May 3, 1872.
no mistress’s pantry, and the store-room, if intended for that purpose, is absurdly small. The housemaids’ closet. though not so narrow as ¢‘Domus’’ Critic” mentions, gives no elbow room, and isso awkwardly placed that the inmates will generally pass through it during the period of the day that the housemaid requires to use her wash- basin or slop-pan. The entrance-hall is narrow, and has no provision for stove or grate to warm staircase or passage—made especially necessary as the firepiaces are in outside walls. I will not re- capitulate the objections already made by others ; at the same time,I do not imagine that ‘ Domus” over- looked the necessity of having servants’ w.c., larder, coal-cellar,and, I may add, dairy. wood-shed, ashpit, boot and knife cleaning house, shed to cover pump and unpacking space, and tradesmen’s entrance—but he apparently intended to group same round the kitchen court, but they should have been shown on plan, and certainly the referees should have made an al- lowance of the required number of cube feet and re- jected “Domus,” if the additional quantity ex- ceeded the conditions. The wash-house, laundry, and wine-cellar, I suppose. are intended to be in basement. I think the reception rooms are too few ; there should have been a small breakfast-room ad- ditional on ground floor in a house of this class, for even if the library was used generally by the family as morning-room or breakfast-room, it would still be necessary to have, in most families, a children’s study or general family room. { provided in one plan a good room, by adding a few feet to the width of entrance passage, having a fireplace, window, and glass door, sheltered by outer door and porch. I have found the hall, thus utilised, one of the most valuable apartments in the house for general purposes, such as writing and answering letters, holding morning service, lounging and reading-room for guests, spare room for parties, réunions, &e. I also separated my kitchens from the main house by a covered porch opened at one side, and the service could be made either through this or by sliding door from kitchen to service-room. I have never found that this porch was considered cold, and the smell from kitchen is well kept away from the house. The referees were also wrong in stating no soft-water cistern was provided in any of the plans, as I did so in both plans, with overflow to another tank in yard; I also proposed to put the linen in presses in the bath-room, with the circula- ting pipes from boiler to hot cistern taken through same. In mentioning these features of my plans I do not intend to make invidious comparisons with the successful design, but wish merely to help the discussion as to what constitutes a good plan, and to elicit what general principles guided the referees in determining the merits of the plans submitted. I may state that I quite agree with the referees in some points concerning ‘‘ Domus’s” plan ; it is neatly arranged, there is a minimum of space in passages, the rooms have a good aspect, and it has the recommendation that none of the reception rooms overlook the approach. Mr. Lockwood’s plan for the mansion is particu- larly good, but I think a window in the north-west corner of dining-room would add to the cheerfulness of the room; I coincide with him against the referees’ opinion concerning the loggia. The hall door is well placed. I must add that most of the strictures on this plan by ‘‘H,” except the point as to headroom of stairs, and a few of those of ‘‘ Domus’ ’ Critic,” are somewhat hypercritical. I think it unfair to criticise the elevations of either Mr. Lockwood’s mansion or “ Domus’,” as the instructions put little weight on these points, but I cannot conclude with- out expressing the respect I have for the evidence of artistic ability and thought Mr. Hicks has shown in his very effective design for amansion,—I am, &c., Belfast. Ss Srr,—As you have obligingly opened your columns to criticisms on the designs submitted in the recent house planning competition, I yenture (though I was not acompetitor) to make a few remarks, whichI do not think out of place, now that the result is known, and the successful designs published. The designs submitted by ‘‘ Experientia” and ‘‘ Domus” have been already criticised in your columns, and no more need be said of them, than that the design by ‘‘ Domus” looks practical ; but the design illustrated in last week’s issue certainly needs some comment. In Mr. Hicks’s plans I note the following faults, which a little care might have ayoided, though I do not think that they can haye escaped the searching eyes of the referees. On the ground floor a large hall with a flat ceiling is very insufliciently lighted from the staircase window, and from small lights in the porch, and there is a dark passage leading to a still darker servants’ corridor, &e. I find that there is a journey through a dark passage from the kitchen to the scullery (which has no outer door), though they should be in direct communication; and that the route from the kitchen to the larder is worse. The
| THE BUILDING NEWS. cook’s pantry is neither lighted nor ventilated, and the little lobby at dining-room service door is as badly off. The housekeeper’s room is uncomfortable, and the butler’s pantry has neither plate safe norsink. I think that the best water-closet might have been partitioned off from the cloak-room instead of being placed with its door in full view of the principal rooms. The doors and fireplaces seem to be badly arranged when considered together, many of the doors being hung the wrong way. The absence of a garden entrance may be noted. On the first floor the absence of a water-closet strikes one immediately, though Mr. Hicks has accounted for it; but there certainly should be one, if not two (for the nursery would be better with one attached or near to it), as it would be awkward for a lady to haye either to dodge across the hall on the ground floor, or else climb up to the attic, amongst the servants. Nor is there a bath-room, which is now considered almost indispensable in a house of this description. This floor seems better lighted than the ground floor, but Mr. Hicks would have had an infinitely better hall, and would have vastly improved his house, if he had left his hall open to first floor ceiling, with only a gallery round for approach to the bedrooms. The same faults in the relative positions of doors and fireplaces are obvious on this floor as on the ground floor; in fact, a good deal of eccentricity seems to have been displayed in their arrangement. As regards the design of the exterior, it seems to me that a great deal of the pains which have been bestowed upon the designing of what I cannot help thinking ugly excrescences might have been with advantage devoted to the plans, which do not seem to have had sufficient attention. I know something of West Country prices; but though they are low, I don’t think Mr. Hicks could give his Cornish clients the style of house he shows, with its statues, enriched stone cornices, &c., at 10d. per cube foot. I would rather take Mr. Lock- wood's at 10d., than Mr. Hicks’s at 1s.—I am, &c., Dang P.S.—Mr. Hicks proposes to place a water-closet on the attic floor; surely he forgets that his cistern is on the level of that floor, and that his water-closet would be a closet without water. Perhaps this was an after- thought when he found he had not provided one on first floor, Srr,—As great objection has been taken to the design for villa bearing the undersigned motto, both by the referees and other critics (including that over modest and deeply-wronged competitor ‘‘Red Star”) on account of no w.c. having been proyided on the ground floor, perhaps I may be allowed the liberty of stating that a closet was provided under stair, which, although not shown on the plan fitted up as a w.c. was mentioned in the written description accompanying it as being suitable for either w.c. or wine-cellar ; and as there are both a closet and pantry opening from the lobby, a separate place for wine would not be so necessary as a w.c. appears to be.—I am, &c., GLASGOWEGIAN. 141, West George-street, Glasgow, May 1. Srr,—Allow me to make a few remarks on the two prize designs illustrated in your paper last week. In regard to the mansion, the doors of two of the princi- pal apartmeuts being under the stairs are, therefore, not satisfactory ; most of the doors are hung too near cross walls; the w.c. and lavatory are too near back stairs and serving room. How is it that the bedroom above seryants’ hall has only one window, and the smaller bedroom next it two windows? There is much resemblance inthe general plans to the superior plans of Bignell House, Oxon., illustrated in BurnpING NEws of 14th April, 1870. The elevations want that dignity and mass which are so Gesirable. In regard to the plans and elevations of villa, the least said the soonest mended. I would suggest that the whole of the competition plans be illustrated in the BurLnpING News and then published as acompanion volume to the sketch-book, —I am, &c., JOHN STUART, Woodside, April 23. Srr,—Mr. William A. Goss, of Torquay, builder, has ventured to collect all the errors which the referees pointed out in all the mentioned plans in this compe- tition in such manner as to insinuate that all such errors are attached to one design. His statements find a climax thus: ‘‘And then again, fancy}a mansion without a w.c. on the first floor!” Without even waiting to see the plans he therefrom draws the very enlightened conclusion that ‘tin Torquay such planning would be rejected by the merest tyro of speculative builders.” I will call Mr. Goss’s attention to a correspondence which appeared in the local (Torquay) papers about five years ago, wherein the system of w.c. arrangement in Torquay was utterly condemned, not only by some of the principal inhabitants, but also by one of their leading architects, inasmuch as the drains were venti- lated into the houses (chiefly the bedrooms) and also into the house cisterns, thus poisoning the water. That was a state of things which in my design (illustrated last week) was most carefully guarded against, and par- ticularly referred to in the sixth paragraph of explanations. None of the other errors which Mr. Goss has enu- merated are attributable to my design, and I therefore venture to ask himin what respects houses at Torquay are superior thereto ?
365
Se
I would further warn you, sir, not to accept Mr.
Goss as an infallible authority in matters of thiskind
without further evidence. He has assumed a position
not unlike that of Mr, Fergusson in the Law Courts
criticisms, which Mr. Street happily describes thus :—
““ He damns all designs” (without even seeing them)
“witha singular impartiality, and with an assumption
of omniscience which is superb.”
Moreover, as Mr. Goss may possibly include himself
in the “tyro of speculative builders ” (for he has erected
not a few houses), it would be exceedingly interesting
to the readers of this paper if he would kindly
publish therein the plans of houses by the said ‘* specu-
lative builders of Torquay,” that all may judge for
themselves how far, in comparison, the inferiority of
plans in this competition is “really surprising.”—I
am, &c., JAMES HIcKs.
Redruth, April 27.
STONE AND ITS SELECTION.
Srr,—If Mr. Trickett had read my note more care-
fully he would haye observed that I noticed two
materials—one a true granite, that is, imperishable ;
another, with soda inits composition, which is of no use
in building. Isawa polished granite coped tomb in
Wormhill Churchyard, Derbyshire, a few days ago,
which had been erected eighteen years, and it looked
as fresh asif just set up, whereas the stone monuments
around were black with dirt and vegetation, and fast
decaying.—I am, &c., H. TRAVIs.
SANITARY.—CLOSETS.
Srr,—May I call the actention of ‘“B. F.” to the
futility of his, or Mr. Underhay’s, proposal to enamel
receivers Or containers? Certainly a smooth surface
does not so readily retain matter as a rough one, but,
in this case, however smooth the surface might be, it
would soon become furred even by water only, and
consequently roughened, so that the process of accu-
mulation goes on as before, the result being a continual.
exhalation of poisonous gases in a greater or less de-
gree according to temperature, which, if not escaping
at other times, must, of course, do so when displaced
by water when pan is tilted. As a matter of sanitary
science, receivers or containers must be utterly and
completely condemned, with all due respect for the
inventors; there is nothing to recommend them but
their costliness, which, as a matter of trade, must be
considered, which no doubt makes ‘* B. F.” hesitate to
give an unqualified verdict against them. If they
were merely superfluous they might be tolerated, as
complication and costliness have great charms for many ;
but being positive fever breeders, it is time they were
east aside as curiosities of sanitary science. There
cannot possibly be anything more simple and effective
than the syphon trap and pan—not the old long funnel-
shaped soil retainers, but those which present the least
soiling surface, several good patterns of which are now
in the market. A good supply of water, freely used,
is, of course, necessary to all water-closets, and in ad-
dition to the ordinary supply, I never miss an oppor-
tunity of recommending that two or three pails full
be daily thrown down, that soil may be forced out of
drains into sewers.—I am, &e., TT. H. SAUNDERS.
FIXED WASHSTANDS.
Srr,—Along with many valuable suggestions by
“3B. F.” I find him recommending one which I hope
he will give us some better reason for adopting than
the mere desire to lighten the housemaids’ labour. He
advises fixed washstands throughout a house, so wnex-
ceptionably, indeed, that to any one who suffers
already more than enough from connections of w.c. and
sinks with the sewer and its pestiferous miasmata, it
seems a very hazardous experiment to increase the
dose. Ido not know that any argument he can ad-
duce will persuade me to advise my clients to such a
step, but I should be glad to hear what he has got to
say.—Lam X&e., An ARCHITECT.
April 28.
ag
PARLIAMENTARY NOTES.
S. Srepuen’s CHApen.—Mr. Ayrton, on Friday, in
answer to Mr. Liddell, said his aftention had been
directed to the injury done by the fumes of the lamps
now placed in 8. Stephen’s Chapel to the tracery,
ornamental work, and painted glass contiguous, and
the best way of providing against it in future was to
remoye the lampsaltogether. The damage done was
not of a permanent character, and could be easily
washed off.
PotiuTION or Rivers.—Mr. Dimsdale, on Thurs-
day week, asked the President of the Local Govern-
ment Board whether he was now prepared to state
what modification, if any, he would consent to make
in the standard of purity laid down in clause 33 of
the Public Health Bill—Mr. Stansfeld replied that
his invitations for suggestions on the pollution of
rivers had been very liberally responded to, and he
had received a sufficient number of answers to take
them into consideration immediately. He could
assure the hon. member, however, that in redrafting
the clause in question—for it would probably amount
to that—he would take care that every member of the House, and every one outside interested in tho matter, should have ample opportunity of considering the modifications he might contemplate.
