International studio (24.1904/1905(1905))

Designs for Labourers Cottages


HIGHTWL\ <?

EMBROIDERED PIANO-FRONT

DESIGNED AND EXECUTED BY HELENA SHAW

STUDIO COMPETITION. A LXII.
Design for a Row of three Labourers’
Cottages.
In continuance of our remarks on this compe-
tition, we would like to remonstrate mildly with
those of our competitors who have a penchant
for “ high-art ” printing. The information they
give on their drawings is meant to be read, we
imagine, and letters that, if not normal, are at all
events legible, conduce to this end.
Khyaam (page 154)—should not this be
Khayaam?—sends a good set, marred, however,
by the smallness of the rooms. His parlour,
for instance, is only 8 feet by 8 feet ij inches.
Iris draws strongly and vigorously, but the stairs of
his middle house would be dark, as would also those
of Pencil. The window shown in the middle
house in the former plan only lights the cupboard
under the stairs, and not the stairs themselves.
Few are so generous in the size of rooms as Grey
Fox, who provides an ingle-nook, and whose sitting-
room is 21 feet 6 inches long. We do not like the
direct entrance into this shown to each of the end
houses. This last is a criticism that must be made
of the design of S.R. C. (if that is the reading of
the competitor’s monogram). Both of these two
competitors introduce hanging tiles into their
elevational treatment. The conditions very clearly
ask for “ brick and rough cast.” Vectis, on the
other hand, shows a halt-timbered elevation, thus,
on his part, not adhering to the requirements
laid down. His living room, 18 feet long
by only 11 feet broad, means an awkward
proportion, and is over generous in length. The
amount of lighting area, compared with the super-
ficies of his room, is clearly insufficient. Several
iS°

competitors err in this direction; for instance,
Kydde (page 155) shows a lighting area which is
clearly 50 per cent, below the usual proportion of
one square foot of opening to ten of floor space.
Whether this be, as is generally the case, a condi-
tion imposed by the Local Authority or not, it is a.
working rule that experience shows to be a valid
one. The steep pitch of Kydde's roof, verandah,
etc., entails expense. Even at his moderate
estimate of $d. a cube foot, the three cottages cost
,£1,225. Corinthian, on the other hind, may
claim the economical gain due to the employment:
of the Mansard roof treatment, but even then it is-
more than doubtful if the building could be done
for L400. It would be interesting to know, by-
the-bye, how he would construct in tiles the circular
part of the dormer-gables. The Kid (page 156}
sends a good plan, symmetrical, and centrally
grouped, which we reproduce with his perspective.
The semi-circular windows are a pleasant change.
The plan of Gayville (page 157), again, is ingenious-
and picturesquely arranged. His bedrooms, how-
ever, on the first floor of the centre house are only
6 feet wide. His roof is a particularly good bit of
grouping, except perhaps the gablet near the stairs-
in the right-hand house, which does not seem very
necessary. Bobsman has a nice treatment of the
porch, but his set is spoiled by a fault we have-
already adverted to, the staircases being so badly
lighted. Allowing for the studding in the bed-
rooms the available area of these would not be as-
large as appears on the plan. The arrangement of
bath, shown by Acorn, who places it in a wash-
house apart from the cottage, cannot be commended.
It is obvious that, on a winter’s night, the getting,
to one’s bedroom after a hot bath might be
dangerous, especially for those who do not indulge