THE HOUSE OF TO-DAY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 272, 29 August 1933, Page 8

THE HOUSE OF TO-DAY

IMPORTANCE OF DESIGN. RELATION TO VALUE. Sir Raymond Unwin president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, submitted a paper on the value of good designs in dwellings to the National Association of Building Societies in London recently. The value Y.’kch a house could maii£ tain oyer a number of years, he said,' was more dependent than was generally realised on good design. If a house had little of comfort, convenience, of homeliness to capture the affections, fhe occupant, would look out for something better ■ if it presented an unattractive appearance mo passer-by would seek possession. “For want of good design that house will be the first to fall empty the last to be retaken, and so will suffer the most depreciation in value,” Sir Raymond added (reports the “Manchester Guardian.”) ‘ ‘By the design of dwellings is meant something much more fundamental than the way ini which the front is crowned with gables, trimmed with imitation timber flaming, or tinted with coloured tiles. The fact that many of 'those who build and more of those who buy have a superficial idea of desjgn is l;he cause ol 1 much disfigurement of the countx-y. Against this the outcry has been growing in volume and vehemence to an extent that the most hardened offenders can no longer afford to igxxore. For buildei's will clearly soon be faced with the choice of producing better design themselves or submitting to have better design imposed upon them. So long as design is thought of merely as an arbitrary manner of decorating the face of the building, the form and management of which are determined by quite other and more practical considerations, no progress can be made. It is precisely the arrangement of the rooms, the form of bxiilding and the disposition on the site which are the most essential elements of design. It is out of these that- the external appearance should grow.”

Sir Raymond said that too often the lay-out of speculative building sites was wanting in economy, quite devoid of interest and completely ignored the special opportunities to be found on most sites. Either the same house w'as repeated, with dreary monotony and complete disregard of aspects along both sides of the street, or the even more irritating opposite was adopted, eveiy house being different, resulting in ■ a complete jumble of meaningless arid quito unrelated difference. This is the way, according to Sir Raymond, that the designer should work: “He pictures in his mind the appropriate use for which, the building is intended, sees the life going out in each room; he sees where the bed will stand and W'hether it can he conveniently made; how the door will open, whether it will screen the snug corner or spoil it by directing upon it both draught and passei'-bv. He realises w’here meals will be taken and where prepared, how direct or devious will be the routes between'these places which must ho traversed. He feels the comfoit or discomfoi’t of the fireside round which folk will gather in the winter, or the window' to which they will be attracted on summer evenings. He realises equally the impression which the visitor will receive when entering and he will dispose his spaces, often diminutive, to give at least a. sense of order and welcome.” Sir Raymond, introducing his, paper, said that building societies w’ould be well advised to give increasing attention to securing houses of a good design. There was no ishoi’tage of space fox - , housing, but they were spoiling ten squai'e miles of space for evei’y one occupied because they did not plan it properly and only scattered a few r houses here and there higgledy-piggle-dy all oyeir the place. Woman’s Point of View. Lady Emmo/tt put the woman’s point of view when she suggested that the building societies should give women Ua job of work.” “I would like you to encourage w omen to take up architecture as a career,” she said. “It is a pity that they have not turned their attention particularly to domestic architecture. A woman ought jo know, something about the house in which she has to live.

“A great deal of fatigue could have been saved in better design. There have been many broken backs by' women having to stoop oveir a sink. Again, look at the dust trap in that place which is usually left between the top of the cupboard and the ceiling. Why cannot the top he carried right up? That is a practical design of which any woman architect would have thought. In’ many houses the livingrooms have mo sun whatever while the larder gets a great deal. The larder is the one place which a woman wants to bo protected. A woman I know, who had had a house designed found that she could not see her garden except by standing on a stool. The architect said he could not alter it except by spoiling his design. ‘Then you must spoil it,’ said my friend.” Mr Paul Rhodes (Leeds) said that lie knew Some houses built by speculative builders which were Georgian, on one side and Elizabethan on the other, “and when you get inside goodness knows had many designs there are. It pays you to have a good designer if you want good houses for sale.” Mr Arthur Webb said that ire hoped building societies would take into consultation rvith them those women who were qualified to give practical advice. There was no reason/ why the societies should not have, on their panel of surveyors and architects some women who had! qualified in that direction.