ST. PAUL’S.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 4 October 1924, Page 16

ST. PAUL’S.

NEW DANGER. PROPOSAL THAT MAY CAUSE CATASTROPHE. LONDON, Aug. 4. Fears for the safety of St. Paul’s Cathedral, if the city authorities persist —against the advice of experts and the wishes of architects, traffic authorities and Londoners generally—with their proposal to build a “St. Paul’s Bridge” across the Thames, are expressed in the report of the Royal Arts, Commission. x The Commission was instructed “to enquire into the aesthetic problems, connected with the proposed St. Paul’s Bridge.” The report says: “Heavy motor traffic is increasing. There is a serious risk from the transmission of its vibration through the London clay, the chief effect of which is now confined to the southern end of the cathedral. Until the fabric is secure any further risk should be avoided. To intensify existing dangers by adding a fresh source of vibration at the eastern end of St. Paul’s, with inevitable reactions upon the perilous thrust of the dome on the piers at the crossing and upon the southern walls, causes us such grave apprehension that we earnestly beg that immediate attention may be given to this serious aspect of the problem. Further shaking of the Cathedral fabric may lead to a catastrophe. The report is signed by every member of the Commission except Sir Aston Webb, the famous architect, who is ill. Sir Aston, however, concurs with its general principles. The other members are:

Earl of Crawford (chairman), an art expert of world-wide fame; Marquess Curzon, statesman and man of letters; Sir Reginald Blomfield, R.A., Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects ; Sir George Frampton, R.A., the eminent sculptor; Sir Edwin Lutyens, R.A., designer of the Cenotaph; Mr D. Y. Cameron, R.A., painter; Mr J. A. Gotch, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects; Mr T. R. Mawson. president of the Town Planning Institute. 1 ‘The safety of St. Paul’s,” the report continues, “is hv far the most vital of the many difficult problems raised by the proposal. Were it not for this dominant question of stability, we should have recorded a considered opinion as to the sense of disappointment resulting from a bridge which does not lead to the southern transept as its axial point. “Owing to the financial and traffic objections, the Act of 1911 laid down that the thoroughfare running northwards from the bridge should pass the eastern wall of the cathedral. The road will accordingly skirt the apse of St. Paul’s, giving’ a partial and oblique view as one passes in either direction. A sense of failure, or of a singular opportunity lost, will be inevitable.”