If now, we turn to inquire what are the qualities which have won for these buildings a place on this list, and to what tendencies, either of progress or retrogression, do the votes point, two facts stand out very clearly. The first is, that each of the ten buildings, whatever its style or purpose, represents a conception clearly thought out, simply and forcibly expressed, and treated with monumental dignity, quite irrespectively of the amount or richness of its decoration. The second is, that there has in recent years been a notable advance in all that concerns the interior decoration of important buildings. In 1877 Trinity Church in Boston stood alone as an example of really high art in interior decoration. The three most recent buildings on the list—all three by the way, public libraries—are conspicuous instances of the sumptuous and dignified treatment of interior design, with the help of all the resources of decorative art; and here again, other buildings now being erected or about to be built confirm this conclusion, that our architects and the public are beginning to appreciate the importance both of the interior design of a building and of the collaboration of all the arts,—as for instance, in the new Appellate Court in New York.
| PLATE IV | TRINITY CHURCH, NEW YORK CITY |
Comparing the list of 1899 with that of 1885, the progress of our national architecture in fourteen years becomes very evident. The United States Capitol and the Trinity Churches in New York and Boston are the only buildings common to both lists. Six of the buildings on the Brochure list were, in 1885, either incomplete or not yet begun: these are the Boston, Congressional and Columbia Libraries, the Madison Square Garden, St. Patrick's Cathedral and the Biltmore residence. The Cathedral, however, wanted only its spires; but its appearance on the Brochure list is undoubtedly due to the spires more than any other element in its design. In 1885 Mr. H. H. Richardson was the one bright and particular star on the architectural horizon in the United States: one-half of the "1885" list of buildings were his work. Only one of these remains on the new list,—Trinity Church in Boston, doubtless on the whole his greatest work. The style which he made his own, and which was then at the height of popular favor, borne on the wave of admiration for the real strength and originality of his works, has waned, as all fashions must wane which are not the result of a spontaneous movement of taste, but ride into favor on the back of some passing whim or on the merit of the achievements of some one person or coterie. No architectural period can be truly great that depends upon one man or set of men for its great works.
It is perhaps not amiss to say a few words regarding buildings of secondary merit and of minor importance in cost and size. These may be as significant criteria of architectural taste and progress as those most conspicuous for grandeur and beauty. It is quite possible for the architectural energy of one place or period to be concentrated on a small number of great works, and for an equal amount of energy and ability in another place or period to be expended on a larger number of less important buildings. The average quality of our architecture, and the quality of our ordinary every-day architecture, are perhaps as important as that of the ten most beautiful buildings; and the fact that the west and south have so small a representation in the Brochure lists by no means argues a corresponding deficiency of good architecture. Yet after all, when all is said, the great and noble buildings, the highest and grandest triumphs of architecture are the only ones which profoundly affect the imaginations and kindle the artistic aspirations of men; and when a community becomes so pervaded with the artistic spirit that works of art furnish the readiest, most natural and complete expression of its ideals and enthusiasms, great works will result whenever there are enthusiasms and ideals worthy of monumental expression. From this point of view the Columbian and Omaha Expositions, and the New York Naval Arch of Triumph—which, owing to their transitory and temporary character, no doubt, have found no place on the Brochure lists—seem to me in the highest degree significant and encouraging. And the public libraries, St. John's Cathedral and the Phebe Hearst competition are further evidence in the same direction.
A word might also be said for certain buildings which found no place on either the "First" or "Second" list, but which competent critics might assign to one or the other list in preference to some that appear on them. There is for instance, Mr. Richardson's Woburn Library, which some consider his most beautiful work next to Trinity Church; the new State Capitols of Minnesota and Rhode Island (the latter not quite finished); the Treasury Building and White House at Washington; the Temple Emmanuel; the Metropolitan Life Building; Metropolitan Club and Cornelius Vanderbilt's residence in New York; the University group at Charlottesville, Va.; the Omaha Exposition and the Dewey Arch.
But the task assigned me was the discussion of the Brochure lists, not of other possible lists; and I close with the suggestion that a vote every ten or every five years would afford a most valuable and interesting gauge of the movements of taste and of the progress of architecture in the United States.