AESTHETIC ASPECT

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 44, 21 February 1930, Page 9

AESTHETIC ASPECT

OPPOSITION TO PLAN

NEW ZEALAND CONCERNED

(From "The Post's" Representative) LONDON, 16th January.

It -would seem that New Zealand has little to do with, the Charing Cross Bridge scheme. It has, however. If it is carried into effect the High Commissioner's Office of the future will overlook an open space cleared to make the northern approach to the newbridge. That the Value of thei property will increase goes without saying. There are those who consider that its value will be doubled. The purchase of tho building formerly occupied by the British Medical Association is likely, therefore, to turn out a profitable investment. : .•■ The bridge scheme involves tho removal of the Charing Cross Station to the south side of tho river. The north end of the bridge will reach , ground level where the present station is, and the approach will be from the Strand. On. the north side of the Strand, however, it is proposed to pull- down a triangle of buildings to make more room for the traffic. " This particular block is directly overlooked from the New Zealand property. In the future, therefore, New Zealand House will be in clear view of all who approach the new bridge, and hold a commanding position on the east side of the open triangle..' ,j . -■. ,?,.•■■ ..... ■:■ .. ■■'? ' :. It should be said, however, that the London County Council havo yet to face considerable opposition to their scheme. A short time ago the Ministry of Transport and Sir Percy. Simmons, chairman of the Improvements' Committee of the London County Council, received a deputation representing the Koyal Institute of British Architects and the Thames Bridges Conference. CRITICISM OF THE SCHEME. It was pointed out that the Bridges Conference had looked at the scheme from" th 6 point of view of town planning and economy, and they did not consider that proper provision was mado for the development of London on the southern side, which was a, most vital question. All the successive oifi-1 eial schemes had been frankly viaducts and' viaducts were not wanted in Central London. They sterilised the areas that they touched. Also criticised were: (1) The fact that there was no connection from the bridge to the Embankmenton the Middlesex side; (2) the proposal to cover in. York road for a distance of 350 feet; (3) that no building sites were formed, between the railway and the road. It was also considered that to meet the wishes of the railway company the station was brought much too near the river on the Surrey side and that in the- position proposed it would prevent adequate development, of the river front and tho area behind it. Sir Reginald Blomfleld, E.A., representing the Eoyal Academy, criticised the scheme under the heads "Cost, Traffic, Architecture, and the Surrey side." He did not think that if the scheme were given effect to the public would be getting value for a cost which was placed at nearly £15,000,000, much of it compensation for buildings destroyed in consequence of the. route selected. With regard to traffic, he drew attention to the closing of roads on the Middlesex side, such as Villiers street and Buckingham street, and he did not consider that the approaches on the Surrey side were adequate. The archway proposed at the end of the bridge on the Surrey side would causo congestion of traffic and block a vista from the Strand right across the bridge and to the country beyond. He thought that tunnels on the Surrey side, 350 feet in length would be unsightly, noisy, difficult to ventilate, and very dangerous, owing to the -risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from the exhausts of motor-vehicles in the tunnels. ARCHITECTURAL DHTIOULTIES. From, an architectural point of view, he expressed the view that the scheme on tho Middlesex side had been prepared without regard to architectural possibilities. In particular, the tunnel ramp oil a steep gradient and the areas left for building would render it impossible to get a satisfactory architectural treatment. Similarly, he thought that the IGOO. feet of wall formed by the side of the new station along the elevated road would prevent any satisfactory architectural feature there, and, as in the case of the Middlesex side, he though that the areas assigned for building in the neighbourhood of the circus on the Surrey side would be impossible to'deal-with. Generally, he thought that the proposed arrangements on the south aide would completely block in the southern area with a solid wedge, resulting in there being a hinterland of slums in perpetuity. Lord Crawford, the president of the London Society, pointed out that, through there being no access to the bridge from the Embankment, a vehicle desiring to go from the Hotel Metropole on. to tho bridge would have to go round by the Strand, gome 1200 yards, before beginning to cross the river. There should be easier road gradients. Some of the gradients on the Surrey _ side were as steep as 1 in 30, and artificial hills should not be made. There should be easy access to and from, atations. The proposed arrangements in this respect -would cause inconvenience to the companies' passengers; further, tho termini would be hemmed insHe> a. ti'i-

angle, expansion being impossible. In conclusion, Lord Crawford stated that a re-planning of the scheme to provide some satisfactory sites of rebuilding would, in addition to improving the appearance, reduce the cost by additional recoupment values. THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION. In the course of his reply, Sir Percy Simmons, on behalf of the Londou County Council, said ho was quite satisfied that every scheme which had been suggested during the last 30 years for dealing with this problem had been most carefully examined before the present proposals were settled. Many of tho schemes were hopeless from the traffic poiut of view, and traffic was the primary consideration. His council was satisfied, as was tho Ministry of Transport, that the scheme dea.la more effectively and better with the traffic than any other scheme, providing as it does, among other things, excellent facilities for linking up with the tubes. Ho pointed out that tho council intended to go forward with the Bill, 'and that, in his opinion, it was the only chance this generation would have of getting Charing Cross Bridge.