CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20964, 1 March 1930, Page 27

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

NEW ZEALAND HOUSE. INCREASE IN VALUE. AN IMPOSING SITE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, January 10. 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 new bridge. That the value of the property will increase goes without saying. There are those who consider that its value will be doubled. The purchase of the building formerly occupied by the British Medical Association is likely, therefore, to turn out a profitable investment. The bridge scheme involves the removal of the Charing Cross station to the south side of the 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 puli 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. It should be said, however, that the London County Cmmcil has yet to fats considerable opposition to its scheme. A short time ago the Ministry of Transport and Sir Percy Simmons, chairman of the Committee of the London County Council, received a deputation representing the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Thames Bridges Conference.

It was pointed out that the Bridges Conference had_ looked at the scheme from the point of view of town planning and economy, and they did not consider that proper provision was made for the development of London on the southern side, which was a most vital question. He pointed out that all the successive official schemes had been frankly viaducts and that viaducts were not wanted in Central London. They sterilised the areas that they touched. He also criticised (1) the fact that there was no connection from the bridge to the Embankment on the - Middlesex side; (2) the proposal to cover in York road for a distance of 350 feet (and suggested the desirability of all works being on the ground level, or ns near thereto as possible, and open to •the, sky) ; and (3) that no building sites were formed between the railway and the road. He 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 the area behind it.

ARCHITECTURAL POSSIBILITIES,

Sir Reginald Blomfield, R.A., representing the Royal Academy, criticised the scheme under the heads “Cost, Traffic, Architcture, 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 cause 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. From an architectural point of view he expressed the view that the scheme on the Middlesex side had been prepared without regard to architectural possibilities. In particular, the tunnel ramp on a steep gradient, and the areas left for building would render it impossible to get a satisfactory architectural treatment. Similarly he thought that the 1600 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 sule, he thought that the areas assigned tor building in the neighbourhood of the cirqis on the Surrey side would be impossible to deal with. Generally, he thought that the proposed arrangements on the south side would completely block in the southern area with a solid wedge, resulting in there being a hinterland of slums in perpetuity.

NO ACCESS’ TO EMBANKMENT. Lord Crawford, the president of the ijondon 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 the bridge would have to go round by the Strand, some 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 bt easy access to ro . M statwns. Iho propose! arrangein respect would cause incon1° I 1 companies' passengers; fiuther, the termini would be hemmed ins de a triangle expansion being impoa*lbc', + , Jn f conclusion. Lord Crawford m - ovidp h re -P|a n f mog of the scheme to provide some satisfactory sites for rewould - in addition to improvappearance, reduce the cost bv additional recoupment* values.

A TARIFF PROBLEM. In the course of his reply, Sir Percy Simmons, on behalf of the London Coiintv evcrv Cl i’ l S ‘ lld ‘ lC i • V ; ls ,? uite satisfied that V c > v scheme which had been suggested during the last 30 years for dealing with this problem had been most carefully “'settled the F P + r , oSent . Proposals 1, , r Many of the schemes were 3 e e V rO,U tle traffic point of view and tiaffic was the primary consideration’ Si®', council were satisfied, as wlf tho Ministry °i Transport, that the scheme with tim trX,® ti eireCtiV6ly A d better ' „ . f. ,l e traffic than any otheF scheme He pointed out that the council in tended to go forward with the Biff and