Bungalows, as the one-story houses used in India are called, seem adapted to some parts of America, particularly as summer cottages.
Plate [XVII] and the [frontispiece] show a house which will commend itself to those who dislike going up and down stairs. This plan provides a hall, dining-room and kitchen, each with its fire-place and closet, and three bed-rooms. The door of the bath-room and that of the bed-room opposite are misplaced, and should open into the corridor. There is a small stairway to the attic, where there is space for dormitories, if desired. The construction of this sort of house is so simple, and the foundation may be so light, that it will cost but a trifle more than if the rooms were arranged in the ordinary way. The bungalow here given is very simply treated, the roof being only broken for the outlook from the attic, and extending to cover the veranda.
Plate [XVIII] shows a house suitable for an ordinary “fifty-foot suburban lot.” The entrance hall is divided by an arch and book-cases, making an agreeable sitting-room or library. The second story contains three bed-rooms and a bath-room. There are accommodations in the attic for servants.
Plate [XIX] is a design for a cottage on a side hill, with the kitchen in the basement. The projection of the stairs in the main hall gives place for a seat opposite the fire-place, and may be made a cosy little corner. The dining-room, hall and sitting-room, open into each other.
The last four Plates are designs for double or “semi-detached” houses. If, instead of building single houses, two persons will combine, adopting some arrangement such as these designs show, they will effect a considerable saving of expense. The houses, although receiving light and air only on three sides, are bright and comfortable. Privacy is not destroyed, as the entrance porches are separated, and windows placed so as to avoid looking from one house to the other.
The exterior treatment in Designs [XX] and [XXI] seems to indicate more clearly than the others that they are double houses, while Nos. [XXII] and [XXIII], though not concealing this fact, have more the air of large single houses. This is a nice question of “expression” which our readers may decide for themselves.
These drawings show different architects’ conceptions of what small and medium-sized cottages should be. They differ greatly from each other, both in plan and exterior design, but the general expression seems to be much the same. They are not pretentious, and no ornament exists for its own sake. Chimneys and roofs are boldly and frankly treated, and a certain breadth and hospitality are expressed by nearly all. Only a few of their special features have been mentioned, a fuller description being deemed unnecessary.
IX.
It will be noticed in all these designs that whatever grace or charm they may have is the result of the simplest treatment. A building should be logically designed, and the exterior be the natural expression of the plan. This is what is meant by Truth in Architecture. But just how much need be expressed, is not always clear. A proper regard for our architectural morals does not require us to exhibit to the passer-by every detail of construction and arrangement. Only what is shown must be true. A building ought at least to declare its purpose, which should be recognizable at a glance. But a house may well express more than the fact that it is a house. It may have a pretentious and showy appearance, or be modest and unassuming. It may look cheerful and hospitable, or cold and forbidding.