Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

‘A very mortifying situation’: Robert Mylne’s struggle to get paid for Blackfriars Bridge

‘A very mortifying situation’: Robert Mylne’s struggle to get paid for Blackfriars Bridge In February 1760, Robert Mylne (1733–1811) was declared the winner of the competition for the design of a new bridge to be erected at Blackfriars, London. Work on the foundations began immediately. There were delays in the building programme, certainly, but they were not serious and there were good reasons for them. The bridge was fully opened to traffic in November 1769, and was widely admired, both for the aesthetic of its appearance and its commercial success and general usefulness (Fig. 1). Why then should it have taken over six years, until March 1776, to settle the architect’s bill? This article explores possible answers to the question by considering what parts of the project might have gone wrong, or what other reason would explain the City’s prevarication. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Architectural History Cambridge University Press

‘A very mortifying situation’: Robert Mylne’s struggle to get paid for Blackfriars Bridge

Architectural History , Volume 43: 15 – Apr 11, 2016
Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/cambridge-university-press/a-very-mortifying-situation-robert-mylne-s-struggle-to-get-paid-for-YIau90mIvh

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2000
ISSN
2059-5670
eISSN
0066-622X
DOI
10.2307/1568692
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In February 1760, Robert Mylne (1733–1811) was declared the winner of the competition for the design of a new bridge to be erected at Blackfriars, London. Work on the foundations began immediately. There were delays in the building programme, certainly, but they were not serious and there were good reasons for them. The bridge was fully opened to traffic in November 1769, and was widely admired, both for the aesthetic of its appearance and its commercial success and general usefulness (Fig. 1). Why then should it have taken over six years, until March 1776, to settle the architect’s bill? This article explores possible answers to the question by considering what parts of the project might have gone wrong, or what other reason would explain the City’s prevarication.

Journal

Architectural History – Cambridge University Press

Published: Apr 11, 2016

There are no references for this article.