DOI Heft:
No. 93 (November, 1904)
DOI Artikel:Studio competition. A. LXII
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26963#0075
Designs for Labourers Cottages
The response to the competition was so large
that we do not propose, on this occasion, to pass in
view each and every one of the designs submitted,
but we have made a careful selection from them,
and proceed this month to deal with the first instal-
ment of these.
Sammy (page 63) sends a set vigorously drawn
in brown ink. Like many others of the com-
petitors—nearly all, in fact—he disregards the
annoying condition insisted on by many local
authorities under which the party-wall must be carried
above the roof. This would be fatal to his dove-
tailing arrangement of bedrooms. The plan and
elevation are both alike simple and well thought
out; but it hardly seems likely that the ^50
allowed in his estimate would be sufficient to cover
the cost of drains, fences, and water-supply. Tyrol’s
plan (page 62) has the advantage of providing his
hypothetical tenants with a bath, which is an excel-
lent arrangement, and is here placed in the kitchen,
in the floor of which it is sunk. Too few of the
competitors have considered this point. The nine-
inch exterior walls have reduced the cost of this
design, but we cannot say that they always prove
efficacious in keeping out the weather. The design
of Alex (page 64) is drawn with a very pleasant
feeling. We cannot be sure of the construction of
the overhanging walls of the first floor. It seems
to be asking projecting joists to do rather much
when they are supposed to carry both walls and
roof. The arrangement of massing the w.c.’s
together is far from satisfactory. The small
scullery, which just takes the sink, is a good
feature in his plan, seeing that cottagers so largely
live in their kitchens. In Sa?idy’s set (page 65) the
bedroom over the kitchen (as presumably the
others) has but four feet in height from floor to
plate of sloping roof. The ground-floor project-
ing windows could not be roofed and ceiled in
the small moulding shown. Stan sends a vigorous
perspective which we illustrate on this page, in
which a happy effect is obtained by eaves of
considerable projection, while his scale drawing
(page 60), shows a back elevation which would
work out effectively. The plan is good and com-
pact, and the staircase, though a separate feature,
is economically treated as regards space. The
scullery recess leading out of the kitchen is a
good arrangement. Many of the competitors have
planned the scullery as a room of some size. This
is unnecessary, as all that is wanted in such cottages
is a recess large enough to hold a sink and a
worker, and thus prevent the floor of the kitchen
from being splashed during “ washing up.” We
could wish that Stan had provided the bath that so
many estate proprietors now insist on as a
59
The response to the competition was so large
that we do not propose, on this occasion, to pass in
view each and every one of the designs submitted,
but we have made a careful selection from them,
and proceed this month to deal with the first instal-
ment of these.
Sammy (page 63) sends a set vigorously drawn
in brown ink. Like many others of the com-
petitors—nearly all, in fact—he disregards the
annoying condition insisted on by many local
authorities under which the party-wall must be carried
above the roof. This would be fatal to his dove-
tailing arrangement of bedrooms. The plan and
elevation are both alike simple and well thought
out; but it hardly seems likely that the ^50
allowed in his estimate would be sufficient to cover
the cost of drains, fences, and water-supply. Tyrol’s
plan (page 62) has the advantage of providing his
hypothetical tenants with a bath, which is an excel-
lent arrangement, and is here placed in the kitchen,
in the floor of which it is sunk. Too few of the
competitors have considered this point. The nine-
inch exterior walls have reduced the cost of this
design, but we cannot say that they always prove
efficacious in keeping out the weather. The design
of Alex (page 64) is drawn with a very pleasant
feeling. We cannot be sure of the construction of
the overhanging walls of the first floor. It seems
to be asking projecting joists to do rather much
when they are supposed to carry both walls and
roof. The arrangement of massing the w.c.’s
together is far from satisfactory. The small
scullery, which just takes the sink, is a good
feature in his plan, seeing that cottagers so largely
live in their kitchens. In Sa?idy’s set (page 65) the
bedroom over the kitchen (as presumably the
others) has but four feet in height from floor to
plate of sloping roof. The ground-floor project-
ing windows could not be roofed and ceiled in
the small moulding shown. Stan sends a vigorous
perspective which we illustrate on this page, in
which a happy effect is obtained by eaves of
considerable projection, while his scale drawing
(page 60), shows a back elevation which would
work out effectively. The plan is good and com-
pact, and the staircase, though a separate feature,
is economically treated as regards space. The
scullery recess leading out of the kitchen is a
good arrangement. Many of the competitors have
planned the scullery as a room of some size. This
is unnecessary, as all that is wanted in such cottages
is a recess large enough to hold a sink and a
worker, and thus prevent the floor of the kitchen
from being splashed during “ washing up.” We
could wish that Stan had provided the bath that so
many estate proprietors now insist on as a
59