The ARCHITECT
& BUILDING NEWS
Vol. CXVIII — 3080
December 30, 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 969, 970 The League of Nations Building (Illustrations)................................. 971, 973 Correspondence...................................................................................972 Professional Societies.............................................................................. 972
Books and Publications............................................................................ 974 Golders Green Synagogue (Illustrations).......................................... 975-979 New Forms for the Modern Shop-Front (Illus
trations) ............................................................ 980-983, 986 Points from Papers................................................................................ 984-986
Legal Notes........................................................................................... 986
Building News in Parliament ................................................... 987 London Building Notes.......................................................................... 988 The Week’s Building News............................................................ 989, 992 Building Contracts Open....................................................................... 990 Building Tenders.................................................................................... 990 Current Market Prices..................................................................... 991, 992
Current Measured Bates.................................................................. 993, 994
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Professor Patrick Abercrombie’s letter, printed on another page, is in the nature of a reply to certain criticisfas we made last week on his speech at the recent annual general meeting of the C. P. R. E. It will, perhaps, be as well to reprint the ‘‘chance phrase’’
which was the subject of our criticism, and here it is:
“Urban development is what most people agree in disliking, but it has been an extremely difficult thing to scotch it. One thing that we hope will go largely towards it is a very little known power in the Public
Health Act, 1906, the power to charge people who build a house on existing highways with the cost of
a new street. That sounds rather paradoxical. The direction of the existing highway — to which they
are building a new house on a new road that cannot be erected if the local authority wishes to oppose it. And it is quite logical. The country road is designed for through traffic; if you build houses on both sides you need to increase the width of the road for the stopping traffic to supply both houses. People have got off hitherto if they build on the existing road. We hope, by a steady application of the powers of this Act, it will be cheaper to build houses on new roads than construct them along the front of the [existing] roads. ”
That statement seems sufficiently definite in its intention to use certain existing, if unknown or seldom invoked, powers for the penalising of ribband development’’; powers conferred on local authorities for, probably, a very different end to that here contemplated and which, if pursued, would, we think, have very mischievous results; results that would go far to nullify the very objects that the C. P. R. E. has in view. And that leads us to think that the C. P. R. E., in its anxiety to get to grips with many admitted evils, has not given itself time to think out the fundamental problems that underlie its whole campaign. We suggested one last week — the radical change in land ownership. Those people who rejoiced to see the back of what they described as the “feudal systemˮ— the disappearance of the great landowners are now beginning to discover that those much-abused persons had not only been the main supporters of the agricultural industry, but they had also been instrumental — whether for selfish reasons or not matters 1ittle — in preserving the countryside as most people desire to see it. For several generations numbers of the feudal lords were content to devote practically the whole of the revenues of their country estates to the upkeep and maintenance of those lands, and to live
on the proceeds of scrip investments. When taxation, resulting from the heavy cost of the War and the increasing expenditure on “social services, ” began seriously to encroach on income from other investments, the country estates had to be sold. The beneficent arrangement which the Council has been able to effect with Thames-side owners, such as Lord Astor, will be the exception in future. The Council will have to deal mainly with the land speculator and the farmer-owner. The former is, naturally, out to reap a profit on his speculation; the latter is probably forced to sell what he can spare of his heavily-mortgaged holding, and what he can spare will be, in nearly all cases, the road frontages. The other fundamental factor which confronts the C. P. R. E. is that of motor transport, which, to many people, spells a combination of the advantages of both town and country. With the small car beginning, as a Manchester Guardian writer says, ˮto wear the hundred
pound look, ” many thousands of people living in the compact development of towns, either on account of the difficulties of travelling to and from their work or because of the educational, shopping and amusement facilities afforded, will migrate to the countryside. The combined effect of these two fundamental factors has already resulted in the ˮhideous rash of ill-considered building, ” which brought the C. P. R. E. into existence. The countryside, whether we like it or not, is going to be developed; and our main care, therefore, must be to see that it is developed on the best possible lines. Any attempt to suppress the development — and the C. P. R. E. rather gives us the impression that that is its unavowed desire — will be doomed to disappointment. We are all with the Council in its desire to establish National Parks, to bring beautiful stretches of scenery under the protection of the National Trust, to effect any and every arrangement possible with owners for the sterilisation from building on their lands. Much may be done in that direction to preserve some of the countryside for ourselves and our descendants. The more urgent task, however, is to deal with those people who are going out of the towns to escape compact development. Here only educational influence will be of avail; education in the more seemly design of dwellings; in building in the local traditional manner; in better lay-out; in providing adequate open spaces; and in tree-planting. And that brings us to one of the graver possibilities of any attempt to suppress development generally. For success in that direction would mean a diminution in values, to compensate for which the owners
& BUILDING NEWS
Vol. CXVIII — 3080
December 30, 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 969, 970 The League of Nations Building (Illustrations)................................. 971, 973 Correspondence...................................................................................972 Professional Societies.............................................................................. 972
Books and Publications............................................................................ 974 Golders Green Synagogue (Illustrations).......................................... 975-979 New Forms for the Modern Shop-Front (Illus
trations) ............................................................ 980-983, 986 Points from Papers................................................................................ 984-986
Legal Notes........................................................................................... 986
Building News in Parliament ................................................... 987 London Building Notes.......................................................................... 988 The Week’s Building News............................................................ 989, 992 Building Contracts Open....................................................................... 990 Building Tenders.................................................................................... 990 Current Market Prices..................................................................... 991, 992
Current Measured Bates.................................................................. 993, 994
NOTES AND COMMENTS
Professor Patrick Abercrombie’s letter, printed on another page, is in the nature of a reply to certain criticisfas we made last week on his speech at the recent annual general meeting of the C. P. R. E. It will, perhaps, be as well to reprint the ‘‘chance phrase’’
which was the subject of our criticism, and here it is:
“Urban development is what most people agree in disliking, but it has been an extremely difficult thing to scotch it. One thing that we hope will go largely towards it is a very little known power in the Public
Health Act, 1906, the power to charge people who build a house on existing highways with the cost of
a new street. That sounds rather paradoxical. The direction of the existing highway — to which they
are building a new house on a new road that cannot be erected if the local authority wishes to oppose it. And it is quite logical. The country road is designed for through traffic; if you build houses on both sides you need to increase the width of the road for the stopping traffic to supply both houses. People have got off hitherto if they build on the existing road. We hope, by a steady application of the powers of this Act, it will be cheaper to build houses on new roads than construct them along the front of the [existing] roads. ”
That statement seems sufficiently definite in its intention to use certain existing, if unknown or seldom invoked, powers for the penalising of ribband development’’; powers conferred on local authorities for, probably, a very different end to that here contemplated and which, if pursued, would, we think, have very mischievous results; results that would go far to nullify the very objects that the C. P. R. E. has in view. And that leads us to think that the C. P. R. E., in its anxiety to get to grips with many admitted evils, has not given itself time to think out the fundamental problems that underlie its whole campaign. We suggested one last week — the radical change in land ownership. Those people who rejoiced to see the back of what they described as the “feudal systemˮ— the disappearance of the great landowners are now beginning to discover that those much-abused persons had not only been the main supporters of the agricultural industry, but they had also been instrumental — whether for selfish reasons or not matters 1ittle — in preserving the countryside as most people desire to see it. For several generations numbers of the feudal lords were content to devote practically the whole of the revenues of their country estates to the upkeep and maintenance of those lands, and to live
on the proceeds of scrip investments. When taxation, resulting from the heavy cost of the War and the increasing expenditure on “social services, ” began seriously to encroach on income from other investments, the country estates had to be sold. The beneficent arrangement which the Council has been able to effect with Thames-side owners, such as Lord Astor, will be the exception in future. The Council will have to deal mainly with the land speculator and the farmer-owner. The former is, naturally, out to reap a profit on his speculation; the latter is probably forced to sell what he can spare of his heavily-mortgaged holding, and what he can spare will be, in nearly all cases, the road frontages. The other fundamental factor which confronts the C. P. R. E. is that of motor transport, which, to many people, spells a combination of the advantages of both town and country. With the small car beginning, as a Manchester Guardian writer says, ˮto wear the hundred
pound look, ” many thousands of people living in the compact development of towns, either on account of the difficulties of travelling to and from their work or because of the educational, shopping and amusement facilities afforded, will migrate to the countryside. The combined effect of these two fundamental factors has already resulted in the ˮhideous rash of ill-considered building, ” which brought the C. P. R. E. into existence. The countryside, whether we like it or not, is going to be developed; and our main care, therefore, must be to see that it is developed on the best possible lines. Any attempt to suppress the development — and the C. P. R. E. rather gives us the impression that that is its unavowed desire — will be doomed to disappointment. We are all with the Council in its desire to establish National Parks, to bring beautiful stretches of scenery under the protection of the National Trust, to effect any and every arrangement possible with owners for the sterilisation from building on their lands. Much may be done in that direction to preserve some of the countryside for ourselves and our descendants. The more urgent task, however, is to deal with those people who are going out of the towns to escape compact development. Here only educational influence will be of avail; education in the more seemly design of dwellings; in building in the local traditional manner; in better lay-out; in providing adequate open spaces; and in tree-planting. And that brings us to one of the graver possibilities of any attempt to suppress development generally. For success in that direction would mean a diminution in values, to compensate for which the owners