Fig. 11. A cosy farm house.
Another house not far from this one was built nearly a century ago ([Fig. 11]). If the upper story was a full instead of a half-story, it would fulfil all the demands of a house, except possibly beauty. It stands on a rather steep front slope, which stops abruptly on the shore of one of our beautiful inland lakes ([Fig. 12]). By reason of the steep incline at the front of the house, a tall building would be far less beautiful than this lean-to, severely plain structure. This simple old house has a restful, almost beautiful appearance when viewed in conjunction with the trees, the steep, sloping lawn, and the broad, placid lake. The shaded veranda gives the idea of social repose far more than does the formal, stiff, restricted one shown in [Fig. 9], which has scarcely room for two easy chairs, and is so constructed that no grateful shade is secured. Woe be to the man who destroys this restful old house and substitutes for it a lofty, narrow-waisted one adorned with peaks and spires, bay windows and a filigree cornice!
Fig. 12. The lake view in front of the house.
Before ground is broken for the foundation, carefully considered plans suited to the site, the size and productiveness of the farm, and the probable income, should have been made. It may be said that the size of the house should be governed by the size, or the probable size, of the family. But “it is better to dwell in the corner of the house-top than in a wide house” with insufficient means to maintain it. The general plans should be outlined at least a year before a new building or extensive enlargement of the old is begun. The houses which are to be built in the future should be planned with a view to greater economy, convenience, beauty, and durability. There is now little excuse for erecting poor, uncomfortable, inconvenient houses on the farm. True, the rural population is handicapped, for few city architects have made any study of the plain rural house, and fewer have paid any attention whatever to farm barn construction. Even if architects had given attention to the needs of the rural population, the farmer would feel that he could hardly afford to pay $100 to $200 for the plans of a house costing $1,000 to $2,000, exclusive of the labor which the owner, his men and teams were able to perform upon it. The task of planning a country house is too great for the country carpenter; he cannot even interpret plans correctly; his range of observation and training have been too limited. Then, who is to plan the house? Why, the farmer and his family, and it will take at least two years of study and observation of other houses and their modern conveniences before intelligent, crude plans and instructions are ready to be placed in the hands of the draughtsman.
Fig. 13. A house of seven gables.
Few persons are original; therefore, if the little conveniences which help to lighten work and make life more pleasurable are to find a place in the house, they must be seen in other houses. All men have more ideas than any one man; therefore, the range of study should be wide, that whatever is suitable to the conditions may be adopted. After having built many farm houses and barns, and having made a long and most careful study of them, I estimate that from 30 to 40 per cent of the cost of farm buildings is useless, and sometimes worse than thrown away.
A small farm house on a modest-sized farm is shown in [Fig. 13]. The site is beautiful, and is worthy of a house better fitted to the situation, the farm, and the farmer. The illustration shows seven gables, and the house, therefore, might serve as a model for a work of fiction; but the left-hand side of the house is like unto the right-hand side, so it will not do for fiction, for if the truth must be told, there are eleven gables and twenty-two valleys on this house.
