The fourth and last type of dwelling is the ideal fireproof house, but
it is so costly that very few examples exist. This type can be termed
fireproof with accuracy, for all structural parts, including doors,
windows, and trim, are of incombustible materials. Metal trim is used
or wood that has been treated to make it fire-resisting. This latter
class of construction is so out of the reach of the average
home-builder, on account of its cost, that its value cannot be
thoroughly appreciated. Practically the only examples in existence are
large mansions, built by wealthy clients.
_Cost Does Not Indicate Fire-Resistance._—In this classification of
buildings it would almost seem that the cost of a building indicated
its fireproof qualities. This is not true, however. There are many
expensive dwellings which are just as great fire-traps as the less
expensive ones. In both cases the fire hazards are the same, if they
are built of the same type of construction. In fact, we could build a
$60,000 dwelling according to Type II, and also a $10,000 one according
to Type II, and make the latter more fire-resisting than the former by
using certain precautions of construction in which the spread of fire
is retarded.
Except in unusual cases, the construction of the ordinary dwelling
will be either according to the first or second type, and any fire
precautions that are desirable must be applicable to them. Most
comparisons of relative costs are made between the dwellings included
under these two types, and the difference will be mostly a difference
in the kind of exterior walls used in the construction. In fact, if any
comparisons are made between different kinds of buildings, as to their
relative costs, it is essential that only one feature be made variable
and that all others be kept the same.
_The Question of Costs_
Ever since the closing of the war the problem of knowing the cost of
the construction of the small house has been a very intricate one, and
no sure estimates could be made, until the plans were completed and let
out for bids. Previous to the war, when costs were somewhat stabilized,
it was possible to predict with a reasonable amount of accuracy the
cost of the dwelling when the plans were still only roughed in.
In order to show the fluctuation in prices, an example of a seven-room
frame house of Type I can be mentioned. This house was practically 30
by 34 feet, and had a cubical contents of about 29,100 cubic feet and
an area of 2,640 square feet. In 1914 this house cost $5,529.00, but
at the peak of prices in 1920 this house cost $12,815.00, which was an
increase of 131 per cent. In the spring of 1922 this same house cost
$9,502.00 to build, which was about 71 per cent over that of pre-war
prices.
With a heavy pressure of needed construction in dwellings, the cost
of materials seems to be settling down to a very gradual decrease in
cost, so that the present rates show a more stable curve of decline
than those of the latter part of 1920 and during 1921. The unfortunate
factor which is noticeable is that certain building interests believe
that a building boom is inevitable, and therefore that it is the time
to hold up prices again. Wherever this has happened a building boom has
been headed off.
_Cubic-Foot System of Estimating_
The average client, in spite of the difficulties above mentioned,
insists upon securing from the architect an approximate idea of how
much of a house he can have for $12,000.00, etc., or whatever sum he
has been able to save for his small home. In order to approximate this
figure, the architect must use the cubic-foot system of estimating. Now
under changing conditions of prices this system is rather inaccurate,
so that it should be used with great care. Any figures which are given
here are bound to be only approximations, due to the fact that they
are more or less of a local nature and must be given at this time of
writing. _The only satisfactory way of using the cubic-foot system of
estimating is to secure prices from one’s own locality on work recently
finished._
[Illustration: Front Elevation Type II]
If the approximate cost of a house of Type I is desired, observe some
recently erected house of that same character, secure its dimension,
and calculate its cubical contents and then its cost per cubic foot. In
order to be consistent, the method of computing the cubage must be the
same in all cases. The following is recommended as a uniform basis:
1. Determine total area of the building on the ground
floor, including all projections.
2. Determine the average height of the building from
the cellar floor to the average height of the roof.
3. Multiply the above together for the cubical
contents.
4. Open porches may be added at one-quarter their
cubical contents, and closed ones at their full
value.
[Illustration: Side Elevation. Type II]
_Prices per Cubic Feet Near New York for Two-Story Dwellings,
June, 1922_
Type I 32 to 38 cents per cubic foot
Type II 38 to 42 cents per cubic foot
_Factors Influencing the Selection of Materials_
From what has been previously stated, it will be noticed that, as a
rule, the architect in selecting the kind of material with which he
will build his house is limited on account of expense to the first
two types of construction—namely, the frame dwelling and the masonry
house with wood interior. The latter two fire-resisting types are
better fitted to the larger mansions, where expense is not so important
an item. Undoubtedly the comparative costs between the various kinds
of exterior walls will have much to do with the selection; but more
often the local conditions will outweigh these considerations. In some
places a house built of stone will be the best and most economical;
in others, where there is an abundance of good sand, the cement house
will be suitable, while those located near brick centres will find this
material adaptable.
The ideal method, of selecting a material of construction purely from
an æsthetic point of view, is not always possible. But, after all, is
not the most abundant local material the most harmonious to use for any
one locality? Nature adapts her creations to the soil and the scenery
into which she places them. All her animals are marked with colors
which harmonize with the woods or fields in which they live. In fact
this harmony is their protection, and in the war we imitated it in
our camouflage painting. It is astonishingly evident, in the New York
Museum of Natural History, how far more beautiful are animal tableaux
which are set in painted scenery, representing accurately their natural
habitat, than those which are exhibited alone in the cases, without
a suggestion of their surroundings. Their marks and colorings seem
ridiculous when they are separated from their natural surroundings.
The same principle holds true in selecting the material for the small
house. A stone house, built of native stone, in a stony, rugged region,
is the most harmonious of all. A cement house in a flat, sandy country
always seems in accord with the scene. A brick house in hills of clay
most certainly appears the best, and a wooden house, near the great
outskirts of the timber-land, is a part of the inspiring picture. Why
are so many of the old colonial houses so charming? One of the reasons
is the careful use of local materials.
_Some Principles of Economical Design_
In the first architectural studies of the house, since this problem
of cost is ever with us, it is well to be familiar with some of those
broad and general principles of economical design.
The lower we keep our house to the ground, the less will be the expense
of labor, for, when work must be done above the reach of a man’s hands,
it means the construction of scaffolds and the lifting by special
hoists of the materials. This is not so important a consideration
with the light wooden frame building as it is with the masonry house.
Wherever we have brick, stone, or concrete exterior walls, for the sake
of economy they should be built low. Mr. Ernest Flagg has found this
to be so very true that, in houses which he is constructing at Dongan
Hills on Staten Island, he has carefully limited the height of all
walls to one story, and starts the construction of his roof from this
level. Of course, at the gable end of the house, it is necessary to
carry them up much higher. Now, the starting of the roof from the top
of the first floor makes all the second floor come within the roof, and
this heretofore has been impracticable, on account of the great heat
generated under the roof and the inability of dormer-windows to
ventilate the rooms properly. Mr. Flagg has solved this problem by
inventing a simple roof ventilator which is located on the ridge of
the roof, and serves the purpose of both lighting and ventilating.
So successful has this been, that the space which in most houses is
called the attic, and is wasted, has been made available and livable.
What he has accomplished by these ventilators is the ability to
start the roof at the top of the first floor, and thus lower the
exterior walls and set the attic in the place of the second floor and
make it very livable. Not only does this principle of design save
considerable money, but it follows one of those great laws of beauty,
so prevalent in nature. It makes the house low and nestling in the
landscape, thereby harmonizing it with the surroundings. The house of
the uncultured speculator stares blatantly at you and is proud of its
complete isolation and difference from the landscape; but the house
of those who have taste is modestly in harmony with the surroundings.
The ugly house thrusts into the air without close connection with the
ground, while the comely one cuddles in nature’s lap. Is it not strange
that this principle of economy is a law of beauty?
There are other features of economy in design which should be observed.
The simpler and more straightforward the design, the cheaper it is and
the more beautiful it can be made in the hands of the good artist.
Simplicity is the highest art, as it is also the most economical thing.
Likewise the cost of a house can be reduced by shaping as nearly to a
square as possible, and reducing the outside walls to the minimum. The
semi-detached house in the group plan accomplishes this in the best
manner, and gives to the whole structure that low, long skyline that is
so very pleasing. This also makes one soil-line and one chimney do for
both houses, a great point in economy. Some architects believe these
group houses are the only economical solution of the problem of the
small house.