The ARCHITECT
& BUILDING NEWS
Vol. CXVIII — 3078
December 16, 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......................................... Pages 913, 914 The Proposed Charing Cross Bridge................................. 915, 916 Professional Societies........................................................916 Church of Christ, Scientist, Southport; Sunday
School Building- (Illustrations)...................... 917-919, 926 Correspondence....................................................................... 920 Cottages, Ganwick Corner, Barnet (Illustrations).................... 921 Charing Cross Bridge....................................................................................................................... 922 The Covered Shopping Centre (Illustrations)................... 923-927 Points from Papers..................................................... 928-930
Building News in Parliament..............................................931 Notes in Brief......................................................................... 931 London Building Notes.......................................................... 932
The Week’s Building News................................... 933, 934 Building Contracts Open ..............................................935 Building Tenders..................................................... 935, 937 Current Market Prices...................................................... 936, 937 Current Measured Rates................................................... 938, 939 Building Wage Grades........................................................... 940
NOTES AND COMMENTS
The London correspondent of The Manchester Guardian has recently drawn attention to the number of new buildings in the northern city that are faced with Portland stone; and Manchester, like London, must seemingly be credited with a considerable amount of Dorsetshire in its composition. Since 1918 about 25 new buildings, many of considerable size and importance, bear witness to the efficacy of the southern limestone for weathering pleasantly in the northern city’s climate. Our contemporary has long been noted for its attention to, and sound criticism of,
new architectural works, and the devotion of the correspondent in question, Mr. James Bone, to the cause of good building has recently been fittingly recognised by his election as an hon. associate of the R. I. B. A. Mr. Bone, who has also been a member of the Council of the Architecture Club since its inception, will be known to many readers as the author of that excellent book “The London Perambulator. ”
Our sympathies must lie with the plea of a St. Pancras Borough Councillor for soundproof flats. The L. C. C. are committed to the erection of a large block of flats on the Ossulston Street site in that borough. This, it is stated, will house 3, 000 inhabitants, of whom, approximately, two-thirds will be children. Councillor Stone himself lives in a solidlooking block of flats, which provides a fine playground on the roof. Yet even the few children in the block cannot be permitted to play there. ˮEvery
sound, every footstep, is heard and felt below. Not a game, however gentle, but gas mantles are broken; sick people disturbed. ” One is tempted to think that this block of flats is less solid than it looks; but the capacity of concrete floors as conductors of sound must sometimes be experienced to be believed. We can recall one comparatively new Government office where every footfall on the concrete floors can be heard below, even though the floors are covered with wood blocks. The possibilities of noise in a building housing 3, 000 people is rather appalling, and we trust that the L. C. C. have duly considered and provided as far as possible against them.
The C. P. R. E. held their first annual general meeting last week, and one may gather from the remarks of Lord Crawford and his co-adjutors that they are greatly encouraged for a year of effort by the effect already produced in the minds of our rural population and its local governing bodies. The meeting has been so generally reported in the general press that we may limit our review of it to one topic — ”ribbon
development’’ — which Professor Patrick Abercrombie introduced in seconding the adoption of the report. ”Ribbon development, ” in the deliberations of the C. P. R. E. and kindred bodies, seems, unhappily, to be becoming something of an obsession; but it does not appear to us to be the worst or even the most pressing of the problems which the countryside preservers have to face. We have many times drawn attention to the evil manner in which it is carried out, but the vital objections to the principle we do not remember to have seen explicitly stated. Presumably, the gradual extention of buildings along the roadside, linking up hamlet to village and village to town, is a potent factor in urbanising the country; in destroying the rural appearance of large stretches of countryside for the sake of a comparatively small amount of house accommodation. The objection can scarcely arise from the fact that the houses shut out the view of the country from people who speed along the roads with no other idea but getting from one point to another in the shortest possible time. Nor need the pedestrian and the country rambler be considered, for they cannot now walk along country roads with safety, let alone comfort; and their only course is to take to the footpaths behind the houses, where the view, at any rate, may be uninterrupted.
”Ribbon development” is no new thing; it is the
plan on which all our great urban centres have developed, and the principle has become more or less ingrained in the national mind. It has certain obvious advantages to the builder who wants to erect houses cheaply, for it eliminates the construction of roads on the lavish scale required by local bylaws; it offers some possibility of getting drainage, water, gas and electric current without incurring the extortionate charges which local authorities and public utility companies invariably demand for a few yards of extra main. Nor can one ignore the selfish factor, for the man who elects to live in the country, may, from his roadside dwelling, obtain very fine open views, either back or front (even though his house interrupts the rural solitudes or interferes with some other person’s prospect), which he would not enjoy in a closer form of development.
Still, ”ribbon development, ” if it is an evil, will not be cured by taxing it out of existence, as Professor Abercrombie appeared to suggest. That would merely be to substitute one evil for another, for apart from all the expense of officials and cumbrous machinery required to collect the toll, its imposition would promptly shut down the building of the houses that are
& BUILDING NEWS
Vol. CXVIII — 3078
December 16, 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......................................... Pages 913, 914 The Proposed Charing Cross Bridge................................. 915, 916 Professional Societies........................................................916 Church of Christ, Scientist, Southport; Sunday
School Building- (Illustrations)...................... 917-919, 926 Correspondence....................................................................... 920 Cottages, Ganwick Corner, Barnet (Illustrations).................... 921 Charing Cross Bridge....................................................................................................................... 922 The Covered Shopping Centre (Illustrations)................... 923-927 Points from Papers..................................................... 928-930
Building News in Parliament..............................................931 Notes in Brief......................................................................... 931 London Building Notes.......................................................... 932
The Week’s Building News................................... 933, 934 Building Contracts Open ..............................................935 Building Tenders..................................................... 935, 937 Current Market Prices...................................................... 936, 937 Current Measured Rates................................................... 938, 939 Building Wage Grades........................................................... 940
NOTES AND COMMENTS
The London correspondent of The Manchester Guardian has recently drawn attention to the number of new buildings in the northern city that are faced with Portland stone; and Manchester, like London, must seemingly be credited with a considerable amount of Dorsetshire in its composition. Since 1918 about 25 new buildings, many of considerable size and importance, bear witness to the efficacy of the southern limestone for weathering pleasantly in the northern city’s climate. Our contemporary has long been noted for its attention to, and sound criticism of,
new architectural works, and the devotion of the correspondent in question, Mr. James Bone, to the cause of good building has recently been fittingly recognised by his election as an hon. associate of the R. I. B. A. Mr. Bone, who has also been a member of the Council of the Architecture Club since its inception, will be known to many readers as the author of that excellent book “The London Perambulator. ”
Our sympathies must lie with the plea of a St. Pancras Borough Councillor for soundproof flats. The L. C. C. are committed to the erection of a large block of flats on the Ossulston Street site in that borough. This, it is stated, will house 3, 000 inhabitants, of whom, approximately, two-thirds will be children. Councillor Stone himself lives in a solidlooking block of flats, which provides a fine playground on the roof. Yet even the few children in the block cannot be permitted to play there. ˮEvery
sound, every footstep, is heard and felt below. Not a game, however gentle, but gas mantles are broken; sick people disturbed. ” One is tempted to think that this block of flats is less solid than it looks; but the capacity of concrete floors as conductors of sound must sometimes be experienced to be believed. We can recall one comparatively new Government office where every footfall on the concrete floors can be heard below, even though the floors are covered with wood blocks. The possibilities of noise in a building housing 3, 000 people is rather appalling, and we trust that the L. C. C. have duly considered and provided as far as possible against them.
The C. P. R. E. held their first annual general meeting last week, and one may gather from the remarks of Lord Crawford and his co-adjutors that they are greatly encouraged for a year of effort by the effect already produced in the minds of our rural population and its local governing bodies. The meeting has been so generally reported in the general press that we may limit our review of it to one topic — ”ribbon
development’’ — which Professor Patrick Abercrombie introduced in seconding the adoption of the report. ”Ribbon development, ” in the deliberations of the C. P. R. E. and kindred bodies, seems, unhappily, to be becoming something of an obsession; but it does not appear to us to be the worst or even the most pressing of the problems which the countryside preservers have to face. We have many times drawn attention to the evil manner in which it is carried out, but the vital objections to the principle we do not remember to have seen explicitly stated. Presumably, the gradual extention of buildings along the roadside, linking up hamlet to village and village to town, is a potent factor in urbanising the country; in destroying the rural appearance of large stretches of countryside for the sake of a comparatively small amount of house accommodation. The objection can scarcely arise from the fact that the houses shut out the view of the country from people who speed along the roads with no other idea but getting from one point to another in the shortest possible time. Nor need the pedestrian and the country rambler be considered, for they cannot now walk along country roads with safety, let alone comfort; and their only course is to take to the footpaths behind the houses, where the view, at any rate, may be uninterrupted.
”Ribbon development” is no new thing; it is the
plan on which all our great urban centres have developed, and the principle has become more or less ingrained in the national mind. It has certain obvious advantages to the builder who wants to erect houses cheaply, for it eliminates the construction of roads on the lavish scale required by local bylaws; it offers some possibility of getting drainage, water, gas and electric current without incurring the extortionate charges which local authorities and public utility companies invariably demand for a few yards of extra main. Nor can one ignore the selfish factor, for the man who elects to live in the country, may, from his roadside dwelling, obtain very fine open views, either back or front (even though his house interrupts the rural solitudes or interferes with some other person’s prospect), which he would not enjoy in a closer form of development.
Still, ”ribbon development, ” if it is an evil, will not be cured by taxing it out of existence, as Professor Abercrombie appeared to suggest. That would merely be to substitute one evil for another, for apart from all the expense of officials and cumbrous machinery required to collect the toll, its imposition would promptly shut down the building of the houses that are