entrances are in evidence, the features just mentioned obviously dominate over the composition, and give unequivocal expression to the idea that there is some kind of order and discipline to which the inhabitants of the buildings are subject. And this is, of course, the case, for this “home” is an institution with cer
tain rules and conditions to which those privileged to live in it must conform. It is not, however, a stern discipline, for the building is far removed from a barracks, which is, of course, of all domestic buildings, the most institutional in its extreme form. A very pleasing variety is introduced into the façades, so that while properly subordinate to the central feature with gable and clock tower, the composition does not give the impression of an irksome disciplinary restraint.
Rural Domesticity.
The design, besides being institutional, is properly domestic. This latter quality it expresses partly by the multiplicity of separate entrances and partly by the tall chimneys which here are legitimately prominent, for the chimney is primarily the symbol of
the hearth, and the hearth symbolises the home. And not only is the building obviously a piece of domestic architecture, but it expresses rural domesticity as opposed to urban. The steep roofs and gables, derived from the English cottage tradition, are suitably employed on this occasion, for the building is really nothing more than a plurality of cottages intimately joined together. Thus the character of the group is rightly expressed, and the cottagy quality is in keeping with the function of the design, and is not wrongly employed, as is so often the case, to give a false air of rusticity to what really is a mansion.
The Style of the Buildings.
The detail of the façades is in the English Renaissance manner, yet the total effect of the building is almost mediæval. Mr. Dawber has succeeded in blending into an harmonious whole the two main streams of tradition which have found expression in our national architecture. If the detail had been definitely Tudor or Elizabethan, or even Perpendicular Gothic, the main characteristics of the composition would scarcely have been altered. The only part THE FOORD ALMSHOUSES, ROCHESTER: CENTRE PAVILION.
E. Guy Dawber, A. R. A., Architect.
tain rules and conditions to which those privileged to live in it must conform. It is not, however, a stern discipline, for the building is far removed from a barracks, which is, of course, of all domestic buildings, the most institutional in its extreme form. A very pleasing variety is introduced into the façades, so that while properly subordinate to the central feature with gable and clock tower, the composition does not give the impression of an irksome disciplinary restraint.
Rural Domesticity.
The design, besides being institutional, is properly domestic. This latter quality it expresses partly by the multiplicity of separate entrances and partly by the tall chimneys which here are legitimately prominent, for the chimney is primarily the symbol of
the hearth, and the hearth symbolises the home. And not only is the building obviously a piece of domestic architecture, but it expresses rural domesticity as opposed to urban. The steep roofs and gables, derived from the English cottage tradition, are suitably employed on this occasion, for the building is really nothing more than a plurality of cottages intimately joined together. Thus the character of the group is rightly expressed, and the cottagy quality is in keeping with the function of the design, and is not wrongly employed, as is so often the case, to give a false air of rusticity to what really is a mansion.
The Style of the Buildings.
The detail of the façades is in the English Renaissance manner, yet the total effect of the building is almost mediæval. Mr. Dawber has succeeded in blending into an harmonious whole the two main streams of tradition which have found expression in our national architecture. If the detail had been definitely Tudor or Elizabethan, or even Perpendicular Gothic, the main characteristics of the composition would scarcely have been altered. The only part THE FOORD ALMSHOUSES, ROCHESTER: CENTRE PAVILION.
E. Guy Dawber, A. R. A., Architect.