Tas Municipal Council issued on Thursday a most interesting pamphlet coutaining the Reports on the Plans and Estimates for the Proposed Garden Bridge across the mouth of the Soochow Creek. "The interest, however, really lies more in the subject than in the contents of this Works' Committee's report on the plans articular brochure. It opens with the one brag that hare, been subeniiol, and the first paragraph is a very striking, one, and may Be left to Speak for itself -—" Owing to our late engineer, Mr. C. B. Clark, having omitted to inform competitors of all necessary requirements, such as headway, load on ground, etc., a great many of the designs sent in are quite unsuitable to the place." It is only fair to add that Mr. Clark puts a different construction on it according to him, "it is to be regretted that no regulations were laid down the Council as to the headway required, length of spans, moving load, weight on the foundations, etc., as from the absence of one or other of these iculars, the designers of several of the plans have been unfortunately handicapped, and their bridges, admirable in construction, are thoroughly unsuited to the place." Whether it was the Council or their Surveyor with whom the fault lies, we need not stay to enquire. The result has been to give a certain advantage, which we need not too greatly regret, to local art; and accordingly we find the Council, after eliminating the majority of the designs for various defects, concurring in recommending that of Messrs. Kingsmill and Vowell.
The designs as a whole, excluding; that sent in by Messrs. Morrison an Gratton which is too costly, are strikingly devoid of beauty, the majority of them looking like cheap railway bridges. We cannot honestly say that we think Messrs. Kingsmill and Vowell's will be a beautiful bridge by any means, and the effect of the roadway cutting through the two arches will always make it resemble a magnified proposition of Euclid. It is however full of practical advantages the load per square foot is believed to be within safe limit, and it may and should be reduced by doing away with the proposed metalling of the roadway, which is entirely wu necessary; the headway is greater than in any other design, the gradient is less, and the headway is over the deepest' channel there is only one pier in the fairway, and the small arches on the Hongkew side would allow of the foreshore there being reclaimed without altering what beauty the bridge has; this beauty it is proposed to enhance by putting a more ornamental handrail but this might perhaps only draw more attention to the plainness of the main structure. As to the reduction of the width of the pathway from ten to eight feet at the girders, we do not consider that a serious matter.
But we rather gather from Mr. Mayne's report, and to that the public will look more than to the others, that none of the designs sent in, except the innest costly one, are good enough in all respects for adoption. Mr. Mayne is very cautious, as we might expect him to be under the circumstances, but the following sentence conveys a good deal: "The general public are apt to be severe on an ugly structure, and when an opportunity is afforded like the present, the surrounding scenery should be improved if possible." The best thing he can say for the design chosen by the Works Committee is that it "combines most of the necessary requifements," while his conclusion is that "some of the designs have several good points, but would require modifications in order to make a suitable and artistic bridge." The position is this; we have a splendid site—for it is one of the most* prominent points on which the eye rests as one approaches Shanghai coming up the river—and a public willing to pay liberally for a satisfactory bridge; but it must be a bridge that we can be proud of, and one to which we can sutoly refer the Chinese—who are no mean bridge-builders themselves—as anexample of western science and taste.
This takes us back to the preliminary question of whether a new bridge ix wanted at all. We might very well defer the matter on the ground that the late Surveyor having given insufficient information, the competition could not be complete; and a new competition might produce a design combining beauty with the practical merits of that of Messrs. Kingsmill and Vowell. But we are by no means satisfied that the present bridge, unbeautiful as it is, will not last many years yet. We are much inclined to doubt whether the piles themselves are rotten; they are pitted on the outside with the points of innumerable boat-hooks, but this does not go far in, and we expect, if one of them were sawn in half, that it would be found that beneath the surface they are still as good as ever. There is no doubt that to such a bottom as that of the Soochow Creek a pile bridge, with its innumerable sup-pee. is much more suitable than a ridge of few arches with one or two heavy piers; at any rate we know that the mud will support the former, and we are not quite sure about the latter. The bridge may require to have its upper part renewed; but if the support= ing piles are still good, it would be a ity to pull them up and waste them. it would be foolish to spend the hundred. and thirty thousand taels or so required for a new bridge in a bury if it is not absolutely necessary; and of this we think the Council should assure themselves by farther investigation. before the coming meeting. Shanghai will not grudge the cost of a handsome, new bridge if the present one is really unsafe,
certain on that point. Sooner or later, but the Tatepeyers will want to be quite without doubt, a new bridge will be necessary, but if its construction can be safely delayed, the time will not be wasted if in the interval a design can be got which will give us a bridge as ornamental as Messrs. Morrison and Gratton's, and with all the other good points of that of Messrs. Kingsmill and Vowell. There are points too, about
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.