THE PULFORD STREET SITE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I am anxious to treat criticism of my letter about the Pulford Street site coming from Mr. Rye with the respect due to himself and his position. Your readers will have noted that he does not refer to—much less challenge—my rough calculation that the sum involved in the projected appeal for Pulford Street building as apart from the site is equivalent to about an eighth of a penny rate. Does Mr. Rye agree or disagree in this the main point of my letter ? If I am wrong, it is of importance that he, with access to official data, should show that I am wrong. I invite him to do so, and if he is successful I shall be the first to acknowledge it.
Mr. Rye takes exception to my phrase, " golden harvest " : more than money is involved and I think the phrase legitimate. As I read Mr. Rye's letter, however, he concedes my point. He says : " it is . . . true that ultimately when the area has been fully developed there will be a material increase . . . " Exactly ; and no one can expect the increase to arrive at once. But it is admitted to be quite dearly in prospect and to be material. What is, I admit, not so clear is how long it will take to materialize. I would expect it fairly soon, but Mr. Rye can probably inform your readers.
That when this " material increase " or " golden harvest " does arrive, so much of it will be spent on precepting authorities, so much on crossing sweepers and so much on fifty other thing; is true, but irrelevant to the argument. Crossing sweepers, &c., must be paid in any case.
Gain or no gain, I remain of opinion that both Soho and the Chelsea corner of Pimlico stand in need of attention and when the excellent and admirable work which the Westminster City Council is now completing near Ebury Bridge is finished I hope that these two defective areas may receive some consideration.
Is Mr. Rye really contented with these places as they stand ? Will he tell us ? Why did he try to buy Huggins' brewery
Previous page
