture, it would hardly be fair to Mr. Jenkins to omit to state that he followed this recital of recent Continental extravagancies in design by a statement of his objections to the material—reinforced concrete —in which those designs were carried out. These were scheduled under the headings of colour, form, suitability as a building material and ease of erection. We fear that we can hardly subscribe to this drastic condemnation of a novel and very useful building material; and judging from the discussion that followed, in which Mr. Stanley Hamp, Mr. Howard Robertson, Professor C. H. Reilly, Mr. Robert Atkinson and others participated, the President hardly carried his audience with him in a total condemnation of the modernistic spirit. If one can generalise, it would be to say that while no one was disposed to