defend what Mr. Jenkins attacked specifically, it was considered that he had only taken some extreme cases and had omitted to consider much excellent work in Germany, Prance, America, Sweden, Holland, Austria and elsewhere, which, while modern in outlook and spirit, was not to be classed and condemned with the extravagant examples he had cited. The A.A. President, however, was sufficiently wise, not to say wrily, in piling on the colour thickly, being well aware that it is only by rather over-stating or over-stressing a case that one can draw sufficient attention to an evil. We regret, however, his dislike of ferro-concrete, because it is a material for which we have long wished to see British architects endeavouring to ^ find an appropriate expression. The base uses to which it has been put in some of the modernist buildings on the Continent are not condemnatory of the material, but of the designers, who only adopted it because it seemed to give them an opportunity of cutting loose from anything that savoured of tradition. It is not in this way that great architecture or even an acceptable new architecture will be evolved. But in Switzerland, where reinforced concrete is probably being more generally employed than in any other Continental country, we have seen, this summer, numerous buildings in this material whose design could not be characterised as either grotesque or extravagant.
* * *
Sir Russell Bencraft’s Presidential address at the recent conference of the British Commercial Gas Association was mainly concerned with such domestic matters as the training of a new race of salesmen. It was for that reason that we only published an excerpt from it relating to the contribution of gas to the cause of smoke abatement. If the B.C.G.A., however, is _ seriously concerned to put service for the public in the forefront of its programme, it might pay serious attention to the criticisms of ‘ ‘ A London Housewife,
which appeared in the Evening Standard recently. This lady wants to know why the companies go on multiplying the type of gas cooker that stands on the floor, and requires a woman to bend double or go down on her knees either to light it, look into the oven, or clean the interior; why it is impossible to turn the gas low in these cookers without danger of the light going out altogether; why the top is so open (bars so far apart) that it is almost impossible to rest a small saucepan on it without danger of upsetting ; and why the gas companies cannot produce an eye-level gas cooker at reasonable renting terms. In a modest work on house-fitting, published so long ago as 1907, we raised very similar questions, and drew attention to the American type of gas-cooker, where the oven and the grill stand side by side, waist high, on a metal table. Specimens of this cooker were then to be seen in London, and they have since the war become fairly common in the manufacturers’ showrooms, though not in those of the gas companies. We acknowledge that some improvements have been made in the prevailing British type, but that type is an anachronism, a survival of the dark ages. Our contemporary’s correspondent opines that “ the gas companies have a complete, logical and amusing answer ” to all her questions. We presume that the answer will turn mainly on the higher cost of the better article, lock-up of capital, etc., and that it will be pointed out that the table type is too large for the average kitchen, etc. It may be said at once, and quite plainly, that the price asked by makers for the new type of table gas-cooker is about 50 per cent, more than it ought to be; and that beyond the table, which is not a vastly expensive affair, there is practically nothing that they do not already supply in the floor type. We fear the table gas-cooker suffers, like many other improved fitments, from the
desire of the manufacturers to make the public pay in the first years for any capital outlay necessitated in producing a new line. However, if the B.C.G.A. are seeking an outlet for their energies in anticipating public convenience and demand, here is an opportunity to their hand.
* * * *
“ The movement towards better design—the revolt against the sham as well as the shoddy—is going in the very near future to assume formidable proportions. ’ ’ So runs the prognostication of the Design and Industries Association in the first issue of its new quarterly journal, and we seem to detect therein the Weaver touch. We can count the Association, therefore, with ourselves on the side of the angels, for we have been hammering upon the question of design in these columns for many months past. If our thesis be correct, the main reason for _ the existence, or the continued existence, of the architect is his capability in the realm of design. His technical equipment in constructional knowledge is not unimportant, but here he is on equal footing with the engineer and the builder. For that reason, we support Registration, not from any perfervid belief in the efficacy of Registration per se, still less on account of any legal privilege that might be obtained in the matter of charging or recovering fees, but with the idea that it would, eventually, restrict the title of architect to those who had given some definite proof of adequate training and ability in design. Great ability as a designer is the natural gift of about one man in a million, and even genius needs training and direction. With the vast majority the power of design can only be evolved by steady and continuous application; not by the study of books alone, by perfunctory attendance at a class,_ or by spasmodic counsel received amid the distractions of an architect’s office. Only by long, continued tuition under competent instructors, and through engaging in daily competition and discussion with fellowstudents, is the would-be architect likely to develop any latent powers he possesses in this direction. The student who possesses no aptitude for design can, moreover, be detected in the earlier stages of such a course, and deterred from pursuing a training which is unlikely to bring him any success, and might, if continued, react unfavourably on the public estimation of the art he aspires to follow.
In the years before motor traction brought fresh traffic problems to civic authorities, police officials of London were inclined to an opinion that the greater the space for traffic the greater the danger of accident. In view of happenings on the new Kingston by-pass road since its opening, it looks as if the dictum would now have to be altered to the greater the facilities the greater the congestion. This is a contretemps which some town-planning experts have already apprehended, but it gains point from the conflict of opinion between Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Mr. Edgar Harper, arising out of the proposed scheme of the London Traffic Advisory Committee for co-ordinating the transport facilities of the Metropolis. Lord Montagu contends that we want a general scheme of road-widening to cope with the increasing traffic and fears that co-ordination will mean diminished facilities. Mr. Harper believes that, coordination will relieve the present congestion by a strict regulation of existing means of transport, debarring slow vehicles from using certain roads, cutting down omnibus services during the middle of the day, and so on. Can any road, however, be made wide enough if half the motorists in London enter upon it within the space of two or three hours. That seems to be the main problem.
* * *
Sir Russell Bencraft’s Presidential address at the recent conference of the British Commercial Gas Association was mainly concerned with such domestic matters as the training of a new race of salesmen. It was for that reason that we only published an excerpt from it relating to the contribution of gas to the cause of smoke abatement. If the B.C.G.A., however, is _ seriously concerned to put service for the public in the forefront of its programme, it might pay serious attention to the criticisms of ‘ ‘ A London Housewife,
which appeared in the Evening Standard recently. This lady wants to know why the companies go on multiplying the type of gas cooker that stands on the floor, and requires a woman to bend double or go down on her knees either to light it, look into the oven, or clean the interior; why it is impossible to turn the gas low in these cookers without danger of the light going out altogether; why the top is so open (bars so far apart) that it is almost impossible to rest a small saucepan on it without danger of upsetting ; and why the gas companies cannot produce an eye-level gas cooker at reasonable renting terms. In a modest work on house-fitting, published so long ago as 1907, we raised very similar questions, and drew attention to the American type of gas-cooker, where the oven and the grill stand side by side, waist high, on a metal table. Specimens of this cooker were then to be seen in London, and they have since the war become fairly common in the manufacturers’ showrooms, though not in those of the gas companies. We acknowledge that some improvements have been made in the prevailing British type, but that type is an anachronism, a survival of the dark ages. Our contemporary’s correspondent opines that “ the gas companies have a complete, logical and amusing answer ” to all her questions. We presume that the answer will turn mainly on the higher cost of the better article, lock-up of capital, etc., and that it will be pointed out that the table type is too large for the average kitchen, etc. It may be said at once, and quite plainly, that the price asked by makers for the new type of table gas-cooker is about 50 per cent, more than it ought to be; and that beyond the table, which is not a vastly expensive affair, there is practically nothing that they do not already supply in the floor type. We fear the table gas-cooker suffers, like many other improved fitments, from the
desire of the manufacturers to make the public pay in the first years for any capital outlay necessitated in producing a new line. However, if the B.C.G.A. are seeking an outlet for their energies in anticipating public convenience and demand, here is an opportunity to their hand.
* * * *
“ The movement towards better design—the revolt against the sham as well as the shoddy—is going in the very near future to assume formidable proportions. ’ ’ So runs the prognostication of the Design and Industries Association in the first issue of its new quarterly journal, and we seem to detect therein the Weaver touch. We can count the Association, therefore, with ourselves on the side of the angels, for we have been hammering upon the question of design in these columns for many months past. If our thesis be correct, the main reason for _ the existence, or the continued existence, of the architect is his capability in the realm of design. His technical equipment in constructional knowledge is not unimportant, but here he is on equal footing with the engineer and the builder. For that reason, we support Registration, not from any perfervid belief in the efficacy of Registration per se, still less on account of any legal privilege that might be obtained in the matter of charging or recovering fees, but with the idea that it would, eventually, restrict the title of architect to those who had given some definite proof of adequate training and ability in design. Great ability as a designer is the natural gift of about one man in a million, and even genius needs training and direction. With the vast majority the power of design can only be evolved by steady and continuous application; not by the study of books alone, by perfunctory attendance at a class,_ or by spasmodic counsel received amid the distractions of an architect’s office. Only by long, continued tuition under competent instructors, and through engaging in daily competition and discussion with fellowstudents, is the would-be architect likely to develop any latent powers he possesses in this direction. The student who possesses no aptitude for design can, moreover, be detected in the earlier stages of such a course, and deterred from pursuing a training which is unlikely to bring him any success, and might, if continued, react unfavourably on the public estimation of the art he aspires to follow.
In the years before motor traction brought fresh traffic problems to civic authorities, police officials of London were inclined to an opinion that the greater the space for traffic the greater the danger of accident. In view of happenings on the new Kingston by-pass road since its opening, it looks as if the dictum would now have to be altered to the greater the facilities the greater the congestion. This is a contretemps which some town-planning experts have already apprehended, but it gains point from the conflict of opinion between Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Mr. Edgar Harper, arising out of the proposed scheme of the London Traffic Advisory Committee for co-ordinating the transport facilities of the Metropolis. Lord Montagu contends that we want a general scheme of road-widening to cope with the increasing traffic and fears that co-ordination will mean diminished facilities. Mr. Harper believes that, coordination will relieve the present congestion by a strict regulation of existing means of transport, debarring slow vehicles from using certain roads, cutting down omnibus services during the middle of the day, and so on. Can any road, however, be made wide enough if half the motorists in London enter upon it within the space of two or three hours. That seems to be the main problem.