THE CITY OF THE FUTURE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10741, 12 November 1928, Page 9

THE CITY OF THE FUTURE

WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE?

BOSTON, August 30. Iso single development in architecture since the masonry arch of the .Romans is comparable to the introduction. of the steel cage as the basis oi building. Steel has given architecture a new dimension. But if we are inclined to sit back and think that the limit of its development has been reached, that the form, of the skyscraper is at last definitive we are mistaken. Modern architecture is still in its beginnings. It has made unbelievable strides, of courso, both mechanically and aesthetically. But, simply ttecause the design of the tall.building has become logical at last, we need not congratulate ourselves that we are through with the new phases of its growth.* 3 u the beginning, the .skyscraper was enneioved architecturally as a. .‘‘horizontal” building stretched' to greater height, like and up-ended peppermint box. . '

The architects who designed the earliest tall buildings with the exception of Buffington, the 'neglected pioneer who patented a 28-story ••cloud-scraper” in 1888 and was laughed out of town), dug down in their bag of tricks, produced ponderous cornices, rows of classical columns and pilasters and other irrelevant detail of the three and four-story building, and “applied” them to the vast new surface.

When it became apparent that the old architectural treatment simply would net fit the new form, a few enlightened ones cast about’ in tho past for a more harmonious style, and hit upon Gothic. It was better., much better, but Gothic was traditionally ecclesiastical and therefore still inappropriate to big Business. “Cathedral of Commerce’ ’ was a happy catch phrase, but it scarcely excused the inherent incongruity. It is less than a decade since progressive architects have realised that derivative embellishment does not enhance the new form at all. If thoro is any tiling strikingly new under the sun it is the modern office building, and it ones out for treatment representative of its period and its special function. The Telephone Building in New York, more properly known as the Barclay-Vesey Building, is a masterpiece simply because its designers have employed strictly modern - and mechanical elements throughout. Yet even the Telephone Building, viewed in the light of what is sure to follow, is the merest beginning. Every decade, evey year one might say, has its marvels. The Monadnock Building in Chicago was tho eighth wonder of the world in the nineties. The Flatiron Building in New York topped it a dozen years later by very little more in actual height,’ but its bizarre shape and commanding location gave it especial notoriety. Tho Singer Building seemed the last.word until the Metropolitan Life and Woolworth Bettered it in rapid succession. Although the Woolworth is still the tallest, several buildings erected since have had as much or more signicfiance for the future of architecture. Just what wiß (.lie future bring forth? A Jules Verne should appear among r.s tn tell it. There is Baymond Hood’s proposal of buildings in the form of trees with elevators in their trunks. It. is feasible, for steel with its veneer of masonry is much lighter than the okl wall-hear-ing construction. Furthermore, it would go far toward solving the traffic problem. There is the globular House of steel and glass, revolving to follow the sun. such as lias already been constructed m Germany.' Will there he skyscrapers, too, 'clothed entirely of many-colored glass instead of stone? Will Budding he rnuticolorcd rather than monochrome? Will the tendency m tho great city he to accumulate larger and larger plot area, in order to build constantly higher and more massively, with street? cut through the buildings themselves? Imagination balks at the fantastic sky line of the _ future. Already many smaller cities in the western plains are becoming metropolises in little, with buddings of 18, 20, and 30 stories. What will, the larger cities, with their increased need of concentration bring forth ? There is little doubt that new pedestrian levels wdl lie necessary before long, perhaps 30 stories above the ground. Motor traffic too. willi probably seek greater heights, and we will have to take the elevator down to our offices instead of up. In older cities, where proper street widths were not established in time, artificial light and ventilation arc already depended on throughout the day, and with revolution of methods there is no reason whv work or play on the lower levels should he inconvenient or otherwise undesirable. Sky gardens already grow atop many tall buildings, and the future will undoubtedly see a more extensive development of this gracious feature of the great citv. iFlaygrounds on a large, scale will have to go up in the air. There is reason to believe that entire sections of cities will have a, second uniform level high albve the ground. Just what- aviation will do to architecture is difficult to foresee, hut its effect is sure to he revolutionary. The need for adequate landing fields near ? heart of the city is a problem that architects and city planners will ha veto tackle before it is too late. The “zoning envelope,” which has had a tendency to create towers through the introduction of setbacks, has simultaneously evolved obstructions to air travel. These _ problems are rushing upon us rapidly, and the past lias taught us that we cannot be too forehanded.