would probably resort to a wholesale cutting of timber. And with the disappearance of trees and verdure, the extinction of the countryside would be speedily completed.
Advices from Geneva indicate that the League of Nations Assembly will probably select one of the nine principal prize-winning designs in the recent competition as that of its future home. Sir E. Hilton Young is assisting the appointed Committee of Diplomats in their choice, and neither his nor their task is one to be envied. Cost is one of the chief factors, and although the Assembly has agreed to spring another £150, 000 on to the original limit of £600, 000, the selection has not been made appreciably easier. Probably the most ingenious suggestion for selecting a design was made, so it is said, by one of the assessors after the original award, an award that was, at the best, a compromise. He proposed that the authors of the nine designs should themselves select the best one by the simple process of giving them two votes each and allowing them to give one only to their own design. It is highly probable that by this means the design which most of the competitors considered the best would get the most votes. Meanwhile the Selection Committee has an unhappy task. The modernist design of M. le Corbusier seems likely to be ruled out, but it is rumoured that Signor Mussolini insists that Italy shall build the Palace of the Nations; but it is said that the Italian design ought to have been disqualified on the ground of cost, the estimate being over four times the amount of the limit set. The Selection Committee has now decided on a general compromise. The design submitted jointly by MM. Henri Paul Nenot, of Paris, and Julien Flegenheimer, of Geneva, has been chosen as the basis for the new building; but Signori Broggi, Vaccaro and Franzi, of Rome, the authors of another joint design, also M. Camille Lefévre, of Paris, and Signor Vago, of Rome, are to collaborate in the revision of the selected basic design.
With Mr. Archibald Flower’s return from the United States, the final award in the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre competition may be speedily expected. Mr. Flower’s mission to America, a financial one, has been exceedingly fruitful, for he has succeeded in raising a million dollars in the New World for the re-building and endowment of the theatre at Stratford-on-Avon. The National Shakespeare Theatre Committee must rather envy this enterprise, for they seem no nearer the fulfilment of their plans, and, indeed, the modest sum of £80, 000 which they have in hand will hardly go far towards a national building when over £200, 000 is required for the more modest structure in the dramatist’s native town. Just now the National Committee’s difficulty is to find a suitable site. They had one in Bloomsbury which is was considered politic to sell. Then a generous member of the peerage offered them one in the Grosvenor Road district, and, this being found unsuitable for some reason, proffered them another, the position of which was to be kept a profound secret. The latter site is complicated by the necessary extinction of certain rights, and one of the holders of these rights objects altogether to restriction or extinction of them. There the matter rests for the moment. We rather doubt, even if the National Theatre Committee surmounts their present difficulty and erect their building, it will be a success unless it is in a central and easily accessible position. Miss Lilian Baylis has made her “Old Vic” enterprise a success because
she catered for the large population of poor people in the vicinity at very cheap prices. The success had
been achieved before the wider celebrity which the success engendered. If the National Shakespeare Theatre has to rely mainly on audiences of school children, taken there for educational purposes, we fear it may only have the result of making the children hate Shakespeare, although children are far more likely to develop a taste for his works by seeing them acted than in having to cram them as a lesson. But on the “Old Vic” principle, why should not the
National Shakespeare Theatre Committee take on and complete the Sadler’s Wells project.
A Sub-Committee of the Bridge House Estates Committee of the City of London Corporation has been considering the proposal for a new road bridge at Ludgate, one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London, and reports unfavourably on the project. The Sub-Committee has taken the opinion of a number of experts, both engineering and financial, on various aspects of the Royal Commission’s proposal, and bases its report on the advice tendered. The City Police report that a new bridge at Ludgate would be “most undesirable, ’’ though for what particular reason is not stated. Mr. Basil Mott, the engineer, who is believed to be equally unfavourable to the Royal Commission’s proposed bridge at Charing Cross, also declares against the Ludgate Bridge on the ground that its approach route through the Smithfield Market area makes it impracticable. It was a point of the Royal Commission’s recommendation that the proposed bridge would serve the market traffic. The Market authorities are also unfavourable, apparently on the ground that the proposal would be “highly prejudicial” to market
interests. The financiers consulted estimate the cost of the proposed bridge at £5, 500, 000, with a possible additional contingency of £1, 000, 000 in connection with the Southern Railway’s bridge and stations. The Corporation’s proposed scheme for a bridge at St. Paul’s, on the other hand, is put down to cost £5, 000, 000; but the Sub-Committee does not speculate as to the value and utility of the respective bridges when completed. A good deal of the report is taken up with arguments about the possible danger to St. Paul’s; and the Sub-Committee is advised that there is no danger to the Cathedral from vibration or from the construction of piers in either scheme. So far as our recollection goes, the St. Paul’s bridge was not opposed because its construction would endanger the Cathedral, but because of the vibration of continuous heavy traffic passing immediately against the east end of the edifice. The one weighty objection disclosed by the report is the addition of another bridge so close to Blackfriars Bridge and the railway bridges. This, as the report states, would result in the creation of a tunnel of 400 feet in length under the four bridges, and visibility on the river might be restricted. The statement that, if the St. Paul’s Bridge scheme is abandoned, the Bridge House Estates Committee would sustain a heavy loss on reselling the properties bought in anticipation of its construction, rather seems to colour the Sub-Committee’s conclusions. The Royal Commission, without going very definitely into all the details, did advance a proposal taking cognizance of the fact that one line of heavy traffic cannot cross another on the level without causing frequent holdups. and congestion. The Sub-Committee of the Bridge House Estates Committee would, apparently, still have the St. Paul’s Bridge, so that the traffic of the two main east to west thoroughfares through the City must be continually held up. The fact that the two thoroughfares are so close together, where the north and south traffic is to cross them, would only make the normal confusion of such an arrangement worse confounded.
Advices from Geneva indicate that the League of Nations Assembly will probably select one of the nine principal prize-winning designs in the recent competition as that of its future home. Sir E. Hilton Young is assisting the appointed Committee of Diplomats in their choice, and neither his nor their task is one to be envied. Cost is one of the chief factors, and although the Assembly has agreed to spring another £150, 000 on to the original limit of £600, 000, the selection has not been made appreciably easier. Probably the most ingenious suggestion for selecting a design was made, so it is said, by one of the assessors after the original award, an award that was, at the best, a compromise. He proposed that the authors of the nine designs should themselves select the best one by the simple process of giving them two votes each and allowing them to give one only to their own design. It is highly probable that by this means the design which most of the competitors considered the best would get the most votes. Meanwhile the Selection Committee has an unhappy task. The modernist design of M. le Corbusier seems likely to be ruled out, but it is rumoured that Signor Mussolini insists that Italy shall build the Palace of the Nations; but it is said that the Italian design ought to have been disqualified on the ground of cost, the estimate being over four times the amount of the limit set. The Selection Committee has now decided on a general compromise. The design submitted jointly by MM. Henri Paul Nenot, of Paris, and Julien Flegenheimer, of Geneva, has been chosen as the basis for the new building; but Signori Broggi, Vaccaro and Franzi, of Rome, the authors of another joint design, also M. Camille Lefévre, of Paris, and Signor Vago, of Rome, are to collaborate in the revision of the selected basic design.
With Mr. Archibald Flower’s return from the United States, the final award in the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre competition may be speedily expected. Mr. Flower’s mission to America, a financial one, has been exceedingly fruitful, for he has succeeded in raising a million dollars in the New World for the re-building and endowment of the theatre at Stratford-on-Avon. The National Shakespeare Theatre Committee must rather envy this enterprise, for they seem no nearer the fulfilment of their plans, and, indeed, the modest sum of £80, 000 which they have in hand will hardly go far towards a national building when over £200, 000 is required for the more modest structure in the dramatist’s native town. Just now the National Committee’s difficulty is to find a suitable site. They had one in Bloomsbury which is was considered politic to sell. Then a generous member of the peerage offered them one in the Grosvenor Road district, and, this being found unsuitable for some reason, proffered them another, the position of which was to be kept a profound secret. The latter site is complicated by the necessary extinction of certain rights, and one of the holders of these rights objects altogether to restriction or extinction of them. There the matter rests for the moment. We rather doubt, even if the National Theatre Committee surmounts their present difficulty and erect their building, it will be a success unless it is in a central and easily accessible position. Miss Lilian Baylis has made her “Old Vic” enterprise a success because
she catered for the large population of poor people in the vicinity at very cheap prices. The success had
been achieved before the wider celebrity which the success engendered. If the National Shakespeare Theatre has to rely mainly on audiences of school children, taken there for educational purposes, we fear it may only have the result of making the children hate Shakespeare, although children are far more likely to develop a taste for his works by seeing them acted than in having to cram them as a lesson. But on the “Old Vic” principle, why should not the
National Shakespeare Theatre Committee take on and complete the Sadler’s Wells project.
A Sub-Committee of the Bridge House Estates Committee of the City of London Corporation has been considering the proposal for a new road bridge at Ludgate, one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London, and reports unfavourably on the project. The Sub-Committee has taken the opinion of a number of experts, both engineering and financial, on various aspects of the Royal Commission’s proposal, and bases its report on the advice tendered. The City Police report that a new bridge at Ludgate would be “most undesirable, ’’ though for what particular reason is not stated. Mr. Basil Mott, the engineer, who is believed to be equally unfavourable to the Royal Commission’s proposed bridge at Charing Cross, also declares against the Ludgate Bridge on the ground that its approach route through the Smithfield Market area makes it impracticable. It was a point of the Royal Commission’s recommendation that the proposed bridge would serve the market traffic. The Market authorities are also unfavourable, apparently on the ground that the proposal would be “highly prejudicial” to market
interests. The financiers consulted estimate the cost of the proposed bridge at £5, 500, 000, with a possible additional contingency of £1, 000, 000 in connection with the Southern Railway’s bridge and stations. The Corporation’s proposed scheme for a bridge at St. Paul’s, on the other hand, is put down to cost £5, 000, 000; but the Sub-Committee does not speculate as to the value and utility of the respective bridges when completed. A good deal of the report is taken up with arguments about the possible danger to St. Paul’s; and the Sub-Committee is advised that there is no danger to the Cathedral from vibration or from the construction of piers in either scheme. So far as our recollection goes, the St. Paul’s bridge was not opposed because its construction would endanger the Cathedral, but because of the vibration of continuous heavy traffic passing immediately against the east end of the edifice. The one weighty objection disclosed by the report is the addition of another bridge so close to Blackfriars Bridge and the railway bridges. This, as the report states, would result in the creation of a tunnel of 400 feet in length under the four bridges, and visibility on the river might be restricted. The statement that, if the St. Paul’s Bridge scheme is abandoned, the Bridge House Estates Committee would sustain a heavy loss on reselling the properties bought in anticipation of its construction, rather seems to colour the Sub-Committee’s conclusions. The Royal Commission, without going very definitely into all the details, did advance a proposal taking cognizance of the fact that one line of heavy traffic cannot cross another on the level without causing frequent holdups. and congestion. The Sub-Committee of the Bridge House Estates Committee would, apparently, still have the St. Paul’s Bridge, so that the traffic of the two main east to west thoroughfares through the City must be continually held up. The fact that the two thoroughfares are so close together, where the north and south traffic is to cross them, would only make the normal confusion of such an arrangement worse confounded.