sometimes encounter, of the inspiration of two writers following
tracks so closely parallel that their effusions are word for word the
same from beginning to end, was recently to be observed in the case of
the New York _Herald_ and the Pittsburgh _Leader_, which published on
the same day an article devoted to architects or, rather, to their
incomes, which held up these fortunate professional men as objects to
be envied, if not by all the world, at least by journalists, many of
whom have just now a way of writing about rich men or women which
suggests the idea that the journalist himself was brought up in a
jail, and sees nothing but the pockets of those whom he favors with
his attention. The present writers, after half a column or so of
rubbish about the grandeur of American buildings, furnish the New York
and Pittsburgh public with the information that "there are in the city
of New York at least ten architects whose annual net income is in
excess of a hundred thousand dollars, while in Philadelphia, Chicago,
Boston and St. Louis there are quite as many who can spend a like
amount of money every year without overdrawing their bank accounts."
This is certainly very liberal to the architects, but what follows is
even more so. "There are," we are told, in addition to the magnates
just mentioned, "hosts of comparatively small fry whose annual profits
will pass the fifty-thousand-dollar mark." If an architect whose net
income is only a thousand dollars a week belongs to the "small fry,"
what name would these journalists have for the remaining insignificant
beings who practise architecture faithfully and skilfully, and thank
Providence sincerely if their year's work shows a profit of three
thousand dollars? Yet, with a tolerably extended acquaintance in the
profession, we are inclined to think that this list includes the
greater part of the architects in this country. As to the architects
whose usual income from their business is a hundred thousand dollars,
they are pure myths. The New York-Pittsburgh authority mentions by
name Mr. R. M. Hunt as one of them. As a counterpoise to this piece of
information, we will mention what a worthy contractor once said to us
about Mr. Hunt. The builders were not, in those days, very fond of our
venerated President. He had altogether too many new ideas to suit
their conservatism, which looked with horror on anything out of the
common way. "The fact is," said the contractor, in a burst of
confidence, "Mr. Hunt never could get a living at all if he hadn't a
rich wife." By averaging these two pieces of misinformation, after
the manner of the commissioners of statistics, one may, perhaps, get
some sort of notion of what a very able and distinguished architect in
New York, seconded by skilful and devoted assistants, can make out of
his business; but men so successful are extremely rare exceptions in
the profession, and the "hosts" of "small fry" whose annual profits
amount to fifty thousand dollars, of course, do not exist. It would be
a waste of time to notice such ridiculous assertions, were it not that
they do a great deal of harm to the profession and the public: to the
profession by making people believe that architects are combined to
extort an unreasonable compensation for their work; and to the public
by spreading the idea that the profession of architecture is just the
one in which their sons can become rapidly rich without much trouble.
It would be a useful thing to publish here, as is done in England, the
value of the estate left at their death by architects of distinction,
although in many cases this is greatly increased by inheritance, by
marriage, by fortunate investments or by outside employment; but, if
this should be done, it would be not less useful to publish also a few
true accounts of the early trials and struggles of architects. How
many of them have we known who have given drawing-lessons, illustrated
books, designed wall-papers, supervised laborers, delivered
lyceum-lectures or written for newspapers, happy if they could earn
two dollars a day while waiting for a vacancy in the "hosts" of
architects with a thousand dollars a week income. How many more, who
were glad of the help of their faithful young wives in eking out the
living which had love for its principal ingredient. And of those who
have persisted until time and opportunity have brought them a
comparatively assured, though modest position, how many have found
their way to it through architecture? If we are not mistaken, less
than half of the trained students in architecture turned out by our
technical schools are to be found in the profession six years later.
The others, ascertaining, on a closer view, that their expected income
of fifty thousand dollars a year is farther off than they anticipated,
and that fifty thousand cents is about as much as they can expect for
a good many years to come, drift away into other employments, and some
of them, no doubt, will be much astonished to learn from the newspaper
reporters what they have missed.
* * * * *
We regret very much to hear of the death of Mr. George F. Durand,
Vice-President of the Canadian Society of Architects; which occurred
at London, Ontario, last week. Mr. Durand was young in the profession,
being only thirty-nine years old, but was very widely and favorably
known among architects and the public, both in Canada and elsewhere.
He was a native of London, but after spending a short time in the
office of the city engineer there, he went to Albany, N.Y., where he
was employed by Mr. Thomas Fuller as his chief assistant in the work
on the new capitol, which was then in Mr. Fuller's hands. When Mr.
Fuller was superseded, Mr. Durand left Albany with him, and, after a
year spent in Maine, with a granite company, he returned to his native
city, where he soon found constant and profitable employment, having
for several years built a large part of the most important structures
in Western Ontario. The London _Advertiser_, to which we owe most of
our information as to his works, offers to his relatives and friends
the sincere sympathy of the public which it represents, and we are
sure that the architects of the United States will join with their
brethren in Canada in mourning the loss of one who, at so early an
age, had conquered for himself so conspicuous a place in his laborious
profession.
* * * * *
Some interesting experiments on concrete arches were made recently,
during the construction of the new railway station at Erfurt. Some of
the rooms were to be covered with concrete floors, carried on iron
beams, while others, of smaller size, were intended to be spanned by
arches extending from wall to wall. One of the latter, something over
seven feet in width, was covered with concrete, flat on top, and
forming on the underside a segmental arch, the thickness of the
material at the crown of the arch being four inches, and about eleven
inches at the springing. The concrete was made of "Germania" Portland
cement, mixed dry with gravel, moistened as required, and well rammed
on the centring; and skew-backs were cut in the brick walls at the
springing line, extending two courses higher, so as to give room for
the concrete to take a firm hold on the walls. Fourteen days after
completion, this floor was loaded with bricks and sacks of cement to
the amount of more than six hundred pounds per square foot, without
suffering any injury, although, after the load was on, a workman
hammered with a pick on the concrete, close to the loaded portion, so
as to provoke the cracking of the arch if there had been any tendency
to rupture. In the other cases, the concrete arches being turned
between iron beams, the strength of the floor was limited by that of
the beams, so the extreme load could not be put on; but the curious
fact was established that a section of concrete flat on top, and
forming a regular segmental arc beneath, was far stronger than one in
which a portion of the under surface was parallel to the upper;
showing, apparently, that the arched form, even with homogeneous
concrete, causes the conversion of a large part of a vertical pressure
into lateral thrust, reducing by so much the tendency of the load to
break the concrete transversely. This observation is important
theoretically as well as practically. It has been of late generally
maintained that a concrete arch is not an arch at all, but a lintel,
without thrust, and that the common form, flat above and arched
beneath, is objectionable, as it gives least material at the centre,
where a lintel is most strained. The Erfurt experiments directly
contradict this view, and it remains for some students of architecture
to render the profession a service by repeating them, and, at the same
time, actually determining the thrust, for a given load, of arches of
particular forms. Until this is done, the concrete construction, which
is likely, we may hope, to become before many years the prevailing one
in our cities, will be practised with difficulty and uncertainty, if
not with danger. Incidentally, a trial was made of the effect of
freezing on the concrete. The floor of a room arched in four bays,
between iron beams, had just been finished when the weather became
cold, and on the morning after its completion the thermometer stood at
twenty above zero. The concrete had not been protected in any way, and
the contractor was notified that it had been frozen, and must be
removed. This was early in December, and it was about the first of
April before the work of removal, preliminary to replacing the
concrete with new material, was begun. Three bays had been wholly or
partly removed when the hardness of the concrete under the workmen's
tools attracted attention, and the arch remaining intact was tested
with a load of three hundred pounds per square foot, which it bore
perfectly.
* * * * *
The question how far an architect can be held responsible in damages,
in cases where the cost of work exceeds the estimates, is examined in
a recent number of _La Semaine des Constructeurs_, and some
considerations are mentioned which are new to us. According to
Frémy-Ligneville, the most familiar authority on the subject, the
architect incurs no responsibility whatever, either for his own
estimates or those of other people, unless he intentionally and
fraudulently misleads his client by a pretended estimate. In this
case, as in that of any other fraud, he is liable for the results of
his crime. Except under such circumstances, however, the architect's
estimate of cost is simply an expression of opinion, the correctness
of which he does not guarantee, any more than a lawyer guarantees the
correctness of an opinion, although important interests may depend
upon it. The owner can estimate the value of the architect's opinion,
as of the lawyer's, by the professional reputation of the man who
gives it, and, if he wishes to be more secure, he can go to another
architect, as he would to another lawyer, for an independent estimate.
Moreover, if the owner of the projected building is still anxious that
the cost should be strictly limited to the sum estimated by the
architects, he can have a contract drawn by which the builder shall be
obliged to complete it for that sum, and can have his plans and
specifications examined by competent authority, to see if they include
everything necessary. This ought to make him reasonably sure what his
house will cost him, provided he does not himself make changes in the
plans or specifications. If he has omitted to take this precaution,
and, as his building goes on, he finds that it is likely to exceed the
estimate, he has another excellent opportunity to protect himself, by
ordering immediately such changes in the plans and specifications for
the work yet remaining to be done as may reduce the expense to the
desired amount, and by doing so he generally suffers no damage, as, if
he does not get all he expected to for his money, he gets all his
money will pay for.
* * * * *
With all these opportunities for revising and testing the correctness
of an architect's estimate, the man who neglects to avail himself of
any of them, and who allows the work on his house to go on, after it
has become evident that it will cost more than the estimate, has,
according to M. Frémy-Ligneville, no claim against any one on account
of his disappointment. Of course, the architect should be as careful
in his estimates as his experience allows him to be, and any
conscientious man would try not to mislead a client, but both he and
his client must remember that when the tenders of the builders
themselves usually vary from fifty to a hundred per cent for the same
piece of work, an architect's estimate cannot be anything more than an
opinion. Moreover, the architect should not forget that, being an
opinion, and not a guaranty, he is not only at liberty to modify it as
much and as often as he sees fit, but is bound to do so, and to inform
his client at once of the change, when fuller information, or
alteration in the circumstances, shall show him that the original
estimate is likely to be exceeded. If he does this frankly, although
his client may be disappointed, he cannot reproach the architect with
trying to deceive him, and there will probably still be time to make
the changes necessary for reducing the expense to the desired point.
In a case decided in Paris in July, 1855, a man was condemned to pay
fifty-four thousand francs for repairs done on a house. He proved that
his architect had estimated the expense at seven or eight thousand,
but it was shown that the architect had subsequently informed him that
it would be necessary to do more work than was at first contemplated,
and that he had made inquiries about the matter, and had turned out
his tenants so that the work might be done, and had paid the
contractors more than the sum originally estimated; and the court
thought he had no case at all against the architect.
* * * * *
The great building firm of Peto Brothers, in England, having been
awarded a contract for a large public building, have taken advantage
of what, as they say, they consider a favorable opportunity to
initiate a system of profit-sharing with their men, in accordance with
a circular which is printed in the _Builder_. The system described by
the circular is very simple. It is to apply for the present, only to
the contract mentioned, but, if it works well, will be extended to
future cases. Under the arrangement proposed one-quarter of the net
profits of the contract are, when the building is done and the
accounts settled, to be divided, as a bonus above their wages, among
the men who have worked on it, in proportion to the wages they have
earned. The conditions under which each man is entitled to his share
are that he shall have worked long enough on the contract to have
earned five pounds, at the regular rate of wages; that he shall not
have neglected his duty, or misconducted himself, or wasted his time,
or in other ways have acted so as to diminish the profits of the
contract, or injure the reputation of the firm for good and honest
work; and, that he shall not have engaged in any strike for shorter
hours, or for wages above the schedule of wages which prevailed at the
time the contract was made, and upon which the contract price was
based. That the workmen may assure themselves of the fairness with
which the division is carried out they are invited by the circular to
send a representative to watch the making-up of the accounts by the
auditor of the firm, and to sign the balance-sheet. In order to
identify the claimants, every man must obtain a printed ticket from
the time-keeper, on beginning his work, countersigned by the foreman,
and noting the day and hour when his employment commenced, with his
name, number and wages. This is to be again signed and countersigned
when he leaves, and must be produced to secure a share in the
dividend. Unpretending as it is, this bids fair to be one of the most
interesting experiments in social science yet tried, and unless the
trades-unions in England have forgotten their prowess, it will not be
carried out without a struggle. Our readers will remember Mr. Lewis H.
Williams's experiences in trying a similar plan with his carpenters in
New York, and his final victory, but he had only one union to contend
with, and that not a very compact one, while Messrs. Peto Brothers
will have all the building trades about their ears at once, and the
great question whether men shall be allowed to do only a fixed amount
of work in a day, and that amount as small as possible, or whether
they shall be allowed to work as they please, will be fairly brought
before the parties for decision.
THE APARTMENT-HOUSE.
[Illustration: "THE SURE REVOLVING TEST OF TIME--PAST AND PRESENT"
CARTOON FOR SGRAFFITO by HEYWOOD SUMNER.]
From _Building News_.
Most people are willing to admit that they cannot afford to pay over
twice as much for a thing as it is worth; but few in this country are
aware that they do this very thing when they build for themselves an
independent city dwelling-house or pay a rent equivalent to or greater
than the interest on this outlay.
In the old country the secret of obtaining luxury and economy combined
in building has been learned, and rich and poor, fashionable and
unfashionable alike live in "flats." In America, people have not yet
learned this lesson, but cling to the old and barbarous custom of
living _perpendicularly_ in isolated towers, with all the cares and
worries that go with isolated management.
[Illustration: Figure 1.]
Nothing shows more clearly than this, how much man is a creature of
habit. In his savage state, the nature of his existence necessitated
the isolated hut. As civilization advanced, however, the necessity
for, and enormous advantages of coöperation became evident, but habit
perpetuated the isolated dwelling long after the reasons for its
existence had disappeared, and it required centuries for civilized men
to learn that coöperation is an element as essential to perfection in
the arrangement of their habitations as it is in other things.
_A given accommodation may be obtained in the form of a "flat" for
less than one-half the outlay required to obtain it in the form of an
independent dwelling built on the same land._
The form of comparison herein presented has never, to my knowledge,
been heretofore made, and the results are as surprising as they are
important and interesting.
The estimates of cost have been made by several competent contractors
on scale drawings and accurate specifications, are easily verified and
hence may be accepted as reliable.
Figure 1 is one of the plans of our apartment-house which is to be
built on the Back Bay, Boston.
Figure 2 shows the floor-plans of an independent house which might be
built on the same land. Both figures are drawn to the same scale for
convenience in comparing the dimensions. The independent-house (which
I shall, in contradistinction to the "flat," designate as the "tower"
to mark its prominent point of difference from the "flat" in form)
contains a kitchen, pantry, furnace-room, fuel-cellar, laundry,
dining-room, china-closet, parlor, eight bed-chambers provided with
suitable closets, two bath-rooms, a trunk-room, a front staircase
extending from the first floor to the attic, and a back staircase
extending from the basement to the third floor. What will these
accommodations cost in this form and what in the form of a "flat" in
an apartment-house?
The apartment-house contains a public kitchen, steam-heating,
ventilating and electric-lighting isolated plants, fuel-cellar,
laundry, café, billiard-room, gentlemen's smoking-room, ladies'
parlor, small public dining-rooms, and eighty suites, _averaging_ five
rooms, a bath-room and closets in each, and with a trunk or
storage-room in the basement for each suite; four elevators and four
fireproof staircases of iron and marble enclosed in brick walls from
basement to roof.
The suites are of different sizes to suit the proposed occupants, and
will have from two to twelve or more rooms of varying dimensions as
desired. They are partly "housekeeping" suites, _i. e._, having
kitchens and dining-rooms; partly "hotel" suites, _i. e._, having
neither kitchens nor dining-rooms, the occupants preferring to use the
public café and dining-rooms; and partly "semi-housekeeping" suites,
_i. e._, having dining-rooms and china-closets with dumb-waiters
connecting them with the public-kitchen, but no independent kitchen.
The "housekeeping" suites require one more bed-room than the others,
to accommodate a private cook.
Assuming now at first in our comparison those conditions which are
least favorable to the apartment-house, we will take one of the
"housekeeping" suites, having precisely the same number and size of
rooms as we find in our independent house or "tower" and compare
costs.
The only difference in the accommodation in each case is that, in the
"flat," the rooms are accessible to one another without the use of
stairs, while in the "tower" six flights of stairs in all are used,
constituting in the aggregate a ladder, as it were, of about a hundred
steps; also in the fact that in the "tower" the owner has to manage
his own heating, ventilating and hot-water supply apparatus, while in
the "flat" this work is done for him; that in the "tower" wooden
staircases and no elevators are used, while in the "flat" fireproof
staircases enclosing elevators are provided; that in the "tower" the
main partitions are often of wood while in the flat they are of brick
a foot thick and each "flat" is separated from its neighbor by a brick
wall a foot thick and all the floors are completely deadened against
the transmission of sound; and finally that in the "tower" no external
fire-escape is provided, while the "flat" has convenient external
fire-escapes of iron. Otherwise the accommodations are in both cases
precisely the same.
The total cost of this apartment-house, including the building-lot
valued at, say, $5 a square foot, has been carefully estimated at
$617,771.
This is the highest of two competitive estimates given by two
responsible builders, and comprises general cooking-plant,
electric-lighting, steam-heating and ventilating apparatus, iron
staircases and fire-escapes, elevators, copper roofing, architect's
commission, and, in short, everything required for occupancy and use
except wall-paper.
The first floor contains 16,688 square feet of available room. (By
"available" I mean room which is directly occupied by, and which must
be separately provided for each owner. That is, it excludes
staircases, furnace, laundry, etc., which might be used in common by
many owners and therefore need not be duplicated for each, and which
are only indirectly serviceable to each owner in contributing to the
usefulness of those which are directly enjoyed.) The six floors above
contain 23,288 square feet of available room each, making a total of
156,416 square feet. Adding 10,880 square feet for basement storage
and trunk-room for the suites, and 2,000 square feet in the basement
for barber's shop, apothecary, carriage and other offices along the
street fronts, we have a total of 169,296 square feet of available
room in the entire apartment-house. Dividing the total cost $617,771
by this figure we have $3.65 for the cost of each square foot of
available room in the building.
Our "tower" measures twenty-five feet front on party lines, by seventy
feet deep. Its available rooms comprise parlor, library, music-room,
eight closeted-chambers, two bath-rooms, a trunk-room, a dining-room,
and we may add a kitchen for those who still believe in having an
independent cook.
The area of these rooms is as follows:
Parlor 374 sq. ft.
Library 374 "
Music-room 154 "
Chamber No. 1 384 "
Chamber No. 2 528 "
Chamber No. 3 170 "
Chamber No. 4 252 "
Chamber No. 5 162 "
Chamber No. 6 286 "
Chamber No. 7 242 "
Chamber No. 8 315 "
2 Bath-rooms 144 "
Trunk-room 136 "
Dining-room 408 "
Kitchen 384 "
China-closet 136 "
Other closets 410 "
Making a total of 4,859 square feet of available room in the "tower."
Its total cost on a twenty-five foot lot of the average depth on the
Back Bay, _i. e._, 112 feet, the land being valued as before at $5 per
square foot, would be at the lowest estimate $32,000 at the present
prices, the wood finish being equally good with that in the "flat." If
we figure, however, for the same style of lighting, heating,
ventilating and fireproofing, and provide an elevator and outside
fire-escape, the cost could not be put below $40,000.
The same amount of available space, _i. e._, 4,859 square feet in our
"flat" would cost at $3.65 per square foot as above estimated,
$17,735.
If now we consider that the management of a private kitchen and an
Irish cook does not actually constitute the essence of a home in its
broadest sense, but, that on the contrary, it really deprives a home
of its greatest charm, namely, peace of mind and rest of body, the
kitchen and the cook's bed-chamber may be omitted from our "flat" in
view of the public kitchen. The area of our "flat" then becomes 4,475
square feet, which, at $3.65 per foot, brings the cost down to a
little over $16,000.
Finally, if we omit the dining-room also, with its china-closet, our
area becomes 3,931 square feet, and the cost only $14,350 for the
"flat," against $40,000 for the "tower," the former being but little
over a third of the latter.
So much for the saving in the case of a large family and large suite.
For a small suite, such as would be required for a single person, or a
small family of two or three persons, the saving at once mounts to a
very much larger figure; so much so, indeed, as to render the use of
the isolated house in such cases a most inordinate extravagance,
except for the very rich. Thus a single person, or a family of two or
three, could be very comfortably provided for with three or four
rooms, and a bath-room in an apartment-house having a good café.
Estimating the rooms to measure 18 x 22 feet, their area would be a
little over 400 feet each, including closets, and their cost $1,460
apiece; or for smaller rooms of, say, 14 x 15 feet, or 224 square-feet
surface, the cost would be but $818 apiece. An isolated dwelling, on
the same land, of only eighteen feet frontage and fifty feet deep,
would cost, including the lot at $5 a foot, not less than $18,000 or
$8,000, without the land. Of course, in such an isolated dwelling,
electric-lighting, steam-heating, fireproof stairs, and other luxuries
of the "flat," would hardly be expected.