The American Architect and Building News.

Vol. XXVII. Copyright, 1890, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass. No. 732.

Entered at the Post-office at Boston as second-class matter.

January 4, 1890.

[Summary:]—
The Incomes of Architects.—Death of Mr. George F. Durand, Architect.—Concrete Arches.—An Architect’s Responsibility for Exceeding the Stipulated Cost of a Building.—A French Case in Point.—A Contractor Engages in Profit-Sharing with his Workmen.[1]
[The Apartment-House.][3]
[Architecture in Brooklyn.][5]
[The Structure of Sandstone.][9]
[The Barye Exhibition.][10]
[Illustrations:]—
“The Lion and the Serpent.”—Auditorium of the Palace of the Trocadéro, Paris, France.—An Interior in the Château de Josselin, Morbihan, France.—Torre del Vino, Alhambra, Granada, Spain.—Ruins of the Chapel of Charles V, Yuste, Spain.—Coombe Warren, Kingston, England: Garden Front.—Coombe Warren, Kingston, England: Entrance Front.—A Gentleman’s Country House.—Wrought-Iron Gates, Duke Street, England.—Historical Figures from Lord Mayor’s Procession, 1889.—House of Mrs. Charles Blake, Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.—Competitive Designs for the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York, N.Y.—Abbey of Aberbrothwick: Gallery over Entrance.—Abbey of Aberbrothwick: The Western Doorway.—Design for a Store.[12]
[Societies.][14]
[Communications.]—
Barye’s Admirer.—Evaporation of Water in Traps.[15]
[Notes and Clippings.][15]
[Trade Surveys.][16]

That extraordinary phenomenon, which those who read many newspapers sometimes encounter, of the inspiration of two writers following tracks so closely parallel that their effusions are word for word the same from beginning to end, was recently to be observed in the case of the New York Herald and the Pittsburgh Leader, which published on the same day an article devoted to architects or, rather, to their incomes, which held up these fortunate professional men as objects to be envied, if not by all the world, at least by journalists, many of whom have just now a way of writing about rich men or women which suggests the idea that the journalist himself was brought up in a jail, and sees nothing but the pockets of those whom he favors with his attention. The present writers, after half a column or so of rubbish about the grandeur of American buildings, furnish the New York and Pittsburgh public with the information that “there are in the city of New York at least ten architects whose annual net income is in excess of a hundred thousand dollars, while in Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis there are quite as many who can spend a like amount of money every year without overdrawing their bank accounts.” This is certainly very liberal to the architects, but what follows is even more so. “There are,” we are told, in addition to the magnates just mentioned, “hosts of comparatively small fry whose annual profits will pass the fifty-thousand-dollar mark.” If an architect whose net income is only a thousand dollars a week belongs to the “small fry,” what name would these journalists have for the remaining insignificant beings who practise architecture faithfully and skilfully, and thank Providence sincerely if their year’s work shows a profit of three thousand dollars? Yet, with a tolerably extended acquaintance in the profession, we are inclined to think that this list includes the greater part of the architects in this country. As to the architects whose usual income from their business is a hundred thousand dollars, they are pure myths. The New York-Pittsburgh authority mentions by name Mr. R. M. Hunt as one of them. As a counterpoise to this piece of information, we will mention what a worthy contractor once said to us about Mr. Hunt. The builders were not, in those days, very fond of our venerated President. He had altogether too many new ideas to suit their conservatism, which looked with horror on anything out of the common way. “The fact is,” said the contractor, in a burst of confidence, “Mr. Hunt never could get a living at all if he hadn’t a rich wife.” By averaging these two pieces of misinformation, after the manner of the commissioners of statistics, one may, perhaps, get some sort of notion of what a very able and distinguished architect in New York, seconded by skilful and devoted assistants, can make out of his business; but men so successful are extremely rare exceptions in the profession, and the “hosts” of “small fry” whose annual profits amount to fifty thousand dollars, of course, do not exist. It would be a waste of time to notice such ridiculous assertions, were it not that they do a great deal of harm to the profession and the public: to the profession by making people believe that architects are combined to extort an unreasonable compensation for their work; and to the public by spreading the idea that the profession of architecture is just the one in which their sons can become rapidly rich without much trouble. It would be a useful thing to publish here, as is done in England, the value of the estate left at their death by architects of distinction, although in many cases this is greatly increased by inheritance, by marriage, by fortunate investments or by outside employment; but, if this should be done, it would be not less useful to publish also a few true accounts of the early trials and struggles of architects. How many of them have we known who have given drawing-lessons, illustrated books, designed wall-papers, supervised laborers, delivered lyceum-lectures or written for newspapers, happy if they could earn two dollars a day while waiting for a vacancy in the “hosts” of architects with a thousand dollars a week income. How many more, who were glad of the help of their faithful young wives in eking out the living which had love for its principal ingredient. And of those who have persisted until time and opportunity have brought them a comparatively assured, though modest position, how many have found their way to it through architecture? If we are not mistaken, less than half of the trained students in architecture turned out by our technical schools are to be found in the profession six years later. The others, ascertaining, on a closer view, that their expected income of fifty thousand dollars a year is farther off than they anticipated, and that fifty thousand cents is about as much as they can expect for a good many years to come, drift away into other employments, and some of them, no doubt, will be much astonished to learn from the newspaper reporters what they have missed.

We regret very much to hear of the death of Mr. George F. Durand, Vice-President of the Canadian Society of Architects; which occurred at London, Ontario, last week. Mr. Durand was young in the profession, being only thirty-nine years old, but was very widely and favorably known among architects and the public, both in Canada and elsewhere. He was a native of London, but after spending a short time in the office of the city engineer there, he went to Albany, N.Y., where he was employed by Mr. Thomas Fuller as his chief assistant in the work on the new capitol, which was then in Mr. Fuller’s hands. When Mr. Fuller was superseded, Mr. Durand left Albany with him, and, after a year spent in Maine, with a granite company, he returned to his native city, where he soon found constant and profitable employment, having for several years built a large part of the most important structures in Western Ontario. The London Advertiser, to which we owe most of our information as to his works, offers to his relatives and friends the sincere sympathy of the public which it represents, and we are sure that the architects of the United States will join with their brethren in Canada in mourning the loss of one who, at so early an age, had conquered for himself so conspicuous a place in his laborious profession.

Some interesting experiments on concrete arches were made recently, during the construction of the new railway station at Erfurt. Some of the rooms were to be covered with concrete floors, carried on iron beams, while others, of smaller size, were intended to be spanned by arches extending from wall to wall. One of the latter, something over seven feet in width, was covered with concrete, flat on top, and forming on the underside a segmental arch, the thickness of the material at the crown of the arch being four inches, and about eleven inches at the springing. The concrete was made of “Germania” Portland cement, mixed dry with gravel, moistened as required, and well rammed on the centring; and skew-backs were cut in the brick walls at the springing line, extending two courses higher, so as to give room for the concrete to take a firm hold on the walls. Fourteen days after completion, this floor was loaded with bricks and sacks of cement to the amount of more than six hundred pounds per square foot, without suffering any injury, although, after the load was on, a workman hammered with a pick on the concrete, close to the loaded portion, so as to provoke the cracking of the arch if there had been any tendency to rupture. In the other cases, the concrete arches being turned between iron beams, the strength of the floor was limited by that of the beams, so the extreme load could not be put on; but the curious fact was established that a section of concrete flat on top, and forming a regular segmental arc beneath, was far stronger than one in which a portion of the under surface was parallel to the upper; showing, apparently, that the arched form, even with homogeneous concrete, causes the conversion of a large part of a vertical pressure into lateral thrust, reducing by so much the tendency of the load to break the concrete transversely. This observation is important theoretically as well as practically. It has been of late generally maintained that a concrete arch is not an arch at all, but a lintel, without thrust, and that the common form, flat above and arched beneath, is objectionable, as it gives least material at the centre, where a lintel is most strained. The Erfurt experiments directly contradict this view, and it remains for some students of architecture to render the profession a service by repeating them, and, at the same time, actually determining the thrust, for a given load, of arches of particular forms. Until this is done, the concrete construction, which is likely, we may hope, to become before many years the prevailing one in our cities, will be practised with difficulty and uncertainty, if not with danger. Incidentally, a trial was made of the effect of freezing on the concrete. The floor of a room arched in four bays, between iron beams, had just been finished when the weather became cold, and on the morning after its completion the thermometer stood at twenty above zero. The concrete had not been protected in any way, and the contractor was notified that it had been frozen, and must be removed. This was early in December, and it was about the first of April before the work of removal, preliminary to replacing the concrete with new material, was begun. Three bays had been wholly or partly removed when the hardness of the concrete under the workmen’s tools attracted attention, and the arch remaining intact was tested with a load of three hundred pounds per square foot, which it bore perfectly.

The question how far an architect can be held responsible in damages, in cases where the cost of work exceeds the estimates, is examined in a recent number of La Semaine des Constructeurs, and some considerations are mentioned which are new to us. According to Frémy-Ligneville, the most familiar authority on the subject, the architect incurs no responsibility whatever, either for his own estimates or those of other people, unless he intentionally and fraudulently misleads his client by a pretended estimate. In this case, as in that of any other fraud, he is liable for the results of his crime. Except under such circumstances, however, the architect’s estimate of cost is simply an expression of opinion, the correctness of which he does not guarantee, any more than a lawyer guarantees the correctness of an opinion, although important interests may depend upon it. The owner can estimate the value of the architect’s opinion, as of the lawyer’s, by the professional reputation of the man who gives it, and, if he wishes to be more secure, he can go to another architect, as he would to another lawyer, for an independent estimate. Moreover, if the owner of the projected building is still anxious that the cost should be strictly limited to the sum estimated by the architects, he can have a contract drawn by which the builder shall be obliged to complete it for that sum, and can have his plans and specifications examined by competent authority, to see if they include everything necessary. This ought to make him reasonably sure what his house will cost him, provided he does not himself make changes in the plans or specifications. If he has omitted to take this precaution, and, as his building goes on, he finds that it is likely to exceed the estimate, he has another excellent opportunity to protect himself, by ordering immediately such changes in the plans and specifications for the work yet remaining to be done as may reduce the expense to the desired amount, and by doing so he generally suffers no damage, as, if he does not get all he expected to for his money, he gets all his money will pay for.

With all these opportunities for revising and testing the correctness of an architect’s estimate, the man who neglects to avail himself of any of them, and who allows the work on his house to go on, after it has become evident that it will cost more than the estimate, has, according to M. Frémy-Ligneville, no claim against any one on account of his disappointment. Of course, the architect should be as careful in his estimates as his experience allows him to be, and any conscientious man would try not to mislead a client, but both he and his client must remember that when the tenders of the builders themselves usually vary from fifty to a hundred per cent for the same piece of work, an architect’s estimate cannot be anything more than an opinion. Moreover, the architect should not forget that, being an opinion, and not a guaranty, he is not only at liberty to modify it as much and as often as he sees fit, but is bound to do so, and to inform his client at once of the change, when fuller information, or alteration in the circumstances, shall show him that the original estimate is likely to be exceeded. If he does this frankly, although his client may be disappointed, he cannot reproach the architect with trying to deceive him, and there will probably still be time to make the changes necessary for reducing the expense to the desired point. In a case decided in Paris in July, 1855, a man was condemned to pay fifty-four thousand francs for repairs done on a house. He proved that his architect had estimated the expense at seven or eight thousand, but it was shown that the architect had subsequently informed him that it would be necessary to do more work than was at first contemplated, and that he had made inquiries about the matter, and had turned out his tenants so that the work might be done, and had paid the contractors more than the sum originally estimated; and the court thought he had no case at all against the architect.

The great building firm of Peto Brothers, in England, having been awarded a contract for a large public building, have taken advantage of what, as they say, they consider a favorable opportunity to initiate a system of profit-sharing with their men, in accordance with a circular which is printed in the Builder. The system described by the circular is very simple. It is to apply for the present, only to the contract mentioned, but, if it works well, will be extended to future cases. Under the arrangement proposed one-quarter of the net profits of the contract are, when the building is done and the accounts settled, to be divided, as a bonus above their wages, among the men who have worked on it, in proportion to the wages they have earned. The conditions under which each man is entitled to his share are that he shall have worked long enough on the contract to have earned five pounds, at the regular rate of wages; that he shall not have neglected his duty, or misconducted himself, or wasted his time, or in other ways have acted so as to diminish the profits of the contract, or injure the reputation of the firm for good and honest work; and, that he shall not have engaged in any strike for shorter hours, or for wages above the schedule of wages which prevailed at the time the contract was made, and upon which the contract price was based. That the workmen may assure themselves of the fairness with which the division is carried out they are invited by the circular to send a representative to watch the making-up of the accounts by the auditor of the firm, and to sign the balance-sheet. In order to identify the claimants, every man must obtain a printed ticket from the time-keeper, on beginning his work, countersigned by the foreman, and noting the day and hour when his employment commenced, with his name, number and wages. This is to be again signed and countersigned when he leaves, and must be produced to secure a share in the dividend. Unpretending as it is, this bids fair to be one of the most interesting experiments in social science yet tried, and unless the trades-unions in England have forgotten their prowess, it will not be carried out without a struggle. Our readers will remember Mr. Lewis H. Williams’s experiences in trying a similar plan with his carpenters in New York, and his final victory, but he had only one union to contend with, and that not a very compact one, while Messrs. Peto Brothers will have all the building trades about their ears at once, and the great question whether men shall be allowed to do only a fixed amount of work in a day, and that amount as small as possible, or whether they shall be allowed to work as they please, will be fairly brought before the parties for decision.

THE APARTMENT-HOUSE.

From Building News.

Most people are willing to admit that they cannot afford to pay over twice as much for a thing as it is worth; but few in this country are aware that they do this very thing when they build for themselves an independent city dwelling-house or pay a rent equivalent to or greater than the interest on this outlay.

In the old country the secret of obtaining luxury and economy combined in building has been learned, and rich and poor, fashionable and unfashionable alike live in “flats.” In America, people have not yet learned this lesson, but cling to the old and barbarous custom of living perpendicularly in isolated towers, with all the cares and worries that go with isolated management.

Nothing shows more clearly than this, how much man is a creature of habit. In his savage state, the nature of his existence necessitated the isolated hut. As civilization advanced, however, the necessity for, and enormous advantages of coöperation became evident, but habit perpetuated the isolated dwelling long after the reasons for its existence had disappeared, and it required centuries for civilized men to learn that coöperation is an element as essential to perfection in the arrangement of their habitations as it is in other things.

A given accommodation may be obtained in the form of a “flat” for less than one-half the outlay required to obtain it in the form of an independent dwelling built on the same land.

The form of comparison herein presented has never, to my knowledge, been heretofore made, and the results are as surprising as they are important and interesting.

The estimates of cost have been made by several competent contractors on scale drawings and accurate specifications, are easily verified and hence may be accepted as reliable.

[Figure 1] is one of the plans of our apartment-house which is to be built on the Back Bay, Boston.

[Figure 2] shows the floor-plans of an independent house which might be built on the same land. Both figures are drawn to the same scale for convenience in comparing the dimensions. The independent-house (which I shall, in contradistinction to the “flat,” designate as the “tower” to mark its prominent point of difference from the “flat” in form) contains a kitchen, pantry, furnace-room, fuel-cellar, laundry, dining-room, china-closet, parlor, eight bed-chambers provided with suitable closets, two bath-rooms, a trunk-room, a front staircase extending from the first floor to the attic, and a back staircase extending from the basement to the third floor. What will these accommodations cost in this form and what in the form of a “flat” in an apartment-house?

The apartment-house contains a public kitchen, steam-heating, ventilating and electric-lighting isolated plants, fuel-cellar, laundry, café, billiard-room, gentlemen’s smoking-room, ladies’ parlor, small public dining-rooms, and eighty suites, averaging five rooms, a bath-room and closets in each, and with a trunk or storage-room in the basement for each suite; four elevators and four fireproof staircases of iron and marble enclosed in brick walls from basement to roof.

The suites are of different sizes to suit the proposed occupants, and will have from two to twelve or more rooms of varying dimensions as desired. They are partly “housekeeping” suites, i. e., having kitchens and dining-rooms; partly “hotel” suites, i. e., having neither kitchens nor dining-rooms, the occupants preferring to use the public café and dining-rooms; and partly “semi-housekeeping” suites, i. e., having dining-rooms and china-closets with dumb-waiters connecting them with the public-kitchen, but no independent kitchen. The “housekeeping” suites require one more bed-room than the others, to accommodate a private cook.

Assuming now at first in our comparison those conditions which are least favorable to the apartment-house, we will take one of the “housekeeping” suites, having precisely the same number and size of rooms as we find in our independent house or “tower” and compare costs.

The only difference in the accommodation in each case is that, in the “flat,” the rooms are accessible to one another without the use of stairs, while in the “tower” six flights of stairs in all are used, constituting in the aggregate a ladder, as it were, of about a hundred steps; also in the fact that in the “tower” the owner has to manage his own heating, ventilating and hot-water supply apparatus, while in the “flat” this work is done for him; that in the “tower” wooden staircases and no elevators are used, while in the “flat” fireproof staircases enclosing elevators are provided; that in the “tower” the main partitions are often of wood while in the flat they are of brick a foot thick and each “flat” is separated from its neighbor by a brick wall a foot thick and all the floors are completely deadened against the transmission of sound; and finally that in the “tower” no external fire-escape is provided, while the “flat” has convenient external fire-escapes of iron. Otherwise the accommodations are in both cases precisely the same.

The total cost of this apartment-house, including the building-lot valued at, say, $5 a square foot, has been carefully estimated at $617,771.

This is the highest of two competitive estimates given by two responsible builders, and comprises general cooking-plant, electric-lighting, steam-heating and ventilating apparatus, iron staircases and fire-escapes, elevators, copper roofing, architect’s commission, and, in short, everything required for occupancy and use except wall-paper.

The first floor contains 16,688 square feet of available room. (By “available” I mean room which is directly occupied by, and which must be separately provided for each owner. That is, it excludes staircases, furnace, laundry, etc., which might be used in common by many owners and therefore need not be duplicated for each, and which are only indirectly serviceable to each owner in contributing to the usefulness of those which are directly enjoyed.) The six floors above contain 23,288 square feet of available room each, making a total of 156,416 square feet. Adding 10,880 square feet for basement storage and trunk-room for the suites, and 2,000 square feet in the basement for barber’s shop, apothecary, carriage and other offices along the street fronts, we have a total of 169,296 square feet of available room in the entire apartment-house. Dividing the total cost $617,771 by this figure we have $3.65 for the cost of each square foot of available room in the building.

Our “tower” measures twenty-five feet front on party lines, by seventy feet deep. Its available rooms comprise parlor, library, music-room, eight closeted-chambers, two bath-rooms, a trunk-room, a dining-room, and we may add a kitchen for those who still believe in having an independent cook.

The area of these rooms is as follows:

Parlor374 sq. ft.
Library374 “
Music-room154 “
Chamber No. 1384 “
Chamber No. 2528 “
Chamber No. 3170 “
Chamber No. 4252 “
Chamber No. 5162 “
Chamber No. 6286 “
Chamber No. 7242 “
Chamber No. 8315 “
2 Bath-rooms144 “
Trunk-room136 “
Dining-room408 “
Kitchen384 “
China-closet136 “
Other closets410 “

Making a total of 4,859 square feet of available room in the “tower.” Its total cost on a twenty-five foot lot of the average depth on the Back Bay, i. e., 112 feet, the land being valued as before at $5 per square foot, would be at the lowest estimate $32,000 at the present prices, the wood finish being equally good with that in the “flat.” If we figure, however, for the same style of lighting, heating, ventilating and fireproofing, and provide an elevator and outside fire-escape, the cost could not be put below $40,000.

The same amount of available space, i. e., 4,859 square feet in our “flat” would cost at $3.65 per square foot as above estimated, $17,735.

If now we consider that the management of a private kitchen and an Irish cook does not actually constitute the essence of a home in its broadest sense, but, that on the contrary, it really deprives a home of its greatest charm, namely, peace of mind and rest of body, the kitchen and the cook’s bed-chamber may be omitted from our “flat” in view of the public kitchen. The area of our “flat” then becomes 4,475 square feet, which, at $3.65 per foot, brings the cost down to a little over $16,000.

Finally, if we omit the dining-room also, with its china-closet, our area becomes 3,931 square feet, and the cost only $14,350 for the “flat,” against $40,000 for the “tower,” the former being but little over a third of the latter.

So much for the saving in the case of a large family and large suite. For a small suite, such as would be required for a single person, or a small family of two or three persons, the saving at once mounts to a very much larger figure; so much so, indeed, as to render the use of the isolated house in such cases a most inordinate extravagance, except for the very rich. Thus a single person, or a family of two or three, could be very comfortably provided for with three or four rooms, and a bath-room in an apartment-house having a good café. Estimating the rooms to measure 18 x 22 feet, their area would be a little over 400 feet each, including closets, and their cost $1,460 apiece; or for smaller rooms of, say, 14 x 15 feet, or 224 square-feet surface, the cost would be but $818 apiece. An isolated dwelling, on the same land, of only eighteen feet frontage and fifty feet deep, would cost, including the lot at $5 a foot, not less than $18,000 or $8,000, without the land. Of course, in such an isolated dwelling, electric-lighting, steam-heating, fireproof stairs, and other luxuries of the “flat,” would hardly be expected.

By the arrangement of our apartment-house, there are twenty-four corner-suites out of the eighty. These have direct sunlight on either one or both of their exposed fronts, and may be estimated as worth fifty per cent more than the rest. In other words, 3/10 of the whole available room space is worth fifty per cent more, and 7/10 correspondingly less than the average price of $3.65 per foot. Therefore, $3.65 x 1-1/2 = $5.47 = price of corner-suites per foot, 3/10 x the total area 169,296 square feet = 50,788 square feet x $5.47 = $277,810, which, deducted from $617,771, leaves $339,961 to represent the total cost of the remaining 7/10. The total area 169,296 x 7/10 = 118,507 square feet of available space in the inner-suites. Hence $339,961/118,507 = $2.86 as the price per square foot of the inner-suites, or all suites which are not corner-suites.

Now, as our estimates on the “tower” were made on the basis of its being an inner building in a block and not a corner-house, our estimates for the “flat” should be on a basis of $2.86, instead of $3.65, as taken. Therefore, our suite of 4,859 square feet would be but $13,896 if the “flat” were any other than a corner one, and if the public kitchen and café were used, it would be $11,242, or but a little more than a quarter of that of the “tower!”

The foregoing figures are easily explained, and their correctness verified by the following simple diagrams and considerations:

Figure 2.

In [Figure 2] the shaded parts of the plans represent the unavailable room which, under the apartment-house system, are rendered unnecessary, and they are practically wasted. Thus the eighty families, by uniting their eighty homes in one coöperative apartment, save 156 staircases consisting of seventy-six front and eighty back staircases, seventy-eight furnaces, seventy-nine laundries, etc., and nearly all the space they occupy, and the land, foundation and roof they represent.

Figure 3.

This waste space may be graphically shown by the diagrams in [Figure 3]. The large black-and-white line represents the “tower,” and the shorter the “flat.” The black part of each line denotes unavailable, and the white part available room, the sum of the two denoting the total cubical contents of each dwelling. The white parts of the lines measure the same length in each case, because the amount of available room in “tower” and “flat” is assumed at the outset to be the same. Thus in the “tower,” the front and back staircases and halls take up 22,000 cubic feet out of the total 106,000 cubic feet covered by the entire building. In the “flat” the proportional part of the halls and staircases for each suite is represented by a comparatively insignificant quantity as shown.

Again, an enormous waste is shown in the flooring, roof and air-spaces of the “tower,” while this item is but a trifle in the “flat.” The six floors, each 16 inches thick, and the roofing make up together in the “tower” 12,000 cubic feet, or nearly the equivalent of an entire story. Add to this 12,000 cubic feet of air-space under the roof and over the concrete, and we have in these items a waste of 24,000 cubic feet, against only 4,000 in the “flat.”

Thus we see that the waste space in the “tower” actually exceeds the available. Yet it must be paid for at the same rate with the latter. Deducting the waste in the “flat” from that in the “tower,” we find the balance of waste space in the “tower” to be equal to the available, showing graphically that the “tower” must cost, in these items alone, just twice as much as the “flat.”

Figure 4.

[Figure 4] shows a block-plan on a very small scale of the apartment-house, and a block-plan on the same scale of 40 “towers” adjoining each other, and having the same available space as the apartment-house. These plans show how much more land is required to give the same accommodations (minus the conveniences and luxuries of an apartment-house) in the “tower” system than in the “flat.”

The shaded portions in each block-plan represent the aggregate of available room in each case. This shows very strikingly what an enormous proportion of land and material is wasted in the “tower” system.

In short, the possible saving in first cost for each family adopting the “flat” system of building lies between $14,265 and $28,758, making an aggregate saving for the 80 families occupying the apartment of between one and two millions of dollars.

The annual running expenses are also greatly in favor of the “flat” system when the advantages of coöperation are used to its greatest extent.

Eighty independent Irish cooks give way to a professional chef and half-a-dozen attachés. The wages and maintenance of the 80 cooks would amount to an annual sum of not less than $40,000; those of the chef and his assistants to hardly $10,000, making in this one item a possible annual saving of $30,000.

The management of the 80 independent Irish cooks, if possible at all, could only be accomplished by the constant struggle of 80 worried and largely inexperienced owners or their wives. The management of the chef and his attachés could more easily be managed by a single person, either selected from among the 80 families and suitably recompensed, or employed as a professional manager at a regular salary. Or the entire control of the café, and kitchen could be let out by contract to some suitable caterer, if preferred.

Corresponding savings are evidently possible in every other department of housekeeping, including steam-heating, ventilating, laundry-work, lighting and elevator-work. In all of these particulars, coöperation, judiciously conducted, has been shown to yield surprising economies.

But there are other advantages even more important than its economy in favor of the “flat.” Freedom from housekeeping cares has already been touched upon. In the “tower,” life is spent in training and treating with servants, mechanics and market-men. The private cook is a volcano in a house, slumbering at times, but always ready to burst forth into destructive eruption. True repose is out of the question, and we are told that “the motive for foreign travel of perhaps one-half of Americans is rest from household cares and the enjoyment of good attendance, freed from any responsibility in its organization and management.”

Security against burglary and fire is another. In a good apartment-house, trained watchmen stand on guard night and day to protect the occupants, and stand-pipes, hose and fire-buckets are provided in all the halls, and kept in repair for emergency.

The family may leave their apartments for travel summer or winter, knowing that their property is as secure as modern appliances, system and ingenuity can make it. Not so with our isolated dwelling. The cost of providing all these means of protection is too great to make them practicable. The result is that the fear of burglary and fire at all times causes uneasiness, particularly on the part of the wife during the absence of her husband.

Beauty in the architectural arrangement of the rooms is a third advantage of the “flat.” In this it has all the advantage of the double house or residence of the immensely rich. The rooms may be grouped in a manner which renders possible the highest architectural effect, whereas in the “tower” the perpendicular arrangement evidently precludes such opportunity by limiting the design to a wearisome and monotonous repetition from basement to attic.

No argument can be sustained against the “flat” on the ground of transmission of sound or want of privacy and isolation, for sound may be as fully deadened as in the “tower” by means of the 12-inch brick separating walls shown in our plan, and the most improved deafening treatment of the floor-joists.

Isolation may be made complete in the “flat,” the private halls and front doors of each suite being in every respect the equivalent of those in the “tower”; the only difference being that with the “flat” the outer world begins with the public hall and its elevator, while with the “tower” it begins with the public street and its horse-car.

Add to these advantages the possibility for a greatly enlarged and delightful social intercourse which a properly arranged and conducted apartment-house provides, and we have as near an approach to the ideal of a human habitation as has yet been devised.

J. P. Putnam.

ARCHITECTURE IN BROOKLYN.

The city of Brooklyn has at last waked up to realize her size and importance architecturally. Brooklyn, though growing very rapidly and having many buildings of importance, has really had very little good architecture, for the simple reason that the profession, not being in any way organized, could not, as a rule, receive the treatment due respectable architects. For this reason many young men who would not be capable of practising elsewhere, have flocked to this city, and by various methods, many of which are far from honorable, have succeeded in getting control of most of the work. However, we hope for better things.

The Brooklyn Institute some time ago decided to organize a Department of Architecture, and for this purpose a meeting of architects was called, which led to several more meetings and the attendance at these was exceedingly hopeful for the new department, some forty or fifty architects signifying their willingness to help along in the work; finally a public meeting was held in the Institute on Friday December 13, at which some six or seven hundred persons were present, and the Department was fully organized; the constitution carefully thought-out at the previous meetings was adopted, and the following list of officers chosen:

President, G. L. Morse; Vice-President, Louis De Coppet Berg; Secretary, William B. Tubby; Treasurer, Gustave A. Jahn; Committee on Current Work, Richard M. Upjohn, R. L. Daus and Louis De Coppet Berg; Committee on Museum and Library, Walter E. Parfitt, Pierre Le Brun; and Wm. Hamilton Gibson; Committee on Competitions and Awards, R. L. Daus, D. E. Laub, Russell Sturgis; Committee on Professional Practice, Walter Dickson, Albert F. D’Oench, Richard M. Upjohn; Committee on Social Intercourse, H. P. Fowler, Charles T. Mott and General Ingram.

During the necessary intervals of balloting, etc., the President, Mr. George L. Morse, made a short address, setting forth the history of the previous meetings, and congratulating the local architects on the prospect of having a strong and well-organized society.

Mr. Louis De Coppet Berg, of the firm of J. C. Cady & Co., Architects, then addressed the meeting as follows:—

When a young man enters a profession, and particularly the profession of architecture, if perchance he gets an original idea, or a little knowledge, he at once becomes very secretive, tries to keep it all to himself for fear some one else will benefit by it, and marks all his drawings “The property of...,” and “Not to be copied, or used, without the consent of the author, under penalty of the law.” As he grows a little older in his profession he begins to find out that a few others have ideas as well as himself, and know a little something once in a while; and as he grows still older he finds that there are a great many others, who know a great deal more than he does, and who have a great many better ideas than he has; and then it is, that he longs for communication with his professional brethren, and he finds that, in order to get the benefit of their ideas and knowledge, he must freely communicate his own to them. Hence it is that in most of the large cities we find some association of architects; Brooklyn, however, the third city of the Union, is unique in this respect, that it has absolutely no place where professional architects can meet and discuss the different problems of their profession.

To remedy this evil, the Brooklyn Institute proposed to establish a Department of Architecture, and for this purpose called together a large number of local architects.

Now, we have decided that, if we have any Department at all, it shall be a live one; and this reminds me of a squib I read in the paper the other day, telling how, somewhere in Spain, they had unearthed an old painting, which was pronounced a genuine Murillo. It was said that the experts could not as yet determine whether the subject of the cracked and dingy old canvas was a Madonna or a Bull Fight, but that, nevertheless, they did not hesitate to declare that it was a great acquisition to art. Now, that is the trouble with most associations of architects; if the subject for discussion is only old, cracked and dingy enough, they are happy. Nothing delights them more than to spend all their time and energies in discussing Etruscan or other antique architectures, or the exact differentiations between the many styles of architecture. Now, while we value the history of an art, and shall give it all due attention, we propose to remember that the modern architect, besides being an artist, must be one of the most practical and executive of business men.

We admit that our ancestors in the profession designed beautiful castles, magnificent cathedrals and lovely châteaux, but we remember that these castles, these cathedrals, these châteaux were planned without any comfort; that they had no plumbing devices, no methods for cooking, no systems of heating or ventilation, and no way of getting light but the miserable taper; while to-day the architect, besides being a thorough artist, who knows how to design and to color, besides being thoroughly up in the history of his art, must know how to plan for comfort, to construct for strength and stability; must understand all the details of boilers, machinery, dynamos, electric-wiring, heating and ventilating systems, plumbing and sanitation, and lastly must be able to manage the complicated finances of large undertakings.

Now, to carry out these ideas in our work, we shall, in the first place, establish a museum and library, to which we shall welcome all gifts of books, pictures, models, casts, etc., whether illustrating the artistic, or the practical side of the profession. Then we shall have a course of monthly, public lectures by competent authorities, the subjects of which will probably be very largely chosen from the artistic side of the profession. We also propose to have stated meetings of the Department monthly, at which some carefully selected papers will be read by experts, the subjects of which will be given out as long in advance as possible, in order that all may be thoroughly prepared for a full and open discussion; and then, after these meetings, in order to promote sociability amongst the members, and to show how thoroughly practical we are, we propose to have something to eat. We also hope later to establish schools, not only for young men, but particularly for draughtsmen, where they can be taught, not only the art of drawing, but also the many practical branches connected with the profession.

The meeting was also addressed by the Rev. Dr. Chas. H. Hall, President of the Associate Members. He spoke at great length and kept his audience intensely interested by describing his own acquaintance with architecture, beginning with the original negro log-house down South, then the prim buildings of old Andover and Harvard, and finally how he saw the great former St. Ann’s of Brooklyn, the likeness of which, he said, could be seen any day on the piers of New York when they were unloading dry-goods boxes; and how he finally went abroad and saw the beautiful architecture of Paris, which he could not praise enough. He was also unstinted in his praise of the modern beauty and architecture of Washington. He also spoke of his visits to London, and, while he admitted that Englishmen thought their architecture beautiful, he took exception, and claimed that the great St. Paul’s, though beautiful to the English eye, was a cold barren building, blacked with smoke inside and out, a place where you could not be comfortable, nor hear the speaker at any distance. We regret that we are not able to give a verbatim account of his witty address.

At the end of Dr. Hall’s address, the lecturer of the evening, Professor Russell Sturgis, architect, of New York, addressed the meeting as follows, his subject being “The Study of Architecture,” with particular reference to the architecture of to-day.