Evening star., 1926-08-22
Memorial Bridge DELAYS Saved D. S. From M0nstrOsities

called on the Secretary OF War to
make an estimate of the cost of a
bridge. to suggest a definite plan for
it. and to decide the moot point as
to whether the Naval Observatory
hill was the best location for the Dis
trict approach.
Maj G. E. l.. B. Davis of the Engi-
neer Corps reported on June I, 1892,
that the Naval Observatory grounds
were best suited as location. and he
recommended a design similar to that
first proposed by Maj Hams. He.
modified the plans so as to provide
for a width of 80 feet instead Of "a
feet for the roadway. He also favored
the draw type Of bridge.
Estimates of the cost of the bridge
first planned by Maj. Hams ran
slightly over the half-million-dollar
mark. Now it is expected to cost
more than $4,000. 900. When the de-
signs of 1901 and 1902 were under con-
sideration the cost was estimated as
approximately $4,000. 900, including a
$1,000, 900 memorial arch, distinct from
the bridge proper, to feature the Dis
trict approach.
AS time went on and the science of
bridge building advanced. the impress
sive designs of Capt. Symons and
Mai. Hains were lost to view under
a barrage of plans by noted architects
who were trained In the more conserv-
ative school. Concrete was substituted
for suspension cables or steel frame
work, and gaudy towers and knick.
knacks not essential to construction
plans were relegated to the scrap heap
of old memories.
THE design of George Keller, noted
l. architect. examined by the Senate
District committee in 1901, more
nearly resembled the present design
than any of those preceding. Mr..
Keller's idea Of having a massive me-
mortal arch, similar to the Arc de
Triomphe in Paris, located In a. large
circular plaza at the Washington end,
met with considerable criticism. how
ever. 1t was argued that a million
dollars was a lot of money to spend
on an archway which was not a part
of the bridge itself, and which had no
direct connection with it.
Proponents of the bridge again
found themselves In another contro-
versy. this time as to the advisable
ity of building embankments out into
claimed that this would interfere
with the plans for reclaiming the
Potomac fats on both sides of the
river.
Prof. William II. Burr Of Columbia
University submitted a design which
seemed to allay fears in this con
nection, his bridge calling for a num-
ber of arches over the lowlands. per
mitting the flow of water underneath.
Prof. Burr's design, which was Sc
lected by a board of noted engineers
appointed by the Secretary of War,
Elihu Root, in 1900 involved two
great tower arches in the center. The
board which approved this design
comprised Stanford White. Maj. Sy-
mons. Col. Charles J.. Allen, Capt.
David D. Gaillard and James g. Hill.
the latter a Washington architect of
prominence
During all these years of indecision
1t can be safely said that at no time
was there a design submitted in any
way comparable. as far as beauty and
utility go. with the magnificent
structure now being reared across the
Potomac.
It can be stated. further, without
fear Of contradiction. that the per-
sons who were to blame for the long
delay in bringing the project to a
head rendered the country a great
service, regardless of the criticism. TO
which they may have been subjected
by their cotemporary citizens.
For had Capt. Symons. or Mai.
Hams. or Architect Keller. or En-.
Cineer Rurr sseer his own creation
realized in his own day. the Nation 3
Capital would not be able to boast to.
day OF the fact that It is soon to have
one OF the worlds most beautiful
river spans-dedicated to American