Latterly, however, it has become apparent that all the architectural honours are not to go to men of commerce, for there has been quite a distinct revival of building activity on the part of municipalities great and small throughout the country. This development is especially welcome to the younger generation of architects inasmuch as in most instances the municipalities in question are instituting public competitions for the design of their buildings. A few weeks ago we published in this journal the conditions of a competition instituted by the Municipality of Wimbledon for designs for a new Town Hall. Of still more recent date is the proposal of the Peterborough Town Council to erect new municipal buildings, to cost £166, 000. It is certainly true that in recent years the scope on municipal governments has been greatly increased, with the result that a Town Council is now a more important body of officials than it has ever been before. We may look, therefore, for a renaissance of Town Hall architecture, and in fact such a renaissance is already in full swing. It will be interesting to record the progress which will be made in the design of this type of building.
There are signs that the popularity of the arcade as an urban shopping centre is steadily increasing, and this is not to be wondered at considering what an extremely convenient arrangement it is both for shopkeepers and the public. It is of interest to record that arrangements have been made at Uxbridge for the building of an arcade similar to that erected at Ealing. In this instance twenty-eight new shops will be provided and in addition a large public hall available for dances or entertainment. This arcade will be provided with three entrances all approached from main thoroughfares. This is a very important point because it is one of the primary conditions of the success of an arcade that it should be open at each end and should be surrounded by a closely-built-up populous area upon all sides.
The Ministry of Health has approved plans submitted by a number of local authorities desirous of preserving as free and open spaces stretches of land alongside rivers in their areas. It is contended that schemes of this kind offer the public a threefold advantage — they form useful divisions between builtup areas; they provide pedestrians with walks which are entirely free from motor traffic; and as riverside land is often subject to flooding it is undesirable for building purposes and therefore cheap to preserve. The general policy appears to be a very sound one, yet it may be hoped that a restriction which rightly operates to prevent the building of hundreds of ugly bungalows upon the banks of our rivers will not make impossible architectural developments of a more desirable kind. Many delightful river-side houses have been built, and one does not like to think that opportunities of emulating these examples should be altogether denied to architects in the future.
The progress of Colonial architecture is a matter of deep interest to Englishmen at home, and it is pleasant to record the speech recently delivered by Sir Herbert Baker at Johannesburg, in which he had reason to compliment South Africa upon its building progress during his absence from that country. In communicating reminiscences of the times when he himself worked in South Africa in three great periods, those of Cecil Rhodes, Milner and Botha, he pointed out that these great men were actuated by love of country, and this patriotism was to find expression in architecture, for they all encouraged their fellowcitizens to establish new colonies and build new homes. The only criticism which Sir Herbert Baker had to offer was that the beauty of the old French and Dutch
homesteads is at present being admired somewhat to the exclusion of other forms of architectural excellence, and he scented a danger that the employment of too great a multiplicity of gables will result in ˮthe sacrifice of strength to beauty. In making
this comment he was undoubtedly helping the art of civic design, for it is notorious how often the gable form, although beautiful in itself may, through its misuse, destroy the harmony, repose and cohesion which are just as necessary to good building as are the interest and quaintness attaching to the “individualistic” features of architecture.
While the Government action upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic was unconscionably delayed, most people have cherished the pleasant assumption that the various authorities who are tackling the problems connected with Waterloo Bridge and the new Charing Cross Bridge were making progress and would, in due course, issue a statement to the effect that the recommendations of the Commission could be carried out. It is somewhat disappointing, therefore, to find that we have reason to be extremely pessimistic with regard to the result of the conference now proceeding between representatives of the Government and the London County Council. The grounds for this pessimism are cogently expressed in a recent issue of the Saturday Review by D. S. MacColl, the distinguished art critic who, a year ago, put both the public and the architectural profession under a debt of gratitude for his ardent championship of the cause of Waterloo Bridge. Last March the Government announced its readiness to provide three-quarters of the cost of carrying out the Commission’s recommendations about Waterloo Bridge. The Prime Minister, however, pointed out that the Government’s acceptance of the proposal to preserve Waterloo Bridge involved the provision of further facilities for cross-river traffic at Charing Cross, and he explained that the Government were inviting the County Council and the Southern Railway Company to join with them in appointing engineers to examine the scheme for a road and railway bridge put forward by the Commission, and would be prepared to contribute if, after examination of its engineering, financial and æsthetic aspects, it appears satisfactory. As Mr. MacColl points out, this seemed to mean that a Committee would be formed, composed of engineering experts representing the Council and the Railway respectively, with a third independent engineer appointed by the Government. On May 11 Mr. Baldwin, in answer to an enquiry from the London County Council, said he hoped that the Waterloo Bridge reconstruction would be taken in hand at once, and that the Government also desired to hasten the suggested inquiry into the financial, engineering and other aspects of the scheme for a double-deck bridge at Charing Cross. The Prime Minister went on to engage the Government in this matter also to find three-quarters of the cost, Some details about the basis of calculation have still to be settled, and until this had been done ‘‘the Committee of engineers and valuers, which was to be selected by the County Council, the Southern Railway and the Minister of Transport, could not get to work. ” Unfortunately, it appears questionable whether such a Committee is in existence at all. The railway company have not appointed a representative to serve on a Committee, but has merely indicated that its engineer is available for consultation.
All that can be done at this stage is to find means of urging the Government that they are expected to press on the Charing Cross scheme to. the best of their ability. Now that the L. C. C. is only being called upon to contribute a quarter of its cost, it may be hoped that this body will support the project wholeheartedly.
There are signs that the popularity of the arcade as an urban shopping centre is steadily increasing, and this is not to be wondered at considering what an extremely convenient arrangement it is both for shopkeepers and the public. It is of interest to record that arrangements have been made at Uxbridge for the building of an arcade similar to that erected at Ealing. In this instance twenty-eight new shops will be provided and in addition a large public hall available for dances or entertainment. This arcade will be provided with three entrances all approached from main thoroughfares. This is a very important point because it is one of the primary conditions of the success of an arcade that it should be open at each end and should be surrounded by a closely-built-up populous area upon all sides.
The Ministry of Health has approved plans submitted by a number of local authorities desirous of preserving as free and open spaces stretches of land alongside rivers in their areas. It is contended that schemes of this kind offer the public a threefold advantage — they form useful divisions between builtup areas; they provide pedestrians with walks which are entirely free from motor traffic; and as riverside land is often subject to flooding it is undesirable for building purposes and therefore cheap to preserve. The general policy appears to be a very sound one, yet it may be hoped that a restriction which rightly operates to prevent the building of hundreds of ugly bungalows upon the banks of our rivers will not make impossible architectural developments of a more desirable kind. Many delightful river-side houses have been built, and one does not like to think that opportunities of emulating these examples should be altogether denied to architects in the future.
The progress of Colonial architecture is a matter of deep interest to Englishmen at home, and it is pleasant to record the speech recently delivered by Sir Herbert Baker at Johannesburg, in which he had reason to compliment South Africa upon its building progress during his absence from that country. In communicating reminiscences of the times when he himself worked in South Africa in three great periods, those of Cecil Rhodes, Milner and Botha, he pointed out that these great men were actuated by love of country, and this patriotism was to find expression in architecture, for they all encouraged their fellowcitizens to establish new colonies and build new homes. The only criticism which Sir Herbert Baker had to offer was that the beauty of the old French and Dutch
homesteads is at present being admired somewhat to the exclusion of other forms of architectural excellence, and he scented a danger that the employment of too great a multiplicity of gables will result in ˮthe sacrifice of strength to beauty. In making
this comment he was undoubtedly helping the art of civic design, for it is notorious how often the gable form, although beautiful in itself may, through its misuse, destroy the harmony, repose and cohesion which are just as necessary to good building as are the interest and quaintness attaching to the “individualistic” features of architecture.
While the Government action upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic was unconscionably delayed, most people have cherished the pleasant assumption that the various authorities who are tackling the problems connected with Waterloo Bridge and the new Charing Cross Bridge were making progress and would, in due course, issue a statement to the effect that the recommendations of the Commission could be carried out. It is somewhat disappointing, therefore, to find that we have reason to be extremely pessimistic with regard to the result of the conference now proceeding between representatives of the Government and the London County Council. The grounds for this pessimism are cogently expressed in a recent issue of the Saturday Review by D. S. MacColl, the distinguished art critic who, a year ago, put both the public and the architectural profession under a debt of gratitude for his ardent championship of the cause of Waterloo Bridge. Last March the Government announced its readiness to provide three-quarters of the cost of carrying out the Commission’s recommendations about Waterloo Bridge. The Prime Minister, however, pointed out that the Government’s acceptance of the proposal to preserve Waterloo Bridge involved the provision of further facilities for cross-river traffic at Charing Cross, and he explained that the Government were inviting the County Council and the Southern Railway Company to join with them in appointing engineers to examine the scheme for a road and railway bridge put forward by the Commission, and would be prepared to contribute if, after examination of its engineering, financial and æsthetic aspects, it appears satisfactory. As Mr. MacColl points out, this seemed to mean that a Committee would be formed, composed of engineering experts representing the Council and the Railway respectively, with a third independent engineer appointed by the Government. On May 11 Mr. Baldwin, in answer to an enquiry from the London County Council, said he hoped that the Waterloo Bridge reconstruction would be taken in hand at once, and that the Government also desired to hasten the suggested inquiry into the financial, engineering and other aspects of the scheme for a double-deck bridge at Charing Cross. The Prime Minister went on to engage the Government in this matter also to find three-quarters of the cost, Some details about the basis of calculation have still to be settled, and until this had been done ‘‘the Committee of engineers and valuers, which was to be selected by the County Council, the Southern Railway and the Minister of Transport, could not get to work. ” Unfortunately, it appears questionable whether such a Committee is in existence at all. The railway company have not appointed a representative to serve on a Committee, but has merely indicated that its engineer is available for consultation.
All that can be done at this stage is to find means of urging the Government that they are expected to press on the Charing Cross scheme to. the best of their ability. Now that the L. C. C. is only being called upon to contribute a quarter of its cost, it may be hoped that this body will support the project wholeheartedly.