WATERLOO BRIDGE
HE important Report by the London County Council Special Committee on Thames Bridges has hardly had justice done to it in the newspapers. It is an impres- sive document ; the exposition is clear and the arguments uniformly reasonable and persuasive. It is as well proportioned a statement as one could wish to read, and the Committee must be heartily congratulated upon it. We confess that we have been convinced by it very much against our inclinations. For the Committee has come to the conclusion that Waterloo Bridge must be pulled down and give place to a new bridge designed in accor- dance with the exigencies of London traffic—exigencies which were quite undreamed of when Rennie built his masterpiece.
The issue, as is very clearly shown by the Committee, is between the claims of beauty and sentiment (which the Committee reverently acknowledges) and those of utility. The very thought of doing away with Waterloo Bridge is an extremely nasty leek to swallow. " Breathes there a man with soul so dead " that he has not felt his heart leap at the dignity and grace combined with apparent strength which is to be seen in Waterloo Bridge ? You may view it from a hundred different positions on the Embankment and always discover some new delight as, with your changing position, the light shining through the arches changes its forms and angles. Canova is reported to have said when he visited London that his long pro- jected visit had not been in vain if only because he had seen Waterloo Bridge. We fancy that Waterloo Bridge was not finished when Canova came, but at all events he saw enough to be enchanted. Probably it is the finest structure of its size anywhere in the world. But when we have admitted all this we may feel impelled to follow the line of thought which is indicated in the Report of the Special Committee. What is the just balance between the need to serve our senses of beauty, sentiment and history, and the need to serve the ever-growing complica- tions of the London traffic ?
The Committee by a bold stroke carries the war into the camp of those who are content with repeating the word " Vandalism " and lays it down that the building of a new bridge really suitable. for .London :traffic (we must expect the traffic to become much vaster than it is even now) is a challenge to the architectural and scientific prowess of our age.
The new bridge, if new bridge there is to be, as seems now probable, must be worthy of London, and above all, let us say, worthy to be the successor of Rennie's magnifi- cent structure. There is such a thing as the beauty of utility which is in the nature of the case more courted by architects than by any other workers in the arts. It is not enough merely to cry " Vandals ! " against those who are not content that for the sake of a sentiment, however beautiful or sacred, there should be a refusal to meet- the public convenience, or the conditions of existence as they are to-day. An exquisite possession- must not be turned into an Old Man of the Sea hanging round the neck of citizenship and throttling its life.
There has been an outcry from time to time when it was proposed to convey the water necessary to great Lancashire cities from the beautiful district of the Lakes. There has been an outcry, again, when it was proposed to carry a railway into the heart of some particularly delectable district. Ruskin could always be quoted to some effect by the objectors. But Ruskin, we venture to say, was not a good prophet for this age. Instead of recognizing, for instance, the romantic aspects. of speech of power and of improved human communication which exist in railways, he would have liked to treat railways and railway stations as such abominable concessions to materialism that they must be deprived of all the help of the arts and left in stark and brutal plainness as a kind of permanent protest against man's ideas of progress.
Throughout history. there have been princes and judges who have been praised for sacrificing.what was most dear to them when the public interest required.them to do so.
If Waterloo: Bridge• has to be • sacrificed now let us at least, in •that historic spirit; make the sacrifice not with shamed faces, but _openly and boldly on the- ground that our act is in the public interest, and for the assistance of posterity, with complete' confidence, too,- that we can make- good our: action by building a truly great and worthy new bridge.
Every,reader of the London- County Council Report will see that there are three possible courses in dealing with Waterloo Bridge. It might be rebuilt just as it has been for a hundred years, so that it would have a new long lease of life ; or it might be widened ; or it might, as the Report recommends, be wholly removed. To widen the bridge would be fatally to injure its proportions. It is impossible to conceive what a declension there would be from the look of the bridge as Turner sawit in his famous water-colour. When a vessel now passes under the bridge only a flash of shadow, if we may so express ourselves, falls on the vessel. All the lighting would be changed if the arches became the roofs of miniature Unmet's. Besides, as it is, the traffic of 'tugs and barges through the arches is- difficult and even dangerous when a strong ebb- tide is- running. The danger would become real indeed if the bridge were widened. The " shorn and pareell'd Oxus " was foiled only by its sands ; but the navigable highway- of the• greatest city in the world must not be foiled by its bridges, which are the work, not of nature, but of man. For these reasons, artistic and practical, we may rule out altogether the proposal to widen the bridge. The issue remains between restoring it in all its present' details- and building a new bridge.
The Report points out that there is no such congestion of cross-river traffic anywhere as exists at Waterloo Bridge. To restore the bridge exactly as it is would be to accept permanent congestion at this point, unless the congestion could be relieved by a new bridge near by. Such a new bridge has often been proposed at the Temple. But the L.C.C. experts show that the expense of building a bridge there and making the appropriate approaches to it would be extremely great. And even then the relief would not be provided at the point where the pressure of traffic is greatest They therefore prefer the scheme of 'an entirely new Waterloo Bridge, with not more than five arches and designed to carry six lines of traffic. An essential part of the plan, however, is that there should be a subway under the Strand, and they have satisfied themselves that this could be built at a comparatively low cost.
AS regards the other bridges, they urge that the already sanctioned scheme for reconstructing Lambeth Bridge should 'be proceeded with, and that most serious attention should be given to the proposal for a new bridge at Charing Cross. We wish that the Committee had been able to say more about the Charing Cross scheme, as we feel that this is the crux of the whole future lay-out. As was to be expected, the Report has not a word to say in favour of a new bridge at St. Paul's.
Previous page
