Our 38th Competition

Progress, Volume XI, Issue 7, 1 March 1916, Page 573

Our 38th Competition

Front of a Block of Offices WON BY ERIC MILLER OF DUNEDIN Only two designs were sent in for this competition, siz.;—“lonic” by Gordon S. Reid, with Mr. E. W. Walden, Dunedin, and “Link” by Eric Miller with Messrs. Salmond & A r anes, A.R.1.8.A., Dunedin.

higher in plane than the ordinary five-roomed cottage or seaside villa, that we are all so necessarily familiar with, but possibly the season of the year was not propitious to hard work of this sort. “LINK.” This design shows a certain amount of original treatment although the details are, I suspect, to a certain extent at least, borrowed. But they have been put together fairly well, and that is greatly to the favour of the designer. Broadly speaking the elevation suffers somewhat from being rather overdone in the way of detail, and a rather simpler treatment

As only two designs were sent in there is no prize payable under the conditions of these competitions, three being the minimum. In this case however the judge, Mr. Basil Hooper, A.R.1.8.A., of Dunedin, states that both the designs are so good, and show such an amount of diligent study, that he recommends the payment of the prize to “Link.” The judge’s report runs as follows: “It is disappointing that only two competitors have sent in designs for this subject, as it is one which affords students an opportunity of indulging in work rather

Avould have been an advantage. The steep slate roof rather takes away from the restful classic feeling that was desired, and having no dormers, is an unwarranted waste of money that would not be appreciated by the owners. If one or more floors had been asked for, it would have been quite allowable to have worked them into the roof, but a costly feature of this sort, serving no useful purpose is not to be encouraged. The Verandah treatment is very pleasing, and quite a good feature in the design, though there are one or two points of construction which do not seem quite

right. The chain hanging would not be sufficient by itself and a secondary and shorter stay would be necessary to give it stiffness. The idea of putting plate glass as a covering is not to be recommended, as it would not do in actual practice; the dirt and dust would collect quickly and unless washed thoroughly daily would be most objectionable. Also shopkeepers usually want the shade that an opaque verandah roof gives. The width of the entire frontage certainly does not admit of very much being done with the shop fronts, but still I was disappointed in not seeing a little more originality displayed in their design, as there is great room for more variety in the treatment of shop fronts, both in their lay-out and ornamentation. A detail of the shop doors would have been desirable as the eighth scale does not show up the portion above the transome to advantage. A few notes on the drawing indicating the materials proposed to be use, would have been an advantage. ‘ ‘ Links ’ ’ draughtsmanship is very good, and shows great care, though the cast shadows on plan are rather unnecessary, also the east shadows on the plate glass windows are unfortunate.

“IONIC.” The design by “lonic” is very pleasing in mass, and with a little alteration of detail should look well in execution. He however makes the fatal mistake of not noticing the clause in the conditions which mentions “three-story buildings on each side,” and so has carried his main cornice past the boundary, right on into his neighbours’ fronts, which is a liberty not likely to be allowed by any self respecting building. The consequence is that the ends of the cornice would have to be chopped off. The only way is to return the cornice on itself and allow sufficient plain v r all at the sides for the purpose. In this important matter “lonic” falls behind “Link” who has carefully carried out this point. Coming to details, the sills of the second floor windows seem rather clumsy, and it would have been more graceful to have mitred the architrave round, or some other lighter treatment of the sort. A detail of the verandah was very necessary, as the eighth scale does not show it at all plainly. The same fault that “Link” makes is noticeable, in that there is no stay to give the stiffness that the chain hanging lacks. The solid stone frame round the fanlights over the shop windows certainly gives solidity, but I am afraid it is not allowable in a case like this where every ray of light is necessary for the lighting of the shops. The stone-cased piers also, would most likely have to be cut down in execution, in fact the two outer ones might have to be omitted altogether. My note in the conditions as to ‘ ‘ vertical lines being brought right down to the ground as far as possible, and not stopped anyhow by the shop girder” was meant to apply to the haphazard spacing one so often sees of the vertical lines of the upper portion in relation to the exposed piers in the ground floor.

“Tonic’s” draughtsmanship, especially of the eight scale, is certainly capable of improvement, and the design is worthy of being better expressed. Owing to the influence of the French and American schools of architecture, much more attention is being paid nowadays to the careful delineation of architectural

drawings, and the slap-dash style once in vogue is now fast losing favour. It therefor behoves all students to aim at making themselves as perfect as possible in this respect. In conclusion, there is very little to choose between the two designs, both of which show a really good idea of proportion and Architectural detail, and it is chiefly on account of his having avoided the serious mistake which “lonic” has made of carrying his cornice past the building line and thus necessitating its mutilation that I award “Link” first place. Otherwise the restful effect of “lonic’s” design might possibly have reversed the choice.” (Signed) BASIL HOOPER, A.R.18.A.