Our 42nd Competition.

Progress, Volume XI, Issue 10, 1 June 1916, Page 643

Our 42nd Competition.

Won by F. J. HYDE, Timaru. Ten designs were sent in for this Competition, viz.:—“Regal,” by Leslie H. Charlton, with Mr. A. Garnett, Hastings. “Rus Casa,” by Richard Ostcn, with Messrs Anscombc & Smith, -Invercargill. “Ink,” by John R. JD’Oyly, with Mr. Gray Young, Wellington. “Tiny,” by F. G. Bradley, with Public Works Dept. “May Morn,” by N. Wallnutt, with Messrs Mahoney & Son, Auckland. “Frederic,” by F. J. Hyde, with Mr. J. Turnbull, Timaru. ‘’Quart,” by H. A. Lynch, with Govt. Architect, \v ellington. “Goblet,” by S. 11. Parsons, with Govt. Architect, Wellington. “Rus,” by E. C. Small, with Mr. H. C. Savage, Auckland. “Batch,” by U. B. Watkin, with Messrs W. A. Holman & L. V. Moses, Auckland.

The judge, Mr. Leslie D. Coombs, A.R.1.8.A., of Dunedin, who kindly set tins subject, reports as follows: —

"FREDERIC," (Placed Ist) :—This is an excellent and practical design showing all tne accommodation required. A single two-light window to each of the bedrooms would have been sufficient. The outside bench at the back door is a small item but a useful one. The rubble masonry foundation and chimney give a necessary rustic touch to the appearance.

"INK," (Hon. Mention) —This design, especially the planning of the bedrooms, is very good. It is not such an economical design as that by "Frederic," and economy, with nine people out of ten, is a most important factor when a "Holiday Cottage" is to be erected. The top of the chimney should have been shown on the elevation to come above the top of the ridge.

"BATCH," (Hon. Mention) :—The scullery arrangement is good, but as it is really part of the living room, it makes that room about lb-ft. x 16-ft. The tank is well hidden.

“MAY MORN,” (lion. Mention) : The plan of this design is very similar to that by “Frederic.” The same fault re bedroom windows, Tire tank is small. The elevation is nicely drawn and shaded. “ITUS,”The draughtsmanship of this set of drawings is excellent. Five different entrances arc more than a three-roomed cottage requires. The unnecessary side porch is made doubly bad by having a vestibule added to it. “QUART” —The plan is but fair, and the elevation lacks the artistic touch. It has, however, the merit of simplicity. “TINY”—It is exceptional when sea or river bathing is not obtainable near a holiday cottage. Also remember that if a bath is used too often the tank will soon run dry. Under these conditions therefore we must—though reluctantly—condemn “Tiny’s” luxurious bathroom. The proportions of the cottage are rather lofty for a snug effect. “GOBLET”—The plan is good but the elevation is not beautiful.

"REGAL"—This design is too ambitious. The porch (or rather verandah) to bedroom No. 2 is money wasted for the sake of making the cottage appear to be more important than it really is.

"BUS CASA"—Another design showing too many luxuries. The roof window is superfluous. The chimney cap would have been better quite plain. LESLIE D. COOMBS.