. Jame 21, 2872. THE BUILDING NEWS. 495
- THE NEW COMPETITION
REGULATIONS.
Wwe gave our readers last week a pretty
full account of the proceedings of the
General Conference of Architects with
reference to that crucial professional ques-
tion, architectural competition; and we
may congratulate Sir Digby Wyatt, the
chairman of the sectional meeting, on the
unanimity with which the architects who
met under his control settled one by one
the general regulations for future com-
petitions. To what extent these ‘“regula-
tions ” will be generally adopted by compe-
tition committees, or become the rule of
architectural practice, remains to be seen.
We may safely say of these regulations they
are very simple and few in number, and in
every way, both as they regard the pro-
fession and the public, so reasonable that,
should they fail to become popular in these
islands, the fact will greatly discredit the
architects of the kingdom. It does not rest
with the public to apply these rules of com-
petition, it is for themselves—the architects
—to refrain from all competitions in which
these rules cannot be put in practice. ,
Looking ourselves at these regulations,
one fact is very obvious—that, taken on the
whole, they do very fairlyset forth what our
architects really want and mean, with regard
to cases of competition. It is now nearly a
quarter of a century since the Architectural
Association, then domiciled in the ‘‘ Lyons
Inn Hall ” of those days, drew up a ‘‘ Report
on Architectural Competitions,” with a very
painstaking and exhaustive ‘‘ Code of Regu-
lations,” suggested for the consideration of
all architects in the kingdom. That report
and code was a sort of practical issue of an
earlier report (without a code of regulations)
issued in 1839 by the Institute of British
Architects. ‘The Association made an effort
to enlist the general body of architects in a
league or guild, for the adoption of its own,
or of any other, reasonable regulations ; and
in the effort—unfortunately abortive—was
laudably supported by a few architects be-
yond the pale of its own body, among whom
mention should be made of Mr. George
Godwin, Mr. Papworth, Mr. James Bell, M.P.,
and Mr. Fripp, of Bristol.
This ‘‘ Code of Regulations” of the Asso-
ciation had at the time the hearty concur-
rence of architects in and out of the Society.
What dissent did exist was confined to the
question of perspective representations of
designs, which, after grave consideration, the
Association had restricted to outline; and
the exclusion of models. These latter were
strongly recommended for competition pur-
poses by the late City Architect, Mr.
Bunning. Looking now at the prevalent
scandalous abuse of false perspective draw-
ings, which even the Association’s restriction
to mere outline would fail to remove, we
think Mr. Bunning was undoubtedly wise
in his generation. For our own part, we
would absolutely exclude ‘ perspectives” of
every kind, and wherever practicable substi-
tute plainly-executed models, so made as to
admit of the accuracy of their base or block
lines being tested by being superimposed on
those of the ground plan. We have known
in recent cases of competition (notably in
competitions for hospitals) the most bare-
faced forgeries of ‘‘ perspective” projection
—nay, we have known members of a competi-
tion committee accept a flagrant case of it as
‘<a mere artistic license,” when fully exposed
to them. Mr. Edmund Sharpe, when urging
at the Institute the necessity of perspective
views in competition, had most likely never
encountered such a case as this. It is, in-
deed, hardly credible, though true; and the
worst of it is that these ‘ perspectives” are,
in 90 cases in 100, the only drawings that non-
professional judges understand — or think
they understand. They are the chief draw-
ings looked at, albeit often discarded by pro-
fessional assessors.
We have called attention to the Code of Regulations of the Architectural Association in order to show how very much of one mind are architects in 1872 with architects in 1849. We have carefully compared the regulations of the General Conference with the Code of the Association, and itis most gratifying to see how very closely they agree, not in form, but in principle. There occur, in fact, only two points of difference between the Code of the Association and the Regulations of the General Conference. ‘These relate to the mode of preparing the views, and to the public exhibition of the designs. In the case of the perspective views, the Conference sanctions the use of colour; and, instead of providing that the public exhibition of designs shall precede adjudication, allows the final award of the adjudicators to precede the exhi- bition. The rule of the Conference, if there must be ‘ perspectives,” may, we think, be safely adopted; and the one for the exhi- bition of the designs wiih the assessors’ award is, for many obvious reasons, preferable to the course recommended by the Association. We have only to add that the Code of Regulations to which we have alluded will be found in past volumes of the Burtpine News, and that, while in principle it is identical with the Regulations of the General Con- ference of Architects, it will be found to provide for very many matters of minor though necessary detail, which were with commendable tact omitted in the General Regulations of the Conference. It is un- questionably a great point to get architects to accept, with any degree of unanimity, a code of principles for the conduct of archi- tectural competitions, and this point the Con- ference have happily gained. Let us now hope to see these principles put into actual practice.
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF ARCHITECTS. FOURTH DAY.—THURSDAY, JUNE 13. VISIT TO MESSRS. CUBITT’S WORKS. * N Thursday morning forty or fifty of the gentlemen attending the Conference visited the great works of the well-known firm of Cubitt & Co., in the Gray’s Inn-road. These works are of great magnitude, and to describe them adequately would require a series of articles. Inside the works the visitor is apt to imagine that heis in the midst of some manufacturing town, for Messrs. Cubitt haye fourteen or fifteen different departments, and manufacture on the premises almost every requisite necessary in the largest building, save bricks. They have also extensive saw mills and cement works at the Isle of Dogs, Poplar. Mr. Dunnage and Mr. Robinson, two of the principals, assisted by Mr. Kean, C.E., the engineer to the establishment, con- ducted the party over the works, which employ, we were told, 1,400 or 1,500 hands. The carpenters’ and joiners’ shops were the first departments visited. These are contained in a very long, lofty, and well- ventilated and lighted range of buildings, and machinery is made use of here to the fullest extent possible. Morticing machines, squaring-up and edging-up machines, moulding machinery, lathes, circular saws, and a machine for compressing oak trenails were all shown at work, and the work produced by these labour-saving agencies was remarked upon as being as excellent and true as it was rapid in execution. A great deal of oak work for Crewe Hall and Nutfield Priory was in hand in this department. This work comprised a very elaborate lantern light for Crewe Hall, and a staircase for Nutfield Priory. Having inspected the engines and engine-houses and sawing machinery, the party proceeded to the wrought-iron girder-shop and to the cupola and casting-shop, and witnessed the casting of some iron fascia-plates for the new offices now being erected at the Euston Station by Messrs. Cubitt. Passing across a road which intersects Messrs. Cubitt’s works, the party entered the stonemasons’ shop. Here again, as in the joiners’ shop, the powerful aid of steam is in- voked to the utmost possible degree, and while a great amount of laborious work is saved, great accu- racy of finish is obtained. In the marble-masons’ shop the same is the case. Here a great quantity of marble work was in hand for the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, from the designs of Mr. E. M. Barry,
R.A. Here, too, the monument which is to be placed in 8. Paul’s Cathedral in memory of the late Dean Mansel was shown. This monument has been de- signed by Mr. Penrose, the Surveyor to the Dean and Chapter of S. Paul’s. The engineers’ shop—a very large and important department—was next visited. Here Messrs. Cubitt make all the machi- nery they require for use in their various departments of work, and also all such works as lifts or hoists required in buildings which they may be engaged in erecting. The smiths’ shop, brass-casting shop, and modelling shop, were next visited. In the latter de- partment were shown some very rich cornices for Crewe Hall, and some terra-cotta work for the new Flower Market, Covent Garden—for Messrs. Cabitt model and bake their own terra-cotta work. Having gone over some remaining departments, the visitors left the works, after having spent nearly three hours in a very agreeable and instructive manner. AFTERNOON MEETING. — CONSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE. The section devoted to Construction and Science met on Thursday afternoon at 2 o’clock, M. Horace Jones, Vice-President of the Institute, in the Chair. The CuarrMan said that it had always appeared to him that a knowledge of the nature of materials should precede the consideration of their adaptation, and whilst to other sections were left the care of things especially of taste and beauty, they had more or less practical subjects to deal with. He had always thought that construction might be said to be logie in brick, stone, iron, and wood. The first paper to be read would be by Major-General Scott, upon a subject which had long been engaging public attention. Major-General Scorr, R.E., then read a paper on CLEAN DRAINS AND IMPROVED MORTARS. Although each of the questions involved in the above title is, taken individually, well worthy of discus- sion at a conference of architects, the connection between them is not readily apparent, but before my paper is concluded, I hope to be able to show you that a relation may be, with advantage, established between the preparation of hydraulic limes and cements, and that great sanitary difficulty of the age, the purification of sewage and the cleansing of sewers. Whatever may be the diversity of views entertained respecting the ultimate disposal and cleansing of sewage water, all are agreed—agricul- turists, chemists, and engineers, whether the advo- cates of irrigation, filtration, or precipitation—that the sludge must be removed from it. If this be so, the system which effects this with the cheapest mate- rials, which produces the least nuisance in the pro- cess, and which yields the most. marketable article, has the best chance of success. Now, my plan is to use as the precipitants of the studge lime and clay, both of them substances readily procurable every- where, the one being also of merely nominal value, and the other of little cost as compared with other equally effective precipitants, and toturn the deposit into ordinary articles of trade—viz., cement or hydraulic lime, for which there is in most towns a constant demand; and the scheme is approved by the most eminent authorities in sewage matters. “In all the clarification plans,” says Dr. Voélcker at the Society of Arts, ‘which have hitherto been put in practice, whether they were the lime, or the sulphate of alumina, or the phosphate sewage process, very little, comparatively speaking, of the precipitating agents have been used, for obvious reasons—reasons of economy. Now, in General Scott’s plan a very large proportion of earthy matter, clay and lime, was used, because the object was to bring out a use ful product, and it was mainly due to this circum- stance that the sewage slush did not enter into putre- faction. He had himself examined at Ealing some of the clay and lime sewage mud which had been kept for nearly three months, and he found it had no disagreeable smell.” Dr. Odling, F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution, on the same occasion said that he had seen General Scott’s process carried out at Ealing, and he must say he was very much impressed with it.” General Scott ‘recovered the material with which he effected the process in a form more valuable than it was before it was used.” “ Economically, the scheme seemed to him the most promising of all which had been introduced for the purpose of dealing with sewage.” Dr. Edward Frankland, Professor of Che- mistry at the College of Chemistry, and one of the Commissioners for Inquiry into the Pollution of Rivers, gives it in evidence before the Select Com- mittee of the House of Commons on the Birming- ham Sewerage Bill, that “he should prefer to deal with the sludge according to General Scott’s system —yiz., turning it into cement. . . The process of
