Our 48th Competition

Progress, Volume XII, Issue 4, 1 December 1916, Page 826

Our 48th Competition

Block of Three Cottages Three drawings were sent in for this Competition, viz. : — 4 4 Sunset, ’ ’ by F. W. Short, with Mr. A. J. Palmer of Auckland; “Hotspur,” by M. King, c/o Public Works Dept., Wellington; “Rush” by F. J. Field, with Mr. F. de J. Clere, of Wellington. Messrs. Atkins and Bacon, who kindly set this subject report as follows: “Three designs have been received in this Com-

bers to the various classes is not good. The old idea of putting lavatory basins in cloak rooms is also universally condemned now. The elevations are rather uninteresting and the colouring is very coarse. Yokel evidently has some idea of making a sketchy drawing, but he wants to remember that he must, first learn to draw neatly and accurately. The printing on this plan is also very weak. Yokel’s lay out of his plan is quite good but he has quite neglected.'to ' study detail.” ; : ' , Faithfully yours, H. MANDENO. “The imitation of old work with its crudities and irregularities is false in art. ’ 1 — Belcher.

petition, which we place in order of merit as follows, ‘ 4 Sunset, ” “ Hotspur, ” 4 4 Rush. ’ ’ None of the designs are, in our opinion, quite up to the standard of excellence so well maintained hitherto in the generality of these competitions, and although in point of design “Sunset’s” contribution has much to recommend it, there are structural anomalies which should not have occurred, but which time, study, and observation will soon eradicate. As regards “Sunset’s” plan, the too intimate inclusion of the w.c. within the building is a mistake. The door enclosing back porch could have been dispensed with, and the porch to centre dwelling could well have been enlarged at the expense of the scullery. Through ventilation to this space is a good feature.

The effect of the quadrant portion of the plan would not compensate for the difficulties into which it leads, as instance the back porch above mentioned, the Marseilles tiling, which could not be successfully laid to the curve, also all the longitudinal plates would have to be cut to waste and then be in shorter lengths than desirable, gables brought out in the roof with no corresponding line in the walling below, (down pipes cannot be accepted in this capacity), are never satisfactory and the same can be said of tangential curves. The design would have been improved had polygonal instead of curved lines on plan been adopted.

The half inch detail shows faulty construction, collar ties for instance are better hung vertically from the ridge blade, and the rafters strutted from a horizontal bearer which should be on edge, not flat as shown, to give greater bearing strength. Observation of a similar building in course of construction would enlighten “Sunset” as to prevalent methods of constructing ground floors in the knowledge he is apparently weak. ■ Fanciful panelled doors are unnecessary here, a well built ledged door would suffice and look more in keeping. “Sunset’s” lay out of site is well conceived but he has overdone the paved yards and clothes lines, curtailing thereby useful and profitable garden ground. “Hotspur” has a well arranged plan but not the best suited to the site. He has wasted his Northern aspect. There is no half-inch scale section showing construction, and the clothes lines are overdone as in “Sunset’s” design. The elevations are commendable. In both these designs the draughtmanship shews much care and promise. “Rush” has apparently aimed at justifying his e-plume and with some success, he has missed many points through lack of care and consideration. His work is incomplete and the draughtsmanship leaves much to be desired.” ATKINS & BACON.