The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 20 (1942) > Issues > Issue 6 > City of London Reconstruction Conclusion of Report of Second Discussion from page 76, May 1942 issue
Name of File 2613-20-06.pdf cached at 18/12/2017 22:31:07 - with 4 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\92\92e53a7b-d3fd-4dbc-bee1-a0dead78cf34.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\92e53a7b-d3fd-4dbc-bee1-a0dead78cf34_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 92e53a7b-d3fd-4dbc-bee1-a0dead78cf34_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

City of London Reconstruction Conclusion of Report of Second Discussion from page 76, May 1942 issue On the Paper by Mr. S. Bylander and Mr. H. Boddington

LT.-COLONEL H. S. ROGERS (Past-President) said that the paper gave rise to interesting speculations, for it had suggested certain lines on which London should be rebuilt after the war. On the other hand, it might be thought at first sight that Mr. Cocking had attempted to throw a spanner into the works by suggesting that the buildings it was proposed to erect might not be needed for some time to come. Therefore, we should watch the position very carefully in the future in order to judge the conditions that were arising, especially if we continued to de-centralise, as was the trend at present. Our methods of dealing with food, and our transport system, were on lines absolutely different from those on which they were originally planned, One would not say that in regard to these matters we were in a state of chaos, because presumably the arrangements were getting into shape; but it would be difficult to bring our communications and trading arrangements back to the old lines. The whole subject was very wide, and could only be focussed and brought into shape by some very powerful central authority. Presumably the Government authorities were thinking along those lines; we had an entirely new Ministry of Works and Buildings, and presumably one of its functions ,was to plan.