Having survived the onslaught of town planners and enemy bombs, Hungerford Bridge was again the centre of attention when the South Bank was transformed for the 1951 Festival of Britain. The aim was to mark the centenary of the 1851 Great Exhibition with a celebration of British achievements in the arts, architecture, science and technology. The area on the south of the river by Hungerford Bridge had been derelict following the demolition of the Lion Brewery in 1949. About the only remaining structure was the tower of a former lead-shot factory. The exciting modern architecture set up here for the Festival, including the Skylon obelisk, the Dome of Discovery and the Royal Festival Hall, thrilled the nation, accustomed to the dreary building standards employed for the massive housing developments required after the end of the Second World War, when rationing had still not been abolished.
The 1951 Festival of Britain site under construction, with the temporary footbridge between Westminster and Hungerford Bridge
The main concept of the Festival was to portray the British contribution to civilisation as springing from the combination of two forces – the initiative of the people and the resources of their native land. Since Hungerford Bridge crossed the river at the mid-point of the South Bank site, it became the dividing agent between the two facets of the exhibition. The narrow footpath on the downstream side of Hungerford Bridge was totally inadequate to carry the massed crowds of visitors coming from central London, and therefore a Bailey-type steel footbridge had to be constructed on the upstream side of the bridge for the duration of the Festival. This footbridge was demolished in January 1953 after the removal of all the South Bank buildings apart from the Royal Festival Hall.
Although popular with passengers for its convenient central location, Hungerford Bridge and Charing Cross Station remained a target for town planners and architects. In 1986, Richard Rogers put forward an ambitious scheme reminiscent of the 1930 LCC plan. He proposed removing the station entirely and whisking passengers across the Thames from Waterloo Station on a futuristic cable railway. In place of the station he envisaged a riverside park under which the Embankment roadway would run in a tunnel. Shortly after this, Terry Farrell was commissioned to design an air-rights development above the station, and all thoughts of radical solutions such as those of the LCC and Richard Rogers have been abandoned. Farrell’s Embankment Place rises dramatically over the station with its two vast glazed barrel vaults enclosed by four towers of Sardinian granite. Hawkshaw’s original station fronted the river with a great arched glass-and-iron train shed, but this collapsed in 1905 as a result of a fire in which five people died. Farrell’s postmodern design certainly presents an equally striking façade to the river, as well as providing profitable office space.
The latest stage in the Hungerford Bridge story has been the construction of the Golden Jubilee Bridge, consisting of two footbridges on either side of the railway. Lifschutz Davidson won the 1996 design competition sponsored by the Cross River Partnership, which was a consortium of local authorities and Railtrack. The contract was awarded to Costain/Norwest Holst. Each footbridge is 4.7 metres wide and is supported by painted white steel rods fanning out from steel pylons, which slant outwards as they rise from concrete piers which are embedded far into the river-bed. The two footbridges replaced the single, narrow seven-foot-wide crossing which was previously used by three and a half million pedestrians annually. According to an article in The Times of 13 April 2000 about the inadequacies of the old footbridge, pedestrians ‘ran a gauntlet of beggars and drunks as they crossed from Charing Cross to South Bank’. The south bank stairs were said to be the most lucrative begging pitches in London, where it was possible to earn fifteen pounds in a half-hour slot from concert-goers on their way to and from the Royal Festival Hall.
The footbridge was the scene of a brutal murder of a student by a gang of six teenagers in the early hours of the morning on 18 June 1999. Timothy Baxter was crossing the bridge with his friend Gabriel Cornish when they were attacked and robbed by three youths. Mr Cornish saw two young men and a girl approaching from the other direction and called out for help. It turned out that the new arrivals were part of the same gang, and they joined in beating up the two friends. One member of the gang then called out that ‘it would be fun’ to throw them into the Thames after they were beaten unconscious. The gang hauled them up over the railings and let their unconscious bodies fall into the river. Amazingly, Mr Cornish was rescued, but Mr Baxter drowned and his corpse was found in the river the following morning. The gang were caught on CCTV and were seen joking together after they had thrown the bodies into the river. They tried to blame each other for Timothy Baxter’s death, but a jury found they were all responsible for his killing and the attempted murder of Cornish. The judge sentenced them all to life imprisonment.
Security on the Golden Jubilee Bridge is provided by 18 CCTV cameras, and the balustrade curves away from the footpaths so that it is much harder to jump or be thrown into the river than was the case with the low, upright railings on the old footbridge.
The original plan was to open the footbridges in the year 2000 to coincide with the millennium, but the project was delayed because of objections raised on safety grounds by London Transport (LT). LT had initially backed a rival scheme for a foot tunnel under the Thames along the same route. Since the river-piers of the new bridges were to be driven 42 metres into the river-bed, LT was concerned that the necessary piling could set off Second World War bombs which might still be embedded at this point. As described above, the bridge had been subjected to severe bombing in 1941, and one unexploded bomb was found in the river in the 1950s. The fear was that an explosion could cause the Thames to flood into the whole Underground system via the Northern Line tunnel which runs under the river next to Hungerford Bridge, resulting in a catastrophe. LT had identified a real risk, but a solution was finally found. Since the greatest danger was at the Charing Cross side of the bridge, the final pylon on the northern end was made to rest on the north bank instead of on a river-pier. This required a longer span at this point and significant redesign of the pylon.
A further problem arose when the Millennium Bridge between Tate Modern and St Paul’s Cathedral was opened on 12 June 2000 and was immediately closed because of the ‘wobble’ induced by the large numbers of people crossing over it. Consequently, questions were asked about the rigidity of the Golden Jubilee Bridge design. Engineering calculations showed that there would be a problem only if a group of vandals did simultaneous rhythmic jumping in order to deliberately cause a wobble, so it was decided not to incur the considerable cost of installing dampers. Finance had run out by this time, and the footbridges might have remained unfinished if the Greater London Authority had not agreed to provide a grant of £16,700,000 towards the total cost of £39,500,000. The upstream footbridge was finally opened in May 2002, in time for the 50th anniversary of the Queen’s accession, and hence the structure was named the Golden Jubilee Bridge. The downstream bridge was opened in the following September.
Golden Jubilee Bridge
The delicate tracery of the slim white rods of the footbridges provides a dramatic contrast to the massive horizontal girders of Hawkshaw’s railway bridge, which they enclose but do not hide. The effect is especially appealing at night, when lights concealed in the tops of the pylons shine down the white rods as they fan out to illuminate the deck of the footbridge below. The combination of the twenty-first-century Golden Jubilee Bridge with the nineteenth-century Hungerford Railway Bridge may not be a perfect aesthetic or practical solution for a river crossing at this prestigious location, but it is certainly unique. Few people today would number it among the five ugliest bridges in the world.
CHAPTER 10
Waterloo
The present Waterloo Bridge, constructed in reinforced concrete, was completed in 1944 towards the end of the Second World War. It replaced John Rennie’s internationally admired stone bridge, which was opened in 1817.
The original name of the bridge was Stra
nd Bridge, referring to the Strand, which runs parallel to the north bank of the Thames in this part of London. Today, the Strand is separated from the river by substantial buildings and the Victoria Embankment, but in earlier times, as implied by the name, it was a track running along the shore of the much wider river. It has been known for some time that a Saxon settlement must have existed by the Strand. In AD 732, the Venerable Bede wrote of ‘an emporium of many people coming from land and sea’ to conduct trade in the area. In 1884, archaeologists discovered the so-called Waterloo Bridge Hoard, consisting of coins buried in AD 875, at what is today the Charing Cross end of Hungerford Bridge. In the 1980s, detailed archaeological excavations in the area of Covent Garden established for a fact that the Saxon settlement of Ludenvic was sited in this area on land sloping down to the river, until the ninth century, when Alfred the Great rebuilt Roman London as a new Saxon burgh. Soon afterwards, the settlement of Ludenvic became derelict, but it is still commemorated in the name Aldwych, which means ‘old town’.
From the twelfth century, aristocrats and bishops were attracted to build their London residences in the area because it was conveniently located between the Palace of Westminster and the City of London. The Strand also offered a river frontage from which they could embark in their private barges to avoid the unpleasantness of travelling along the muddy, crowded and dangerous roads. Two of the most impressive riverside mansions were the Savoy Palace and Somerset House, which were located on either side of the future Waterloo Bridge.
The Savoy Palace no longer exists and is remembered only in the names of the present theatre and hotel. The palace’s origins date back to the thirteenth century, when Henry III granted land to Peter de Savoie, the uncle of Queen Eleanor. Peter constructed a house here in his family name in 1263. The original house was considerably expanded into a palace by later owners, the most illustrious of whom was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and virtual ruler of England during the boyhood reign of Richard II. Gardens ran down to the Thames where today Lancaster Place forms the approach to Waterloo Bridge. William Chaucer, who as a young man was one of John of Gaunt’s retainers and was married to his sister-in-law, wrote a poem entitled The Boke of the Duchesse in honour of the Duke’s first wife, in which the following lines are thought to refer to the Savoy Palace rose gardens:
A garden saw I full of blossomed bowls
Upon a river in a garden mead.27
Soon after Chaucer wrote these lines, the Savoy Palace was attacked and burned down in the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt. Evidently the attackers threw all the furnishings and valuables into the Thames, convinced that no one should own anything belonging to such an evil man as John of Gaunt. There is no record of what happened to these treasures – certainly they had long vanished when Waterloo Bridge was constructed near the site of the old palace in the nineteenth century. The Savoy Palace was soon rebuilt after the suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt, but by the sixteenth century it had degenerated, and on his death in 1509, Henry VII left instructions in his will for it to be turned into a hospital providing nightly lodgings for poor men. Ironically, only the very rich can now afford to reside in its successor building, the Savoy Hotel. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the old Savoy buildings had become ruinous. The area was therefore cleared for the construction of the approach roads for Waterloo Bridge. The only remaining structure is the sixteenth-century Chapel of the Savoy, located in Savoy Hill.
Somerset House was originally built in 1551 as a Renaissance palace for the Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector of England during the reign of the boy king Edward VI. Somerset was executed soon after completion of his palace, which was then handed down to a succession of princesses and queens until it was demolished in 1775, to be replaced by the present building. The architect of the new Somerset House was William Chambers, who designed the imposing classical complex for use as offices to cater for the expanding bureaucracy of the government of Britain and its colonies. The river frontage, with its heavily rusticated Doric columns and impressive watergate, is today separated from the Thames by the Victoria Embankment but at that time could be approached by boat. It was to inspire the architecture of the first bridge at this location.
The opposite side of the river has a less distinguished history. The land was marshy and largely uninhabited until wharves and industrial enterprises were set up along the riverbanks in the eighteenth century. The area was known as St George’s Fields after the church of St George the Martyr in Borough High Street. According to Thomas Pennant, it was renowned for its vineyards, which produced excellent white wine and vinegar.28 When Westminster and Blackfriars bridges were built in 1750 and 1769 respectively, the roads leading south from them converged at St George’s Cross, known today as St George’s Circus. The southern approach road to Waterloo Bridge was about to join them at this point.
For centuries, people crossed the river here, as elsewhere in London, by wherry from the numerous stairs where watermen waited to attract customers who did not own their own barge. By 1800, the population of London exceeded one million. London, Blackfriars and Westminster bridges were the only permanent crossings and proved totally inadequate to handle the increasing traffic. In 1806, a group of speculators formed the Strand Bridge Company with the aim of constructing a bridge across the Thames midway between Westminster and Blackfriars. As usual, vested interests opposed the idea, but Parliament had heard similar objections before and was unlikely to reject the idea completely. Several members of the House of Lords banded together to propose that a wooden bridge should be built initially, with a view to establishing the real demand. The income from the tolls could then be used to construct a stone bridge later if necessary. The group was mocked by the press and given the nickname of ‘the wooden peers’. Its proposal was not implemented.
In 1809, the Strand Bridge Act was passed, authorising the construction of a stone bridge to be financed by the income from tolls. The sum of £500,000 was raised without any difficulty and the shares immediately reached a premium of one guinea. However, the initial enthusiasm soon subsided when additional finance was required. The final cost of the new bridge, including its approach roads, amounted to £937,000.
George Dodd, son of the unfortunate Ralph Dodd, the proposer of a number of unsuccessful bridge projects, submitted the design. A pioneer of steam navigation, he had built a steamship called The Thames, which took passengers to and from Margate. He does not seem to have had any experience of bridge design, although he may have relied on his father’s advice. His design was closely based on the Pont de Neuilly, which had been constructed 40 years before over the River Seine in Paris by the great French bridge builder Perronet. The Strand Bridge Company asked the engineers John Rennie and William Jessop for their opinions of the design. They disapproved of the idea of constructing a mere copy of a French bridge over this historic central point on London’s river and made a number of specific criticisms. They especially objected to Perronet’s cornes de vache, which were designed to make the bridge spans look flatter than they really were by slanting the fronts of the arches inwards to the base of the piers. Dodd’s design was therefore rejected.
Rennie submitted two designs of his own, one for seven and one for nine spans. The company selected the nine-span design on grounds of cost. Rennie’s bridge consisted of nine 120-foot semi-elliptical river arches of Cornish granite. The total length, including the abutments, was 1,380 feet. The plain surface of the arches was broken by incorporating three-quarter Doric columns over the piers to support projecting recesses on the parapets. Rennie’s stated aim was to do justice to Somerset House, the Palladian arched frontage of which was lapped by the river on the downstream side of the bridge. By linking the bridge to York Road on the south bank over arched approach roads, Rennie managed to provide a virtually flat crossing to the Strand and at least in this respect he did emulate Perronet’s Pont de Neuilly.
The bridge architecture was greatly admired. The Italian sculptor Canova called it ‘the n
oblest bridge in the world’ and said that ‘it is worth going to England solely to see Rennie’s bridge’. This was a remarkable accolade at a time when it was more normal for English aristocrats to travel to Italy on the Grand Tour for their cultural education. This architectural excellence led Sir Reginald Blomfield to question whether Rennie, a mere engineer, could have designed the bridge on his own, especially as his London Bridge was inferior from an architectural point of view.29 Ralph Dodd also challenged Rennie’s authorship of the design. Writing in The Gentleman’s Magazine of June 1817, he claimed that his family in the person of George Dodd was the true designer and offered to show the original plans to prove it. There is, however, no evidence to support either of these critics. Moreover, Rennie’s 1803 design for Kelso Bridge in the Scottish Borders forms the basis for his bridge here on the Thames.
John Rennie (1761–1821)
John Rennie was the fourth son of a Scottish farmer who lived near the village of East Linton, a few miles east of Edinburgh. He took an early interest in machinery and when only twelve years old he left school to work for Andrew Meikle, the distinguished millwright. Although he later returned to full-time education, including attending lectures by Professor Robson at Edinburgh University, he was determined to pursue a career as an engineer. In 1783, Rennie journeyed south to London, where through the recommendation of Professor Robson he obtained a job with James Watt as a millwright. His first major commission was the construction of the steam-powered machinery for Albion Mills at the southern end of Blackfriars Bridge. The mills were soon destroyed by arson because their superior automation threatened competitors and jobs. However, Rennie’s achievement established his reputation and enabled him to set up his own practice.
Crossing the River: The History of London's Thames River Bridges From Richmond to the Tower Page 18