“The reporter gives a preference to this line, because it seems best suited to the peculiar situation of the ground, being calculated to show to much advantage the rugged rocks on which Nelson’s Monument is erected, which beautifully terminates the view in looking eastward; and in entering the town from the opposite directions, it exhibits at one view, from a somewhat elevated situation, the striking and extensive line of Princes Street. Now the reporter is humbly of opinion that to attain these objects, this line of road should be carried straight from Shakespeare Square to the eastern side of the burying-ground, after which it may be made to suit the position and nature of the ground in all its windings, as delineated upon the survey.
“As this road is not only to be the great approach from the eastward, but likewise to become the chief thoroughfare to the extensive lands of Heriot’s and Trinity Hospitals, and to the lands of the other conterminous proprietors, henceforth likely to become the principal building grounds for this great city, which is always increasing towards its port of Leith, it becomes desirable for these purposes, and particularly to preserve the interesting view of the Calton Hill, that this road should not be less than seventy-five feet in breadth, or similar to Princes Street, exclusively of the sunk areas, which is certainly adequate to all the ordinary purposes of utility, intercourse, and elegance. There is, however, one way of viewing the width of this part of the road or street, by which it may appear to be too narrow even at seventy-five feet, and that is by comparing it with the width of Princes Street, which, including the sunken areas, measures ninety-five feet in breadth. Princes Street, however, comes more properly under the description of a row or terrace, and the principal footpath being on the north side of the street, it may consequently be apprehended that unless the new street were of an equal width, a spectator looking from the north side of the new street towards the line of Princes Street would command but an imperfect view of it. This to a considerable extent would be the state of the case even at seventy-five feet of breadth, and were the street reduced to sixty feet in breadth, as has been proposed, the view of the higher parts of the Calton Hill would be hid from the pavement on Princes Street. But the narrowing of the street even to sixty feet in width, with two elegant buildings in the form of pavilions or wings to the bridge, would have an effect similar to what is strikingly observable in looking from the western end of George Street towards the Excise Office. Examples of narrowing streets are not uncommon, as Great Pulteney Street in Bath, and Blackfriars and Westminster Bridge Streets in London. The reporter, however, confesses that he is not induced to consider sixty feet, or even seventy-five feet, as the most desirable breadth for the new bridge from any views of elegance; with him the reduction of the width of the street is proposed rather from motives of economy to insure the success of a great measure, than from choice in making the design. In this situation a bridge of ninety-five feet, or equal to the extreme breadth of Princes Street, would most unfortunately place the new buildings upon the north-western side so near to the houses of Leith Street, that the windows of the houses of Leith Street and those of the new street would be shaded by each other, so as to require the buildings at the western end of the bridge to be kept less in height, if not to be discontinued altogether, for a considerable way, which would render the building grounds of much less value. Two or three of the new buildings, indeed, might be joined or connected with the old houses, but still the property upon the whole would be greatly injured. Considering this, and also the additional expense of the bridge without greatly increasing the value of the cellarage, together with the greater trespass that would be made on the burying-ground by a street of ninety-five feet in breadth, the reporter has been induced to delineate upon the plan a bridge of seventy-five feet, and a road from it to the Abbeyhill of sixty feet in breadth. Yet if it shall appear that funds cannot be conveniently obtained to meet even this expense, it may then be found necessary to make the whole of the uniform breadth of sixty feet. From the annexed estimate for the purchase of property, building a bridge of seventy-five feet in width, and making a road from it to the Abbeyhill of sixty feet in breadth, it appears that the expense will amount to £71,976, 14s.