THE PROPOSED CHARING CROSS BRIDGE
We print on another page the correspondence that has passed between the R. I. B. A. and the Ministry of Transport in regard to the consideration of the scheme for a double-decked bridge at Charing Cross. In brief, the position stands as follows: After the report of the Royal Commission in favour of this scheme, the Government proposed that it should be reviewed in detail by a committee of three engineers, one to be nominated by the Ministry of Transport, one by the L. C. C., and one by the Southern Railway. The first two selections were duly made, but the railway, for reasons not fully disclosed, but which may be guessed at, preferred not to make any appointment.
It might be imagined that the two engineers now engaged on framing a report on the scheme, having both of them previously advocated the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge, would necessarily be unsympathetic towards it, but such an assumption ought not to be made, as we have no reason to suppose that they will not approach the question with minds unbiassed by what has gone before, and therefore do their best to arrive at the most economical and practical solution of the problem presenting itself.
Let us suppose that they succeed. How far does that carry us towards the goal aimed at? Surely we must not content ourselves with a merely ‘‘economical and practical” interpretation of a proposal that would have such a far-reaching effect on the character of London as must a bridge and its accessories, on the scale demanded, placed in this central and dominating position.
This is the point clearly visualised by the R. I. B. A. The problem is undoubtedly more an æsthetic than a practical one; indeed its practicability was demonstrated in the report of the Royal Commission, only in sketch form, it is true, and with merely approximate estimates, but granted that something more definite was required, such definition was bound to implicate
architectural considerations quite as much as economic ones. What is the use of having a bridge we can afford if it is to be æsthetically a disaster when completed? We need not only a useful bridge but also a fine one, and the method hitherto adopted, and apparently still approved, of obtaining a design from an engineer and then inviting an architect to titivate it up, never has and never will secure a satisfactory result. The R. I. B. A. recognises this, and very reasonably suggests the collaboration should take effect from the start. The Government does not, and replies that when the scheme is worked out, then and then only may the architect be invited to put a few frills on. Possibly the Ministry of Transport may not be aware that the scheme, more or less in its present form, was submitted to the Royal Commission by an architect and adopted with no fundamental variation; possibly it is aware and the scheme is the more suspect on that account; in either case this is not the important point, the main issue being to find some way of influencing our Government towards giving just a little attention to the artistic aspects of the matters within its control.
How is it that the State contrives to get so badly served? Look at the recent coinage issue and note the poverty of the designs, so far below the current standard of the sculptor’s art both in this and other countries. If the negotiations between the Royal Mint and some of our leading sculptors were disclosed, what a delightful farce could be built up around them; and there is but little difference in the attitude of other Government departments towards the artists with whom they happen to come in contact. Possibly as a matter of conscience, or, possibly, to save their face before the public, the Royal Commission of Fine Art was appointed, but it does not seem to get the opportunity of dealing with any matter of major importance. The worst feature is that the example set by
“NOW, COOK, MAKE IT LOOK PRETTY. ”
“YES, MUM — BUT WHAT ON EARTH MADE YOU REFUSE HELP EARLIER? ”
We print on another page the correspondence that has passed between the R. I. B. A. and the Ministry of Transport in regard to the consideration of the scheme for a double-decked bridge at Charing Cross. In brief, the position stands as follows: After the report of the Royal Commission in favour of this scheme, the Government proposed that it should be reviewed in detail by a committee of three engineers, one to be nominated by the Ministry of Transport, one by the L. C. C., and one by the Southern Railway. The first two selections were duly made, but the railway, for reasons not fully disclosed, but which may be guessed at, preferred not to make any appointment.
It might be imagined that the two engineers now engaged on framing a report on the scheme, having both of them previously advocated the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge, would necessarily be unsympathetic towards it, but such an assumption ought not to be made, as we have no reason to suppose that they will not approach the question with minds unbiassed by what has gone before, and therefore do their best to arrive at the most economical and practical solution of the problem presenting itself.
Let us suppose that they succeed. How far does that carry us towards the goal aimed at? Surely we must not content ourselves with a merely ‘‘economical and practical” interpretation of a proposal that would have such a far-reaching effect on the character of London as must a bridge and its accessories, on the scale demanded, placed in this central and dominating position.
This is the point clearly visualised by the R. I. B. A. The problem is undoubtedly more an æsthetic than a practical one; indeed its practicability was demonstrated in the report of the Royal Commission, only in sketch form, it is true, and with merely approximate estimates, but granted that something more definite was required, such definition was bound to implicate
architectural considerations quite as much as economic ones. What is the use of having a bridge we can afford if it is to be æsthetically a disaster when completed? We need not only a useful bridge but also a fine one, and the method hitherto adopted, and apparently still approved, of obtaining a design from an engineer and then inviting an architect to titivate it up, never has and never will secure a satisfactory result. The R. I. B. A. recognises this, and very reasonably suggests the collaboration should take effect from the start. The Government does not, and replies that when the scheme is worked out, then and then only may the architect be invited to put a few frills on. Possibly the Ministry of Transport may not be aware that the scheme, more or less in its present form, was submitted to the Royal Commission by an architect and adopted with no fundamental variation; possibly it is aware and the scheme is the more suspect on that account; in either case this is not the important point, the main issue being to find some way of influencing our Government towards giving just a little attention to the artistic aspects of the matters within its control.
How is it that the State contrives to get so badly served? Look at the recent coinage issue and note the poverty of the designs, so far below the current standard of the sculptor’s art both in this and other countries. If the negotiations between the Royal Mint and some of our leading sculptors were disclosed, what a delightful farce could be built up around them; and there is but little difference in the attitude of other Government departments towards the artists with whom they happen to come in contact. Possibly as a matter of conscience, or, possibly, to save their face before the public, the Royal Commission of Fine Art was appointed, but it does not seem to get the opportunity of dealing with any matter of major importance. The worst feature is that the example set by
“NOW, COOK, MAKE IT LOOK PRETTY. ”
“YES, MUM — BUT WHAT ON EARTH MADE YOU REFUSE HELP EARLIER? ”