~Aprit 12, 1872. THE BUILDING NEWS. 301
HOUSE PLANNING COMPETITION. REPORT OF REFEREES. Sir,—We beg to report that, having ex- amined all the drawings submitted to us, the list of which has appeared in the Buitpina News of March 8, we award the prize for the best Plan for a Mansion to the drawing bear- ing the motto of ‘¢ ]OXPERIENTIA ;” and that we award the prize for the best Plan for a Villato the drawing bearing the motto of “Domus.” That we consider in the .competition for the Mansion, the next in merit to be that set which has no motto, and which we have marked in pencil for reference No. 24. One other set is worthy of mention, entitled ‘‘ En Avant.” We would, before proceeding to consider the Villas, point out the leading defects in the three sets of Plans for Mansions, one of which we consider entitled to the prize and the others to honourable mention. The prize set, motto ‘ Experientia.”— Among the defects of this setis (1) the loggia and entrance. Such a mode of entrance to a mansion cannot be considered satisfactory ; (2) a great part of the corridor is only lighted by a doorway at end. Notwithstanding these defects we consider this design fully entitled to the first prize and deserving of consider- able commendation. It is well within the limit of the cubic contents specified. Its plan is simple, the sizes and aspects of the rooms are good, and the internal communications are well planned, and, with the exception referred to, properly lighted. This design is shown in a well prepared set of drawings, and its architectural treatment is entitled to praise. The next in merit is that which we have marked 24, This set of drawings has the best perspective view of all those sent in for these competitions. Among the defects we would mention (1) the water- closet on ground floor is too small for a mansion; (2) that there is not any water- closet on the first floor; (3) that the passage from front to back is badly planned. With regard to the third in order of merit —motto, ‘‘En Avant ”—the special errors we notice are (1) the absence of dressing- rooms, there being only one to all the bed- rooms ; (2) the darkness of corridor ; (3) the perfectly unnecessary loss of space between the ceiling joists of upper floor and the tie beam of roof. With regard to the Villas, we would place the following sets of drawings in their order of merit :—2. “Una Quinta.” 3. ‘ Cotte qwil Cotte.” 4. ‘‘ Glasgowegian.” 5. ‘ One in a Hundred.” 6. “Home.” 7. ‘ Let us Labour with Love.” Perhaps, before proceeding to place in al- phabetical order the remaining drawings which we think contain such good points in them as deserve honourable mention, while they are inferior to the seven sets above men- tioned, it may be well to point out the lead- ing errors in these. First then, the prize set ‘Domus.” (1) No servants’ water-closet; (2) no tradesmen’s entrance, except through scullery; (3) the pantry is entered direct from the kitchen; (4) no larder ; (5) not any dressing-room on the first-floor ; and the principal bedroom is rather large. ‘The general shape of the block is also not of the most compact; and the de- sign supposes a site, to a certain extent, pe- culiar. The drawings are fairly executed, but not remarkable, and the architectural treatment, though respectable, is inferior to that of several of the designs which we are compelled to place below it. If, notwithstanding these drawbacks, we have given the first place to ‘ Domus,” it has been partly because there was no design approaching it in general merit, against which more serious defects could not be alleged,
and partly because there are marked excellen-
cies in the plan. The cubic contents of the
design are within the limit; the aspect and
size and arrangement of the rooms on the
ground-floor is excellent. ‘There is extremely
little space lost in corridors or passages,
every portion is thoroughly well lighted and
ventilated. The offices are properly propor-
tioned in size and number to tne house, and
great care has been taken in the minutie of
arrangement. It is fair, however, to say that
we donot regard this as quite so satisfactory
a first prize as the one in the Mansion compe-
tition.
“Una Quinta”—Here we would point
out—(1) That the starting of staircase on
ground floor is very awkward; (2) we think
the size of -the retiring room on ground floor
too large for the class of house; (3) the
access to servants’ water-closet being through
scullery ; (4) the loss of room occasioned by
having a second passage. ‘The architectural
treatment we consider well wrought out,
though, perhaps, a little too elaborate.
“ Coute qwil Coute.”—With regard to this
set itis beyond the prescribed cubic contents,
and we think it right to express an opinion
that such a circumstance is injurious to our
profession, whether it be intentional or the
result of carelessness. The drawings are of
considerable merit. Amongthe defects are—
(1) The want of height of the kitchen; (2)
the absence of servants’ water-closet ; (3) the
absence of any larder or coalstore. Still, the
compactness of the general block, the good
disposition of the plan, and the excellent
architectural treatment, are such as inspite of
these defects would have recommended this
design for a first place had it not been dis-
qualified as above stated.
‘« Glasgowegian.”—Here we would point
out —(1) that there is no water-closet
on the ground floor; (2) that the kitchen is
too small; (3) that the fireplace therein is
badly placed; (4) the awkward arrangement
to obtain double doors from the kitchen.
Architectural treatment, as shown on the
drawings, is simple and good, and avoids the
fault of over-elaborateness, into which some
of the others have fallen.
‘©One in a Hundred.”—The defects are—
(1) no flue or copper in scullery ; (2) dark
lobby by kitchen; (3) the access to dining-
room from kitchen necessitating the crossing
the hall; (4) the loss of space in passages ;
(5) the darkness of the passages. The archi-
tectural treatment is fair but not remarkable.
‘‘Home.”—Among the defects are the
darkness of the passages on the ground and
first floors. Architectural treatment is open
to the very serious objection that, however
good in itself, it is a reduced copy of the
design to which the premium in the Mansion
competition has been adjudicated.
‘Let us Labour with Love.”—Here we would
point out—(1) the smallness of the kitchen
(11ft. Gin. x 11ft.), scullery and offices ; (2)
the dark lobby en route from kitchen to front
door; (3) the building could not be erected
at anything like the price fixed—namely, 8d.
a foot. This circumstance disqualified this
design, in our opinion, from competing for
the first place; but we beg to draw atten-
tion to the excellence of the drawings and
the architectural treatment, which, though
perhaps overdone, is well worked out.
Next we come to those designs which,
while inferior to the seyen preceding, are
still worthy of praise. We give them in
alphabetical order :—‘‘ Ad Rem,” ‘“ Aiblins,”
‘* Anguis in Herba,” ‘* Bed of Stone,” ‘‘ Dex-
ter,” ‘* Je Vis en Espoir,” ‘Libra,” ‘* Not the
Workman but the Work;” ‘Out of My
Seanty Leisure,” &c. ; ‘‘ Prudentia;” ‘“ Quot
Homines tot Sententie;” ‘‘ Simplex Mun-
dvtusi tees 7.27
We think we have given such information
as will enable those who see the drawings to
find out how far we have correctly judged, and
we would only say that we have devoted very
much time to the inspection of the many sets
of drawings submitted to us.
Desiring to meet the views of some of the competitors who have written to you wishing some information as to what are the principal defects most generally met with in the unsuc- cessful plans, we would shortly state the leading points, so that each competitor may examine his own design, and see which of them apply thereto, and thus in the future avoid such errors. The darkness of passages ; the loss of space in passages; the neglect of aspect, as, for example, the dining-room in some of the designs is placed so that the setting sun comes to that room, &c. ; ill proportion of rooms—as an example, we may mention a billiard room 30ft. by 15ft., showing an ignorance of the dimensions requisite for such a room; servants’ offices, either too large or too small for the reception rooms ; straggling-planned ground floor ; approach to front door past windows of sitting-room. Incidentally, we may mention not any of the designs had any provision for cisterns to contain rain-water on first floor, so as to save the use of the force-pump, or the labour of carrying water upstairs. We think, on the whole, the competition drawings do eredit to the majority of the gentlemen engaged in them, and we trust the result will be to improve the practice and promote the study of this important branch of an architect's work. BANISTER FLETCHER. Tuomas RoGEer SMitTH. ——— THE CITY OF LONDON AND THE CENSUS. HERE is probably no fact connected with the Census return of the United King- dom, and with the manner in which these returns are obtained, so striking to the thoughtful reader as their universality. The army of enumerators went forth on the night of the 2nd of April, 1871, to every part of the country, and in due course the most isolated cottages on Dartmoor and the most out-of-the-way islands of the Hebrides are made to disclose their secrets just as openly as the quiet old city parishes with their gloomy warehouses and deserted churches. From anarchitectural point of view none of the Census returns can compare in point of interest with those of the City, together with the numerous adjacent boroughs and hamlets proper, which go to form the wonderful town of London; and as we have now before us an early copy of the returns relating to the City, we propose to glance at some of the many facts which seem more particularly to concern our readers. In the last preceding enumeration on the night of April the 2nd, 1861, there were in the City 112,063 inhabitants domiciled in 13,298 houses, while no less than 2,058 houses were returned as uninhabited, only 97 of which were in course of erection. But in the decade since 1861 new roads and new railways have played at ninepins with the houses, and the inhabitants have migrated to such an extent that we find, on the 2nd of April, 1871, a decrease in the number of residents in the City amounting to 37,166, the population within the walls at the last Census being set down at only 74,879 souls. The parishes into which the 600 acres covered by the City are divided are 117 in number, if we omit those of S. Mary, Whitechapel, and Holy Trinity, Minories. Eight houses in the former parish are now enumerated in the City population for the following strange reason :—The custom formerly was, when a house was situated in more than one parish, to reckon it in that one in which the master of the house laid his head to sleep. ‘The present method, however, is to place the house in that parish into which the front door opens, and hence these eight houses in the parish of S. Mary, no part of which are in the City area, have been added to the City total for the first time. It has been proved, in the case of Holy Trinity, Minories, that
