Our 37th Competition

Progress, Volume XI, Issue 3, 1 November 1915, Page 471

Our 37th Competition

A Summer Cottage

Won by E. C. Smith. (“Sunshine with Mr. H. Clinton Savage, Auckland

Nine designs were submitted in this competition, —“Opus,” by H. E. Goodwin, with Mr. T. H. Battle, Architect, Wanganui; “Pebble,” by A M. Ballantyne, Public Works Department, Wellington; “Clarence,” by W. M. Law with Messrs HurstSeager, F.R.1.8.A., and McLeod of Christchurch; “Ripple,” by A. Ball, with Messrs Paynter and Hamilton, Christchurch; “Kiwi,” by M. Ballantyne, with Mr. J. Charlesworth, Wellington; “Sunshine, by E. C. Smith, with Mr. H. Clinton Savage, Auckland; “Max,” by Horace L. Massey, with Mr. R. K. Binney, Auckland; “Weary Willie,” by William Potter, Auckland; “Domicile,” by Tomy Spinks, with Wade and Wade, Auckland. Mr. W. Gray Young of Wellington who kindly set this subject, reports as follows:—Nine designs were submitted in this competition and it is very pleasing to see the high standard of draughtsmanship and design attained by at least half the competitors. 1 My object in setting this competition was to give some scope to the competitors’ ingenuity in using the materials at hand, and most of the designs show that the authors realized this. When the : cost is made one of the conditions of a ,competition it should be kept well in view, and one artistic ideas should always be subservient to it. In this case the best design has lost first place through setting it aside. Sunshine : The rooms have been studied to obtain the maximum amount of sunlight and are all well placed. The living room faces in the right direction and has a wide verandah in front of it. “Sun-

shine” has provided a large cupboard to the back bedroom and I suppose this is intended for the linen cupboard. It would have been much better if the

it. The linen then is always “aired.” For a house of this size a fireplace in a bedroom should have been provided. The elevations are quiet and restrained

space on the landing near the sleeping balcony had been reduced by half, and the linen press put in front of the kitchen chimney which is the ideal position for

and would look most effective. The grounds arc well thought out, especially the position near the wood, The draughtsmanship is very good.

“Max”: This is undoubtedly the best scheme submitted but it could not be built for anything like

it is that the bedroom windows are too small. The arrangement of the kitchen, scullery, pantry, etc.,

£l,lOO. “Max” certainly understood the summer cottage plan and the only fault I have to find with

arc excellent. Another good point in this design is the wide folding doors to the living room. Working

a bathing shed into the basement is quite a good scheme. The elevations are bold and give good character to the design but why did “Max” spoil it by the water tanks? Surely they are anything but a thing of beauty? Why not have a tank in the roof supplied by a race placed in the stream at the side of the site? The garden plan is simple and would look well. The drawings are the most artistic of those submitted, and the impressionistic colouring is very effective. “Clarence”: The planning of the kitchen is not happy. There are too many doors near the range. The back lobby would be much better open to the air with the wash-house, w.c. and fuel opening off it. There is not enough verandah provided for a seaside cottage. The elevations show a good idea of design and the draughtsmanship is neat and clean. “Pebble”: The ground plan is good but the bedrooms opening off the sleeping balcony would not obtain enough sunlight. The elevations are spoilt by the broken-backed roof. The drawings are well executed. The garden plan is poor compared with the preceding designs. “Weary Willie”: The living room is placed the wrong way and should have had the length to the front. The fireplace end of the room would be very dark. The exterior design is fair but the garden plan is well conceived. The draughtmanship is good although it is spoiled by the muddy colouring. “Ripple” has not taken advantage of the materials at his disposal and has designed a wood house with concrete foundations. The plans are* good but there is not enough verandah and balcony accommodation. “Kiwi”: The plans and elevations are fairly good but do not show much originality. The drawings would have looked better if the lettering was smaller. “Domicile” is too much like a town house, and advantage has not been taken fully of the materials. The colouring is much too heavy. “Opus” is a builder’s design and plan is very commonplace. “Opus” would do well to study the design and draughtsmanship of the work illustrated in some of the professional magazines, W. GRAY YOUNG.