SIR,—Even at the risk of being associated with Mr. T.
0. Lloyd, I confess myself a Betjemanist in most things; but I think he is wrong over the Albert Bridge.
It is to be replaced simply because it is inadequate for the task it has to do. Mr. Betjcman thinks it should stay because it is pretty; but suppose—and it is not impossible—it eventually became totally unusable? Would he have it remain as a 'folly'? I'm sure Mr. Betjeman cannot in his heart believe in such an unpractical policy. It would mean, pro- longed over the years, that our country would become more and more mummified and less and less habitable.
One must always remember that today's period piece was yesterday's novelty; Betjemanists may hate the reinforced concrete bridge that the LCC no doubt have in mind, but their great-grandsons will fight like hell for its retention in a hundred years' time. People have even been found to fight for the ghastly girder just removed from St. James's Park. If we can learn to love that, we can learn to love anything.
The LCC's boorish behaviour towards Chelsea and Battersea Councils is another matter; but bad manners need not necessarily produce a bad bridge. —Yours faithfully,
B. A. YOUNG
Flat 3, 28 Elm Park Gardens, Chelsea, SW10 ,
Previous page
