Westminster Parliament builds themselves bigger chambers

[chornedsnorkack]

The US Congress had built themselves a Capitol.
The sizes I´ve seen for Old Senate Camber and Statuary Hall vary a bit and are given approximately. But I see the values given as 15x23 m, semicircular for Old Senate Chamber (making approximately 270 square m?), and 15x29 m, elliptical for Statuary Hall (making approximately 340 square m).

Around 1850, the US Congress, then mere 62 Senators for their 270 square m Chamber and 231 Representatives for their 340 square m Hall, decided they wanted more space, and had Capitol expanded with new wings.

With Senate chamber of 25x34 m, that is 850 square m (remember, it was 62 senators who wanted it...) and Representatives chamber of 29x42 m, that is 1200 square m.

After the expansion, the total floor area of Capitol was about 65 000 square m. When the Congress wanted to vote themselves staffs after 1900, they ran out of office space in Capitol house, but they built iit in separate buildings next to Capitol.

Now as for Westminster Parliament...
In 1834, they had tallies burnt - along with Westminster Palace, pound et cetera.

As they rebuilt... Commons was 658 members, and Lords about how many?

They ended up building a Westminster Palace of total floor area 110 000 square m... but, for some reason, they stuck to the historical sizes of Lords and Commons chambers of old palace.
Mere 340 square m for Lords, and just 290 square m for Commons. MPs cannot even sit in their Chamber.

So, WI the Westminster Parliament takes the opportunity to commission chambers suitable for their numbers, wealth of UK and technical capabilities of 1850s?

 

[Rath]

They build an absolutely grandiose building, because if they’re deviating from tradition, they might go all the way. It probably has reduced classical influence relative to many capitols being built at the time, and is in that ‘English government style’.

 

[Frrf]

One of the constraints on the rebuild of the Palace of Westminster was that it only had a very limited area to build on. On one side, it's bounded by the Thames, on the other, by Westminster Abbey, on a third, by the A302 and Westminster Bridge, then one of very few bridges over the Thames, to the South, there is some open space in the form of the Victoria Tower Gardens, but it's an awkward shape and I should imagine there's a reason nothing was built there.
Parliament could decide to build new chambers elsewhere, but that would be even more expensive as they'd need to actually purchase the land, and it would move it away from the bureaucracy in Whitehall. They might be able to have larger debating chambers if the move the members and staff offices to a different building, but again that would introduce security issues and make it harder for MPs to reach the chambers to vote. Remember, in the Westminster system, once the bells ring members have just 8 minutes to get to the division rooms for a vote, and once time is up the doors are locked. If they take too long they don't get to vote. And tradition allows for a vote to be called for any motion that the Speaker doean't call on the voices. (This is why you sometimes see ministers running full tilt through Parliament, especially when numbers are tight.) The need to ensure that all parts of the building are within 8 minutes foot travel of the division rooms is another constraint. Another constraint is that the Lobby must be publically accessable, and must be central in order to facilitate lobbying. There must be a clear route between the two chambers for various rituals. There must be state rooms for the monarch in order to facilitate the State Opening of Parliament, and the Speech from the Throne.
Another constraint is that until relatively recently, the House of Lords also acted as the highest court of appeal in England and Wales, so the building needed to be designed to accomodate that.
Additionally, there were surviving structures from the old palace, most prominently St. Stephen's Chapel and Westminster Hall, which would need to be preserved as they had immense cultural and historical importance.
So those are major reasons why they didn't build bigger chambers. Find ways around them, and sure.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I think the 8 minute thing would be easy to change (just increase the time to 15 minutes or whatever), but as for the rest, it would indeed be quite difficult.

Also -- though I'm not sure if this is a cause or a result of the difference in size -- US congressmen have their own desks in the chamber, whereas MPs just sit on big benches. Hence an MP takes up less room than a congressman, and you can fit more of them into a smaller space.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Maybe build something like Portcullis House, effectively as an annexe to the Palace of Westminster, to allow less important functions and offices to be moved there?

Alternatively, build a taller building, but I don't know how effectively that could be done with the building techniques of the time.

 

[catalfalque]

Maybe build something like Portcullis House, effectively as an annexe to the Palace of Westminster, to allow less important functions and offices to be moved there?

Alternatively, build a taller building, but I don't know how effectively that could be done with the building techniques of the time.

Yeah, I was thinking: How about another floor?!

Have the Lords a storey above the Commons

 

[VictorLaszlo]

This is how Westminster Palace may have looked like had some of the other 97 proposals won the architectural contest

 

[Mike Stearns]

Yeah, I was thinking: How about another floor?!

Have the Lords a storey above the Commons

Perhaps the Monarch above the Lords? For extra grovelling.

 

[Wendell]

@VictorLaszlo that third one looks almost like something the Greeks, Italians, or Americans would build.

 

[Mike Stearns]

@VictorLaszlo that third one looks almost like something the Greeks, Italians, or Americans would build.

Maybe this is ATL UK, where the monarchy goes for full blown Sun King absolutism, ala France?

 

[Wendell]

Maybe this is ATL UK, where the monarchy goes for full blown Sun King absolutism, ala France?

More likely, we see a Britain propagating itself as an heir to Rome to get that style IMO.

 

[Mike Stearns]

More likely, we see a Britain propagating itself as an heir to Rome to get that style IMO.

Possibly, although, I was thinking more generally of the idea that the monarchy can do literally anything it wants and as a result somebody decides to spend an obscene amount money on new Houses of Parliament purely because they can.

 

[Wendell]

Possibly, although, I was thinking more generally of the idea that the monarchy can do literally anything it wants and as a result somebody decides to spend an obscene amount money on new Houses of Parliament purely because they can.

I thought you were going with "The monarchy goes all sun king and is abolished as a result" but that might work too.

 

[Mike Stearns]

I thought you were going with "The monarchy goes all sun king and is abolished as a result" but that might work too.

I hadn’t really thought of that, although maybe the British Royals go all absolutist, spend an obscene amount of money building an eyesore which bankrupts the Empire and the monarchy is abolished as a result.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

The chambers themselves don't take up so much space on the ground floor that they could not be enlarged. It is simple matter of relocating/deleting things like offices and courtyards to gain the necessary ground space. Now, to engineer the roof necessary to enclose such spaces? 1835-1840 is probably a little too early. By 1850 , you have railway train sheds, and the Crystal Palace to hone your technique. Delay the destruction of the Palace by 15-20 years, and you could see something really magnificent being built.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

The chambers themselves don't take up so much space on the ground floor that they could not be enlarged. It is simple matter of relocating/deleting things like offices and courtyards to gain the necessary ground space. Now, to engineer the roof necessary to enclose such spaces? 1835-1840 is probably a little too early.

Westminster Palace contained Westminster Hall, nearly 21 m wide. The present roof construction is 1390s. And from the lack of any traces of posts in floor, it seems the original, 1090s roof already was single span. Yet the chambers were made only 14...15 m wide.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

This is how Westminster Palace may have looked like had some of the other 97 proposals won the architectural contest

What is the image at the bottom? I think I have fallen in love with it. WOW!!

 

[Deleted member 92195]

I know this a forum post is about the Palace of Westminster but a walk from the Palace of Westminster to Whitehall is only 7 minutes.

Anyway, I found these blueprint designs by Indigo Jones a long time ago. The blueprints are a reconstruction after the Palace of Whitehall was burned down in 1691 and 1698. Very similar to the Palace of Westminster. Letters in the images designate the description of rooms.

Plus here is the source: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cg...?type=header&id=DLDecArts.InigoJones1&isize=M

Jones draws everything from doors, walls, ceilings, statues and many more, plus additional designs. There is a total of 72 plates.