Our 36th Competition

Progress, Volume XI, Issue 2, 1 October 1915, Page 450

Our 36th Competition

For Memorial Chapel

Won by E. S. D. Harman (Hogan), Christchurch. Seven designs were sent in for this competition, viz:“Hogan” by R. S. D. Harman with Messrs. Hurst Seager, F.R.1.8.A., and McLeod, Christchurch ; “Trix” by A. Ball with Messrs. Paynter and Hamilton, Christchurch; “Do” by Cyril B. Pepper with

The subject requires a simple and straightforward, but at the same time imposing treatment; it is a small church and therefore requires a simple plan but at the same time it should be monumental in its lines. . These characteristics are best attained I think by the adoption of a somewhat long and narrow nave and chancel with rather high walls. On a building of this size the transepts and aisles are better omitted, leaving the main unbroken roof line together with the simple outline of the long rectangular plan and the lofty walls

plan West Elevation Section

Winning Design “ Hogan,” in cue Memorial Chapel Competition by E. S. D. Harman with Messrs. Hurst Seager, F.E.1.8.A., and McLeod, Christchurch ' Vf

Mr. E. A. Williams, Napier; “Smacker” by R. C. Hall with Mr. F. tie J. Clere, F.R.1.8.A., Wellington; “Takere” by M. Ballantync with Mr. J. Charlesworth, Wellington “Novice” by C. M. Lello, Drainage Board Offices, Dunedin ‘.‘Augusta” by Chas. N. Wallnutt-with Messrs. Mahoney 'and Son, Auckland. Mr. Newton Vanes, A.R.1.8.A., of Dunedin, who kindly set this subject reports as follows: “The standard of the seven designs received for this competition is not as high as it should,be, no competitor giving a really appropriate solution. This being so, a few general remarks on the handling of this particular design may be helpful to students.

to contribute the necessary imposing factors to the composition. The main lines of the building thus being quite simple, it would be becoming to add a cer-, tain amount of ornamentation concentrated at the principal points of interest such as main entrance, Windows and roof. Tdo not think a. tower is desirable, a nicely proportioned fleche being all that is required. It must be remembered that the chapel, though a centre of interest, would probably not be the main feature of the architectural group and would therefore be designed as a subsidiary mass. All competitors have given their designs a Gothic treatment and on the whole, I agree with them that

this is the most suitable style for the purpose. At the same time I should have liked to have seen one or two treated in the Byzantine manner. Gothic however requires very careful handling and the majority of the competitors have completely failed to give their work any of the charm which is always associated with good work in this style. Of course medieval work can only be studied in the Colonies from books and illustrations and it can hardly be expected that students labouring under these disadvantages should fully catch the subtle charm of it. At the same time all the competitors could very greatly improve their work by a careful study of the details and photos of good work— medieval and modern — which are available in innumerable books and magazines. As far as the details of the plan are concerned there is not much to say. The seating may be either across the nave as in a church or parallel with it as in the plan placed first. School chapels are also designed with or without choir stalls depending upon he requirements of the particular college. The vestries may also be quite small. A Rood screen as some of the competitors have shown is hardly required. In giving a criticism of each design it is impossible to enter into all the details as space would not allow of this. I have therefore ' just touched on a few outstanding merits or defects. “Hogan''’ has the best idea of Gothic work but all the other competitors are sadly lacking in a knowledge of Gothic detail. The actual massing is fairly good in most designs, but the majority of the detail is really very poor indeed. I place “Hogan” first while * Takere ’ and “Augusta” are certainly the next best. The others are all far behind these designs, and are not necessarily placed in order of merit. The subject is a much more difficult one than usual and students must not feel discouraged because the standard attained is not as high as usual. With more study of this particular branch of architecture, all the students would produce much better work. “Hogan” has submitted a very pleasing set of sketches but the lines of his design are more suggestive of a village church than a memorial chapel. Apart from this rather serious drawback, the main lines of the design are pleasing and restful and the massing and balance are excellent. Better provision should have been made on the plan for the organ. The thick solid walls are a good feature but it is doubtful if the roof would stand without additional ties. • The free and sketchy draughtsmanship shows off the design to advantage and the general colouring is good, but a little more accuracy is desirable. For instance the elevation of the projecting porch has been omitted on the cross section and the front elevation, and the heights of the transept roof do not agree on the various drawings. The back buttresses of the tower also rest on thin air. On the whole however “Hogan’s” handling of the subject is the best and he has shown a better knowledge of Gothic treatment than the other competitors and has also given a more original conception. His handling . of the i inch details is clever and rather pleasing. ‘ ‘ Takare ’ ’ has perhaps a better idea than ‘ ‘ Hogan ’ ’ of what a Memorial chapel should be like but has

failed to develop it on the best lines. The design is wanting in originality and is rather “cast iron in its detail. These defects are accentuated by the draughtsmanship, which is not only ordinary but rather poor. Mo notes have been made on the plan of the materials proposed to be used nor are these indicated in any way on the drawings. The hard and unfeeling effect would have been greatly softened by the discreet introduction of the stone jointsl presume stone is intended. The 1 inch detail of the doorway is not without merit but the lobby would not be very impressive. The cross section is not complete, the elevation of the sanctuary being omitted. The cross section of the parapet does not agree with the side elevation. The mullions are too thin and the heavy black treatment of the windows makes them appear very “reedy.” “Augusta’s” plan is not bad if he omitted the transeptsneither is a font requiredbut the treatment of the elevations, though in itself not bad, is not at all suggestive of a chapel and might just as readily be applied to a Presbyterian Sunday school. The whole effect is much too squat and not in the least impressive. The actual detail is not so open to objection except that it is rather lacking in character, and though there is certainly a quiet refinement about the design I should have liked to have seen a little more strength and “go” in the handling of it. “Bo” has a fairly typical plan and his drawings are very neat. There is however a complete absence of originality. The elevations are rather ordinary and not at all impressive. The treatment of .the choir vestries and vestibule are not successful in elevation being unnecessarily high and not suggestive of what they are. The Rood screen is very feeble and the cusps in the East window decidedly weak. A careful study of figure 391 Mitchell’s Building Construction, Part I. will show that the 1 inch detail is not as pleasing as the one in the text book, though the general resemblance is somewhat striking. Note the thickness of the walls and the details of the splays which are half the charm in the text book illustration. ‘ ‘ Smacker ’ ’ is conventional in his plan which however would have been improved by the addition of a vestibule or porch. The elevations are ambitious but are wanting in restraint and finish. The west end is a collection of windows, niches and door with no definite interrelation. By omitting the string course and the two large niches and working the doorway and side niches into a composition with the main window, a better effect would have resulted. The roof, without a tie of some description, would collapse. The draughtmanship is poor, the freehand work being very scratchy and outbalanced by the heavy ruled lines. The organ chamber and vestries should have been shown in elevation on cross section, the % inch detail has also been omitted. “Novice.” The plan is on right lines but the walls are much too thin and the entrance porch is an ugly shape and should be either circular or preferably square but certainly not a deformed mixture. The vestry walls being as high as the nave Avails tend to give the impression that they are transepts which is a serious fault. The bell turret is much too paltry, and the side gables on it Aveak and unsightly. The pen

work is neat but absolutely lacking in character, while the tinting is very poor. The showing of each individual stone is a waste of time and a much better effect would have been attained by simply suggesting the stone work. If each stone is shown, then the roofing and the leadlights should be drawn in the same style. The next.time use a larger sheet of paper. “Trix.” The plan is fairly right except that the sanctuary has been made too narrow so as to carry a tower which would have been better omitted. The massing of the elevation is in itself not bad but the detail is very poor. “Trix” should be more careful in selecting his colours. The tinting of the elevations is not only hard, but the actual tints clash giving a most objectionable effect while the reason for tinting grey slates a muddy terracotta is obscure. In the cross section the circular arches do not harmonize with the central pointed —all three'should be similar in character. The roof truss is very weak and would certainly collapse without a tie. The elevations generally are not in the slightest degree suggestive of a chapel.” R. NEWTON VANES.