AI NO DERRIDA

Monday, 26 March 2012




'High Paddington' was published in 1952.  It promotes an ambitious scheme to build a "vertical town" for 8000 people over Paddington goods yard, complete with primary schools, hospital, hotel, church and - of course - a vicarage. 

It was supported by the Conservative MP for South Paddington, Robert Allan, but was rejected by the L.C.C.

From the foreward by R. Allan (note the concern for lost agricultural land; did this stop being an issue with the end of rationing?):

"Any of us who are concerned with the life of our big cities must be appalled at the conditions under which so many are forced to live. The need for re-housing appears to us so great that nothing can be more important. Yet those who have to look beyond the cities are becoming increasingly alarmed at the claims which housing is making on agricultural land.

Before the war we built freely on farm land.  Then there was plenty of food to be imported and we had the means to buy it. To-day, the world's food is scarce and our means are small.  Now we must grow more food from our own soil or go short. Urgent though new housing is, we cannot afford to build on food-producing land if there is any possible alternative.

The need for housing in Paddington is so great that I felt it my first duty to concentrate on this problem. I had long discussions with those concerned in Paddington. Then I had the good fortune to have a talk with Mr. Kadleigh. He was already convinced that vertical building offered the only solution. The project of High Paddington is his answer."

More scans here: High Paddington

3 comments:

  1. Very interesting. Thanks, Mr. B.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My Pleasure, U-W.

    Here's an interesting paragraph from that debate that I linked to above:

    "Last July I reminded the House that in 1951 I sponsored a scheme to build over an 18-acre site at Paddington goods yard. This practical scheme was approved by the British Transport Commission, with which we had lengthy negotiations. We had boreholes sunk to prove the practicality of the scheme. No fire regulations would have been contravened; nor would there have been a traffic problem. But the scheme was turned down on the ground of density only and so was a later, less ambitious scheme, called Perkins Heights."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Spot on Bollops. I'am of to flickr for more.

    ReplyDelete