A BRIDGE OF HOUSES.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sia,—You have recently put forward the suggestion that houses should again be built on bridges. May I point out that from the picturesque point of view the result for pedestrians passing over the bridge is sometimes disappointing? As in the case of the well-known Pulteney Bridge at Bath, there is nothing to indicate to the passenger crossing over that he is on a bridge at all, or that there is a river flowing beneath. With a little forethought in planning, however, the desired effect of street and river may be secured. On either side of the bridge ample footways should be left between the parapets of the bridge and the houses. The upper storeys of the houses, moreover, might project over the footways, forming two arcades, which might be continuous for the length of the bridge or intermittent. At one or two points on the bridge also the houses might be carried across the central roadway on an arch. If these conditions were complied with a bridge might be constructed that would bring in a substantial rental and also be pleasing to the eye. One proviso must be made in respect of a structure of this character. It must not be placed where it would obscure the finest sweep of the river, for instance. Such a bridge should not be tolerated on the site of the present Hungerford. Bridge at Charing Cross, although there would be no objection to it at Lambeth or Southwark or Cannon Street.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[If we followed the block system employed in Old London Bridge we should also get the wide views between the blocks.— ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
