The American Architect and Building News,
Vol. XXXII.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 801.
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
May 2, 1891.
Summary: —
Death of O. P. Hatfield, Architect. — Death of H. M. A. Chapu, Sculptor. — The Question of the Architectʽs Diploma in France. — Fall of Stairways in a Washington Apartmenthouse. — Sunday-opening of the Metropolitan Museum. — Proposed Zoological Garden for Boston. — Transmitting,
Converting and Using Great Electric Power..............................61 French Architecture. — IV...............................................................63 Etruscan Art. — III..............................................................................65 Some German Town-gates................................................................................68 Emmanuel Fremiet. — VII...................................................................70 Notes and Sketches from Toltec-land.................................................. 72 Books and Papers..................................................................................................73 Illustrations: —
Turkish and Russian Bath Establishment, Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. — Hambleton Old Hall. — Details of Same. — House at Austin, Texas. — Webb Academy for Shipbuilders, Fordham Heights, N. Y. — Building at Boston, Mass. — A Pottery Mexican Idol.
Additional: The Towers and Spires of Bruges, Belgium. — Apartment-house, Brünn, Austria. — Glazed Veranda. — Pulpit in Moray Chapel, St. Giles’s Cathedral, Edinburgh. — All Saints’ Church, Ackworth Moor Top, Yorkshire, Eng. — Kitwells Park, Shenley, Herts. —New Factory, Birming
ham, Eng....................................................................................75 Communications: —
A Case of Extras. — Blue and Black Prints...............................76 Trade Surveys.... ............................................................................76
ALL the older members of the American Institute of Architects will hear with great regret of the death of Mr. Oliver P. Hatfield of New York, which occurred last week, just as our edition was in the hands of the binders. Mr. Hatfield, who had attained the age of seventy-two, was one of the most honored architects in New York. It must be nearly half a century since he went into business with his brother, the late R. G. Hatfield, under the firm name of R. G. & O. P. Hatfield. At that time, architecture was much less of a fine art than it is now, and the Hatfields found themselves led by inclination to the scientific and practical side of the profession, in which they soon gained a wide reputation. Mr. R. G. Hatfield. early in his career, wrote a book of extraordinary merit for the period at which it was published, containing rules deduced from experiments of his own, as well as those which had been made by Tredgold and Rondelet in England and France, accompanied by an immense amount of practical information. This book, under the name of the “American House Carpenter, ʽʽ passed through many editions, and is still popular and useful. Another valuable work of the Hatfields was the invention of what is universally known as the Hatfield Sheave, although the patent expired long ago, and the principle of it is used by a score of manufacturers. In the Hatfield Sheave, which was devised to meet the want of a frictionless roller for sliding-doors, the pin, or axle, of the sheave runs in a slot in the frame, the length of which bears nearly the same proportion to the diameter of the pin that the length of the track bears to the diameter of the sheave. Hence, while the sheave is rolling through a distance of perhaps a yard, the pin rolls an inch and a half in its slot, and there is no perceptible friction or wear anywhere, while the whole affair is very cheap. This apparatus was, we believe, patented in the name of R. G. Hatfield, but the thoughtful ingenuity which devised it was shared by both the brothers. Without taking a great part in original building, although New York owes to them some fine structures, the firm became widely known as experts and consulting architects, and were constantly called upon by their fellows in the profession, to whom thay gave admirable advice, and skilful service. Mr. R. G. Hatfield was almost the first, if not the very first Treasurer of the American Institute of Architects, and held that post until his death, when he was succeeded by Mr. O. P. Hatfield, who retained the office, by repeated reelection, until the consolidation of the Institute with the Western Association made it advisable to remove the business offices of the new body to Chicago. Personally, Mr. O. P. Hatfield, like his elder brother, was quiet, thoughtful, of measured speech, and considerate, but precise in action. Although the
brilliancy of our modern makers of picturesque architecture has cast a little into the shade the steady-going old offices which date from before the war, it has not totally obscured them, and some of the same brilliant artists will be the first to acknowledge with gratitude the kindness with which the Hatfields labored for years, by evening lectures and experiments, to instruct the New York students and draughtsmen in the rudiments of building construction.
H
ENRI MICHEL ANTOINE CHAPU, one of the greatest of French sculptors, died last week at Saint-Germain.
Chapu was born at Mée in 1833, and studied under Pradier and Duret. He gained the Prize of Rome in 1855, and has ever since been prominent as an artist. His works are very numerous. One of the best known in this country, from innumerable photographs and drawings, is the Regnault monument in the School of Fine Arts in Paris; but this is by no means the most important. His “ Mercury, ” exhibited in 1863, was purchased by the French Government, and is now at the Luxembourg, and he was the sculptor of the great monument to M. Schneider at Le Creusot. He was an officer of the Legion of Honor, and had obtained many distinguished honors.
I
T will be remembered that a Commission was appointed by the French Government, some time ago, to inquire whether it was advisable to restrict the practice of architecture to persons provided with a diploma, or certificate of attainment, to be secured by means of a competitive examination, or in some other way. The Commission was composed of the most distinguished men in and out of the profession of architecture. The President was M. Gustave Larroumet, Government Director of Fine Arts; M. Charles Gamier and M. Bailly were Vice-presidents, and among the members were the Presidents of nearly all the great professional societies. The two Secretaries were M. Roussi, the Vice-president of the Society of “Architectes Diplomés, ” and M. Jules Perin, a lawyer of high repute among architects; and, at the close of the meetings, M. Achille Hermant, the well-known Architect to the City of Paris, was chosen to prepare the report of the Commission, a duty which he discharged with exemplary earnestness. Although some of the French technical journals were rather impatient at the failure of the Commission to devise a scheme by which all pretenders should infallibly be kept out of the practice of architecture, there seems to be no doubt that they discussed the question with a sincere desire to find a practicable plan of the kind, and that they abandoned the effort only after extensive inquiry and long discussion had satisfied them that it was useless. M. Hermant, speaking for the Commission, does not attempt to conceal the evils which arise from the unrestricted license given to any man in France to practise architecture. In the provinces, particularly, a great deal of architectural work among the French is done, to the detriment of owners, as well as of the real architects, by bankrupt bricklayers, building surveyors, decorators, bric-à-brac dealers and charlatans of all kinds, who, it must be remembered, cannot be distinguished by their names from men profoundly versed in the most difficult of all professions, and, owing to their impudence, which they generally possess in inverse ratio to their scientific and artistic capacity, thrust themselves into all sorts of professional employment, particularly into public work, of which, as M. Hermant says, they do, in the provinces, the greater part. Of the way in which they do it, there are amusing stories enough, but, as with us, many of them possess a political “pull” which makes them sure of employment and countenance, whatever blunders they may be guilty of; while the dishonesty and corruption by which they enrich themselves at the expense of their confiding clients are generally unsuspected by any except experienced architects, who, however, dislike to call public attention to the malpractices by which they themselves are the worst sufferers. At first thought, it would certainly seem that the restriction of architectural practice to persons known to be properly qualified for it would be the simplest and best way of escape, both for the profession and the public, from the tricks and blunders of ignorant charlatans; but the Commission, after long deliberation, has come to the opposite conclusion. It approves the principle of visibly separating architects from pretenders, but believes that the best way to do so is by voluntary association of the real
Vol. XXXII.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 801.
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
May 2, 1891.
Summary: —
Death of O. P. Hatfield, Architect. — Death of H. M. A. Chapu, Sculptor. — The Question of the Architectʽs Diploma in France. — Fall of Stairways in a Washington Apartmenthouse. — Sunday-opening of the Metropolitan Museum. — Proposed Zoological Garden for Boston. — Transmitting,
Converting and Using Great Electric Power..............................61 French Architecture. — IV...............................................................63 Etruscan Art. — III..............................................................................65 Some German Town-gates................................................................................68 Emmanuel Fremiet. — VII...................................................................70 Notes and Sketches from Toltec-land.................................................. 72 Books and Papers..................................................................................................73 Illustrations: —
Turkish and Russian Bath Establishment, Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. — Hambleton Old Hall. — Details of Same. — House at Austin, Texas. — Webb Academy for Shipbuilders, Fordham Heights, N. Y. — Building at Boston, Mass. — A Pottery Mexican Idol.
Additional: The Towers and Spires of Bruges, Belgium. — Apartment-house, Brünn, Austria. — Glazed Veranda. — Pulpit in Moray Chapel, St. Giles’s Cathedral, Edinburgh. — All Saints’ Church, Ackworth Moor Top, Yorkshire, Eng. — Kitwells Park, Shenley, Herts. —New Factory, Birming
ham, Eng....................................................................................75 Communications: —
A Case of Extras. — Blue and Black Prints...............................76 Trade Surveys.... ............................................................................76
ALL the older members of the American Institute of Architects will hear with great regret of the death of Mr. Oliver P. Hatfield of New York, which occurred last week, just as our edition was in the hands of the binders. Mr. Hatfield, who had attained the age of seventy-two, was one of the most honored architects in New York. It must be nearly half a century since he went into business with his brother, the late R. G. Hatfield, under the firm name of R. G. & O. P. Hatfield. At that time, architecture was much less of a fine art than it is now, and the Hatfields found themselves led by inclination to the scientific and practical side of the profession, in which they soon gained a wide reputation. Mr. R. G. Hatfield. early in his career, wrote a book of extraordinary merit for the period at which it was published, containing rules deduced from experiments of his own, as well as those which had been made by Tredgold and Rondelet in England and France, accompanied by an immense amount of practical information. This book, under the name of the “American House Carpenter, ʽʽ passed through many editions, and is still popular and useful. Another valuable work of the Hatfields was the invention of what is universally known as the Hatfield Sheave, although the patent expired long ago, and the principle of it is used by a score of manufacturers. In the Hatfield Sheave, which was devised to meet the want of a frictionless roller for sliding-doors, the pin, or axle, of the sheave runs in a slot in the frame, the length of which bears nearly the same proportion to the diameter of the pin that the length of the track bears to the diameter of the sheave. Hence, while the sheave is rolling through a distance of perhaps a yard, the pin rolls an inch and a half in its slot, and there is no perceptible friction or wear anywhere, while the whole affair is very cheap. This apparatus was, we believe, patented in the name of R. G. Hatfield, but the thoughtful ingenuity which devised it was shared by both the brothers. Without taking a great part in original building, although New York owes to them some fine structures, the firm became widely known as experts and consulting architects, and were constantly called upon by their fellows in the profession, to whom thay gave admirable advice, and skilful service. Mr. R. G. Hatfield was almost the first, if not the very first Treasurer of the American Institute of Architects, and held that post until his death, when he was succeeded by Mr. O. P. Hatfield, who retained the office, by repeated reelection, until the consolidation of the Institute with the Western Association made it advisable to remove the business offices of the new body to Chicago. Personally, Mr. O. P. Hatfield, like his elder brother, was quiet, thoughtful, of measured speech, and considerate, but precise in action. Although the
brilliancy of our modern makers of picturesque architecture has cast a little into the shade the steady-going old offices which date from before the war, it has not totally obscured them, and some of the same brilliant artists will be the first to acknowledge with gratitude the kindness with which the Hatfields labored for years, by evening lectures and experiments, to instruct the New York students and draughtsmen in the rudiments of building construction.
H
ENRI MICHEL ANTOINE CHAPU, one of the greatest of French sculptors, died last week at Saint-Germain.
Chapu was born at Mée in 1833, and studied under Pradier and Duret. He gained the Prize of Rome in 1855, and has ever since been prominent as an artist. His works are very numerous. One of the best known in this country, from innumerable photographs and drawings, is the Regnault monument in the School of Fine Arts in Paris; but this is by no means the most important. His “ Mercury, ” exhibited in 1863, was purchased by the French Government, and is now at the Luxembourg, and he was the sculptor of the great monument to M. Schneider at Le Creusot. He was an officer of the Legion of Honor, and had obtained many distinguished honors.
I
T will be remembered that a Commission was appointed by the French Government, some time ago, to inquire whether it was advisable to restrict the practice of architecture to persons provided with a diploma, or certificate of attainment, to be secured by means of a competitive examination, or in some other way. The Commission was composed of the most distinguished men in and out of the profession of architecture. The President was M. Gustave Larroumet, Government Director of Fine Arts; M. Charles Gamier and M. Bailly were Vice-presidents, and among the members were the Presidents of nearly all the great professional societies. The two Secretaries were M. Roussi, the Vice-president of the Society of “Architectes Diplomés, ” and M. Jules Perin, a lawyer of high repute among architects; and, at the close of the meetings, M. Achille Hermant, the well-known Architect to the City of Paris, was chosen to prepare the report of the Commission, a duty which he discharged with exemplary earnestness. Although some of the French technical journals were rather impatient at the failure of the Commission to devise a scheme by which all pretenders should infallibly be kept out of the practice of architecture, there seems to be no doubt that they discussed the question with a sincere desire to find a practicable plan of the kind, and that they abandoned the effort only after extensive inquiry and long discussion had satisfied them that it was useless. M. Hermant, speaking for the Commission, does not attempt to conceal the evils which arise from the unrestricted license given to any man in France to practise architecture. In the provinces, particularly, a great deal of architectural work among the French is done, to the detriment of owners, as well as of the real architects, by bankrupt bricklayers, building surveyors, decorators, bric-à-brac dealers and charlatans of all kinds, who, it must be remembered, cannot be distinguished by their names from men profoundly versed in the most difficult of all professions, and, owing to their impudence, which they generally possess in inverse ratio to their scientific and artistic capacity, thrust themselves into all sorts of professional employment, particularly into public work, of which, as M. Hermant says, they do, in the provinces, the greater part. Of the way in which they do it, there are amusing stories enough, but, as with us, many of them possess a political “pull” which makes them sure of employment and countenance, whatever blunders they may be guilty of; while the dishonesty and corruption by which they enrich themselves at the expense of their confiding clients are generally unsuspected by any except experienced architects, who, however, dislike to call public attention to the malpractices by which they themselves are the worst sufferers. At first thought, it would certainly seem that the restriction of architectural practice to persons known to be properly qualified for it would be the simplest and best way of escape, both for the profession and the public, from the tricks and blunders of ignorant charlatans; but the Commission, after long deliberation, has come to the opposite conclusion. It approves the principle of visibly separating architects from pretenders, but believes that the best way to do so is by voluntary association of the real