GRAFTON BRIDGE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22094, 27 April 1935, Page 8

GRAFTON BRIDGE

twenty-five years old the opening ceremony EARLY CRITICISM OF WIDTH Twenty-five years ago, on April 28, 1910, the largest ferro-concrete bridge in the world was formally opened when the ribbon across the Symonds Street end of Grafton Bridge was severed by Mrs. C. D. Grey, the Mayoress, and " amid cheers for all concerned, the Mayor declared the bridge open for traffic while numbers of people present made a scramble for scraps of the ribbon." Unique in having the widest arch span of any bridge then constructed in ferro-concrete, its total length was 973 feet and the greatest height above ground was 147 feet. Thejgreatest span was 320 feet long. Twp tenders were submitted, one for steel and the other for ferro-concrete. The tender of the Ferro-Concrete Company, £31,918, was accepted and the work was commenced in August, 1907, under the Mayoralty of Mr. (later Sir) Arthur Myers. The whole of the -working plans were drawn up in Auckland by the company's engineer. Legislative power had to be obtained to cross the cemetery and in May, 1906, the loan of £30,000 was sanctioned by the ratepayers. The total cost, including the footpaths and paving, was £35,250. In his address the Mayor, Mr. C. D. Grey, said: "The bridge would not only give access between the eastern, and other portions of the city, but would also serve to some extent as a, memorial to the dead who were interred, beneath its shadows, and more especially to those pioneers who* in the troublous days of the city, laid down their lives in its service." The Hebald editorial of April 29, 1910, stated: " The Grafton Bridge is; to be valued, not merely as a beautiful structure and a great public convenience, but as a constant reminder of our public needs and of our civic duties —needs which we can meet easily and duties which we can discharge without undue strain upon -our resources when wo organise that Greater Auckland which is the only adequate instrument for the advancement of the metropolis and the welfare of all its people." The mistake of not building a wider bridge was recognised even at that time, for in the same editorial the Hebald stated: "If any criticism were in place it would be to the effect that a wider bridge would have been better, and it goes without saying that tvero the work to be done over again the wider breadth once proposed would be unanimously adopted by the "city authorities and by the ratepayers."