The American Architect and Building News.
VOL. XXXIV.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 832.
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
December 5, 1891.
Summary: —
The Illustrations omitted from Last Week’s Issue. — Architect, Builder and Owner held Responsible for an Accident in New York. — The Movement to limit the Height of Buildings in Chicago. — Malicious Mischief in Chicago laid at the Door of Union Carpenters. — A New Association of American Art Students in Paris. — Modern Cashmere Rugs... 141
Italian Architecture. —IV..................................................................................143 Architect, Owner and Builder Before the Law. — XI................................... 144
German Castles. — II..............................................................................146 Architectural Shades and Shadows. — XIII................................149 Equestrian Monuments. — XLV........................................................151 The Effect of Salt in Mixing Cement Mortar..............................154 Societies....................................................................................................................155 Illustrations: —
Detail of the Convent of San Marco, Leon, Spain. — Doorway of the Church of San Martin, Salamanca, Spain. — Doorway of the Church of St. Maurice, Lille, France. — The Ducal Palace, Altenburg. — The Tower of Babelsberg Castle, Potsdam, Prussia. — Shades and Shadows. Plate 5.
Additional: Entrance to Chapel of the Virgin in the Collegiate Church of Oiron. — Design for an Academy of Pine Arts. — Design for a Memorial Chapel. —Design for a Summer Theatre, Ciechocinek, Austria. — Villa Pawlowitz. — Old House, West St., Chichester, Eng. — Entrance to Kensington Palace, London, Eng. — St. Oswald’s Church, Small
Heath, Birmingham, Eng. — An Old Mill in North Wales...... 156 Notes and Clippings................................................................................................156 Trade Surveys....................................................................................................156
AS it will probably be several weeks before we can reprint
the grano-chrome plates which were to form part of the illustration of last week’s mutilated issue, we have decided not to print and deliver any of the other plates which should have accompanied them until we can make the delivery in complete sets of prints.
DECISION was given in the New York Superior Court the other day which architects and builders will do well to note. Some nine years ago, Miss Alice M. Jarvis was sitting at the front window of a house on West One Hundred and Twenty-eighth Street, when a wall which had been built on the next lot fell over upon the house in which she was, and a mass of brick and mortar crashed through the roof and upper floor, and struck Miss Jarvis, breaking several ribs, and injuring her severely and permanently. The girl’s father sued the owner, Mr. Charles Baxter, the architect, Mr. Charles H. Fenton, and the builder, jointly, for damages for the injury to his house, and, in his daughter’s behalf, for further damages for her personal injuries. In both cases he obtained a verdict in his favor, the damages being fixed at twenty-five hundred dollars in each case, or five thousand in all. The testimony went to show that the mortar used in building the wall was had, but it seems rather hard to hold the architect and the owner responsible for this, which was probably a violation of the contract by the builder. However, as was once said by a Supreme Court judge in a similar case, a defective wall or structure is to be regarded in the same light as a dangerous beast. If the beast escapes, and bites the public, all those concerned in keeping him tied up are jointly responsible for the damage he may do; and, while the architect and owner may not have caused, or even known, the vicious disposition of the wall, they should see, at their peril, that it is kept where it cannot, in any case, lay its claws on the neighbors.
THE City Government of Chicago evidently does not propose to take any radical steps to limit the height of build
ings without proper consideration. A sub-committee of the general Committee of the City Council on Public Buildings has been appointed to make inquiries into the matter, and, a few days ago, held a meeting, at which three of the most noted architects of the city, together with General Sooy-Smith, who has had a very extensive experience with building work, as a representative of the engineers, and Mr. Birkhoif, of the Real Estate Board, were present by invitation. One of the members of the sub-committee, Mr. Dixon is himself an architect, and the observations of the professional men appear to have been understood and appreciated by all. As might be expected, all the architects, Messrs. W. L. B. Jenney, Henry
Ives Cobb and Dankmar Adler, believed that there was no objection to the construction of high buildings in themselves, provided they were designed and supervised by competent men. It is obvious enough, from examples dating from the age of the Pyramids, that masonry, skilfully arranged and put together, especially in combination with steel and iron, could be depended upon to resist natural destructive forces for many centuries, and the difficulty of the problem in Chicago lay principally in the foundations, which must be carefully adjusted to the conditions of the soil, as ascertained by boring. In Boston, where, as is known, the height of buildings is now restricted by law, the streets, as one speaker remarked, are so narrow that the shadow of very lofty structures is objectionable; but this would hardly be the case in the wide Chicago streets. Mr. Cobb, who made some very interesting suggestions, observed that there was a possibility of changes in business localities, so that lofty office-buildings, designed for an extraneous load of twentyfive to fifty pounds per square foot of floor, and, at that rate, bringing all the strain on the subsoil that it could safely bear, might, after the migration of their tenants, be utilized as warehouses, and filled with goods weighing two or three hundred pounds to the square foot of floor. This could enormously increase the pressure on the foundations, and probably lead to great settlements, though not, he thought, to immediate collapse. Mr. Adler spoke in the same vein; and all the architects agreed that the main danger to be feared was that these complicated pieces of construction should be entrusted to careless or unskilful designers. To prevent this in some degree, they thought that architects in Chicago should be licensed, after proper examination, and that the license should be revoked in cases where an architect’s work proved to have been improperly done. General Sooy-Smith agreed with the others as to the advisability of licensing architects, and thought that plans should be examined, on behalf of the city, by a competent board, before approval. He considered, like Mr. Adler, whose recent conclusions are known to the profession, that heavy buildings in Chicago will, in future, be mostly built on piles, driven to hard pan, or to rock, and believed that the foundation under such structures should be strictly inquired into by the public authority. His principal anxiety in regard to them was lest they should be occupied for storage of goods, and he believed that a serious fire among combustible material in them would bring them to the ground. Probably all architects will agree with him in this; but, so far, most of the extremely high buildings in our cities have been intended for offices or apartments, in which a fire could hardly occur which would affect the protected-iron structure now generally employed; and if architects were to take into consideration all the possible uses to which their buildings might be put, they would find it difficult to design anything.
W
ITHIN the past few weeks a great deal of malicious mischief is said to have been done by union carpenters in
Chicago, in buildings in course of erection by nonunion contractors. In one house, it is said that five thousand dollars will be required to make good the damage done, and it is estimated that the destruction of property in this way has amounted to forty thousand dollars within the last three months. It is to be hoped that the perpetrators of these outrages will be taught a severe lesson, and that the decent members of the union will be the foremost in hunting out the offenders and bringing them to justice. In all probability, if such acts are committed by union carpenters at all, which we doubt, it is by a few worthless and drunken shirks, who care nothing for the fact that they take from the pockets of their comrades, by exasperating owners, architects and the public against the union men, many times as much as they take from the contractors. It seems to take workingmen in the buildingtrades a long time to learn that the sympathy of the public is strongly in their favor, but that they are constantly repelling and disgusting their friends by their want of manliness, truthfulness and decency. Nine-tenths of our citizens would like to see every workman in the country, who understands his business, and lets whiskey alone, constantly employed, at the highest rate of wages. Every one can see that such a state of affairs would bring with it general prosperity. The workmen would have money to spend in good clothes, and shoes for their children, in books, house-rent and other modest luxuries, and
VOL. XXXIV.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 832.
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
December 5, 1891.
Summary: —
The Illustrations omitted from Last Week’s Issue. — Architect, Builder and Owner held Responsible for an Accident in New York. — The Movement to limit the Height of Buildings in Chicago. — Malicious Mischief in Chicago laid at the Door of Union Carpenters. — A New Association of American Art Students in Paris. — Modern Cashmere Rugs... 141
Italian Architecture. —IV..................................................................................143 Architect, Owner and Builder Before the Law. — XI................................... 144
German Castles. — II..............................................................................146 Architectural Shades and Shadows. — XIII................................149 Equestrian Monuments. — XLV........................................................151 The Effect of Salt in Mixing Cement Mortar..............................154 Societies....................................................................................................................155 Illustrations: —
Detail of the Convent of San Marco, Leon, Spain. — Doorway of the Church of San Martin, Salamanca, Spain. — Doorway of the Church of St. Maurice, Lille, France. — The Ducal Palace, Altenburg. — The Tower of Babelsberg Castle, Potsdam, Prussia. — Shades and Shadows. Plate 5.
Additional: Entrance to Chapel of the Virgin in the Collegiate Church of Oiron. — Design for an Academy of Pine Arts. — Design for a Memorial Chapel. —Design for a Summer Theatre, Ciechocinek, Austria. — Villa Pawlowitz. — Old House, West St., Chichester, Eng. — Entrance to Kensington Palace, London, Eng. — St. Oswald’s Church, Small
Heath, Birmingham, Eng. — An Old Mill in North Wales...... 156 Notes and Clippings................................................................................................156 Trade Surveys....................................................................................................156
AS it will probably be several weeks before we can reprint
the grano-chrome plates which were to form part of the illustration of last week’s mutilated issue, we have decided not to print and deliver any of the other plates which should have accompanied them until we can make the delivery in complete sets of prints.
DECISION was given in the New York Superior Court the other day which architects and builders will do well to note. Some nine years ago, Miss Alice M. Jarvis was sitting at the front window of a house on West One Hundred and Twenty-eighth Street, when a wall which had been built on the next lot fell over upon the house in which she was, and a mass of brick and mortar crashed through the roof and upper floor, and struck Miss Jarvis, breaking several ribs, and injuring her severely and permanently. The girl’s father sued the owner, Mr. Charles Baxter, the architect, Mr. Charles H. Fenton, and the builder, jointly, for damages for the injury to his house, and, in his daughter’s behalf, for further damages for her personal injuries. In both cases he obtained a verdict in his favor, the damages being fixed at twenty-five hundred dollars in each case, or five thousand in all. The testimony went to show that the mortar used in building the wall was had, but it seems rather hard to hold the architect and the owner responsible for this, which was probably a violation of the contract by the builder. However, as was once said by a Supreme Court judge in a similar case, a defective wall or structure is to be regarded in the same light as a dangerous beast. If the beast escapes, and bites the public, all those concerned in keeping him tied up are jointly responsible for the damage he may do; and, while the architect and owner may not have caused, or even known, the vicious disposition of the wall, they should see, at their peril, that it is kept where it cannot, in any case, lay its claws on the neighbors.
THE City Government of Chicago evidently does not propose to take any radical steps to limit the height of build
ings without proper consideration. A sub-committee of the general Committee of the City Council on Public Buildings has been appointed to make inquiries into the matter, and, a few days ago, held a meeting, at which three of the most noted architects of the city, together with General Sooy-Smith, who has had a very extensive experience with building work, as a representative of the engineers, and Mr. Birkhoif, of the Real Estate Board, were present by invitation. One of the members of the sub-committee, Mr. Dixon is himself an architect, and the observations of the professional men appear to have been understood and appreciated by all. As might be expected, all the architects, Messrs. W. L. B. Jenney, Henry
Ives Cobb and Dankmar Adler, believed that there was no objection to the construction of high buildings in themselves, provided they were designed and supervised by competent men. It is obvious enough, from examples dating from the age of the Pyramids, that masonry, skilfully arranged and put together, especially in combination with steel and iron, could be depended upon to resist natural destructive forces for many centuries, and the difficulty of the problem in Chicago lay principally in the foundations, which must be carefully adjusted to the conditions of the soil, as ascertained by boring. In Boston, where, as is known, the height of buildings is now restricted by law, the streets, as one speaker remarked, are so narrow that the shadow of very lofty structures is objectionable; but this would hardly be the case in the wide Chicago streets. Mr. Cobb, who made some very interesting suggestions, observed that there was a possibility of changes in business localities, so that lofty office-buildings, designed for an extraneous load of twentyfive to fifty pounds per square foot of floor, and, at that rate, bringing all the strain on the subsoil that it could safely bear, might, after the migration of their tenants, be utilized as warehouses, and filled with goods weighing two or three hundred pounds to the square foot of floor. This could enormously increase the pressure on the foundations, and probably lead to great settlements, though not, he thought, to immediate collapse. Mr. Adler spoke in the same vein; and all the architects agreed that the main danger to be feared was that these complicated pieces of construction should be entrusted to careless or unskilful designers. To prevent this in some degree, they thought that architects in Chicago should be licensed, after proper examination, and that the license should be revoked in cases where an architect’s work proved to have been improperly done. General Sooy-Smith agreed with the others as to the advisability of licensing architects, and thought that plans should be examined, on behalf of the city, by a competent board, before approval. He considered, like Mr. Adler, whose recent conclusions are known to the profession, that heavy buildings in Chicago will, in future, be mostly built on piles, driven to hard pan, or to rock, and believed that the foundation under such structures should be strictly inquired into by the public authority. His principal anxiety in regard to them was lest they should be occupied for storage of goods, and he believed that a serious fire among combustible material in them would bring them to the ground. Probably all architects will agree with him in this; but, so far, most of the extremely high buildings in our cities have been intended for offices or apartments, in which a fire could hardly occur which would affect the protected-iron structure now generally employed; and if architects were to take into consideration all the possible uses to which their buildings might be put, they would find it difficult to design anything.
W
ITHIN the past few weeks a great deal of malicious mischief is said to have been done by union carpenters in
Chicago, in buildings in course of erection by nonunion contractors. In one house, it is said that five thousand dollars will be required to make good the damage done, and it is estimated that the destruction of property in this way has amounted to forty thousand dollars within the last three months. It is to be hoped that the perpetrators of these outrages will be taught a severe lesson, and that the decent members of the union will be the foremost in hunting out the offenders and bringing them to justice. In all probability, if such acts are committed by union carpenters at all, which we doubt, it is by a few worthless and drunken shirks, who care nothing for the fact that they take from the pockets of their comrades, by exasperating owners, architects and the public against the union men, many times as much as they take from the contractors. It seems to take workingmen in the buildingtrades a long time to learn that the sympathy of the public is strongly in their favor, but that they are constantly repelling and disgusting their friends by their want of manliness, truthfulness and decency. Nine-tenths of our citizens would like to see every workman in the country, who understands his business, and lets whiskey alone, constantly employed, at the highest rate of wages. Every one can see that such a state of affairs would bring with it general prosperity. The workmen would have money to spend in good clothes, and shoes for their children, in books, house-rent and other modest luxuries, and