Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-04-26
MEMORIAL. BRIDGE DESIGN
MIR. KELLER's OBJECTIONS TO THE
ACCEPTED fLA ANSWERED.
Adequate View oftN~ Towers Possible
From the ShOre-NO Lnck of Har-
mony In the Arches.
To the Editor of rhesEvenihs Star:


AS an engneef- anf long resident of
Washington l haye long been deeply inter-
ested in the proposef memorial bridge to
Arlington After discussing the subject
more or less for, the past fifteen years, it |
seems that something tangible has been at
tanned in the form of strong and graceful |
design, at reasonable cost, and the neces-
sary legislation is now only required before |
active preparations for the actual construct |
ton of the anticipated bridge is begun.
At this time it is disappointing to see |
hindrances placed in its way like the criti- |
cisms by Mr.. Keller of Hartford, Conn. |
which appeared in your issue of the 24th |
instant.
No structure which has ever been plan
ned or built is above criticism u have even
| heard Mr.. Keler's own arch at Hartford
| very severely criticised, and reasonable.
| well-considered criticism is always to be
invited; but the whole tenor OF his letter
| finding disposition toward the whole exist
ing arrangement
| Mr. Keller writes, "As to the design of
| the bridge itself it lacks simplicity; the
| arches are of all widths from 20 feet to
| 1872 feet, and of all shapes-semi- circular,
| segmental and a steel imitation segmental
| arch for the bascule or draw span" The
| Engineering Record, on the other hand.
says, THE simplicity and dignity of the
| accepted plans and the efficiency of their
design will insure an eminently satisfactory
| structure" The doctors evidently disagree,
and I am inclined to think that the Record
is correct and that Mr.. Keller is positively
and needlessly wrong. His statement that
the arches are of all widths is plainly
Pigment of his own imagination. Had he
carefully read his copy of The Star he
would have found that the width Of the
| arches Is so feet from one end of the bridge
to the other I judge. however. that he re-
fers to the span of the arches. In this case
careful perusal would have revealed the
fact that, with the single exception of the
| ho Of no ia her
60 feet or 1872 feet. the 6O-foot spans form
ing the approaches on either side and the
192-foot spans being over the river There
| are no arches of intermediate span. This
looks like simplicity itself.
Likewise in regard to the shapes" the
intrados of the river spans all dnclud
ing the draw segments Of a circle, and
those of the approach spans are all semi
circles. Hence there are introduced merely
| two varieties Of the same curve (the CIRCLE
the one accentuating the other. Simplicity
| again. Perhaps he Is not familiar with any
| of the thirty or forty other curves, but had
he read the report carefully he would have
discovered that ALI the shapes" were
not used in this design, as the ellipse is spe-
| cialy mentioned several times In connection
| with other designs.
I do not know whether Mr. Keller has
| ever seen the bridge site or not, but having
seen 1t myself, 1 am inclined to differ with
, him in his statement that 1.-THE view as
shown in the illustration can only be had
from a boat or a flying machine, etc. Prac-
tically the Identical view can be had while
! standing on terra firma in Potomac Park
and its equivalent from Analostan Island.
while an even finer view can be obtained
from Observatory Hill.
! His fears as to being jostied are equally
groundless, unless he elects to go there
when a procession is passing A simple
| calculation will reveal the fact that the
| entire population of Washington might
walk across the commodious sidewalks of
the bridge every twelve hours and not oc-
. | casion any serious joStling. Then, how
. about the roadway?
. He regards 1t unfortunate that bas-
. cule draw is inserted in memorial bridge,
. | but suggests no remedy. Perhaps 1t is diff
. ficult to find one. / fancy that there are
7 few who do not regret the necessity of a
7 | draw, but the Importance Of the trade OF
{ Georgetown and Washington above the
4 | bridge, the amount Of money already ex-
! pended by the general government In i'm
!. proving the channels to these harbors, etc,
!. | demand that the navigation interests shall
!. | be considered. The cost of constructing a
!. suitable memorial bridge at an elevation
!. sufficient to allow the passage of all YES
!. sells underneath would be greater than
!. Congress would probably be willing to pay.
!. and unless he has some new and valuable
}. method to propose I do not see how a draw
!; can be obviated. The most graceful draw
!; and the one most in keeping with the gen
!: eral design is an arched bascule. When
& closed 1t will have the appearance OF an
! arch and will correspond with the re-
!. mainder OF the bridge. and as the majority
!: of boats can pass without opening 1t, one
!. would probably have to wait long time
!. to satisfy his curiosity as to how 1t looks
!. when open.
: Mr.. Keller assumes that the design for
Z the memorial bridge was evidently sug-
/. gested" by the Tower bridge at London. Il
!: may have had its effect. but the bascue Is
& | probably the most ancient type Of draw
3 bridge built. The draw bridge across the
s moat of a castle is Of this type. Further
the Tower bridge was built about 1894
Z | whereas the files Of The Star Of about 1881
!: will undoubtedly show plan of mennorta
J bridge. with bascule draws and piers In the
J. center of the river very similar to those o.
& | the accepted design. the architectural work
). having been done by Smithmeyer q Pelz II
!. | that year. Maybe the Tower bridge wa:
J. copied from the memorial bridge instead.
!. mud. dust. etc." 1t should be noted tina
: the bascule leaves will not be required t.
:: open vertically, but. on account of the
width OF the draw opening. they Will rarely
T have to be raised over As degrees from thu
Z horizontal. They can. however, easily b.
kept clean.
Z Mr.. Kellers main objection. as indicated
)! in two separate paragraphs, appears to bt
J. to the memorial arches upon the bascuf'
=. piers. In fact, he seems to place mucf
- more stress upon the architecture Of these
arches than upon the architecture of thu
n bridge as whole To my mind the tdes
e. Of giving the bridge symmetrical ant
GO pleasing outline or silhouette from a lit
- tie distance is of great Importance. Th
ne would not be the effect If 1.-The two insig
u nificant arches" (they are each about a.
% high the tower of the Church of tn
80 CovenanD were rolled into one noble on
- and placed on the Washington side, Will
r. nothing to balance 1t on the other, as in tn
80 Hartford arch. These arches are to b.
40 | ornamented, 1t Is true. but, on account o
Id | their height and massiveness. there Is no
likely to be an excessive amount OF dell
TO- Ill H.,