_Importance of Tradition_
The art of building has grown by evolution, like other things in this
world. The carpenter who builds in wood to-day builds according to
certain customs which come down to him from centuries of carpenters.
Modern methods of constructing the small house have all human history
for their background. When we speak of modern methods, we merely refer
to those which are used at this time, as they have evolved from past
experience and been considered satisfactory. To hear some architects
and builders talk, one would think that modern America had the monopoly
on good construction, and that our system of building was newly
invented. How often have we heard remarks like the following from the
self-styled practical man: “The genius of the present age is eminently
practical and constructive. Improvements of every kind and ingenious
contrivances for easily effecting results, which in past ages were only
accomplished by slow, laborious effort, ... etc.”
But they were saying this kind of thing in 1858, for the above is
quoted from a book of this date, so that even the practical man is
traditional in his remarks about building.
There are also too many young men to-day wasting their time
discovering what they think are new ways of building, but which have
been known for centuries and discarded as unsatisfactory. If they would
only study what had already been done, they would save themselves a lot
of trouble.
_Styles of Design Change, but Construction the Same_
The styles in designing houses may change from year to year, or more
likely from generation to generation, but the methods of building and
the traditions in back of them continue on, with only slight changes
which mark the evolution of the art. In as brief a period as we have
had in this country to produce domestic architecture, we can notice
very distinct styles of design, but running through them all are
similar ways of building. Our earliest Colonial houses were built
according to traditions brought over from England. These traditions in
turn had deep roots in Europe, back to primitive days, when houses were
not much more than temporary, movable shacks.
There is, however, one general trend through which building methods
seem to pass. First, we have rather heavy, clumsy ways of building;
this is followed by a long period of experimental cutting down of the
materials of construction and standardization of parts; following this
comes the stage of extreme lightness of construction, when the builders
go as near the limit of safety as possible, and then accidents occur
which tend to discredit the system.
The early English houses were built of heavy oak-trees. Later
half-timber houses used smaller structural members and more standard
sizes. These traditions were brought to this country, but it was soon
found that heavy oak was not necessary for their stability, but that
some of the native soft woods would answer the purpose. The
thinning-down process continued, until we developed the frame dwelling
of balloon construction which is practically built of 2 by 4 pieces
throughout.
We are now having a building code formulated by the United States
Department of Commerce, which is intended to establish the minimum
requirements for small-house construction, so that greatest economy
of material can be secured, but also a precedent set for the minimum
cutting down of material in building. In the compilation of this
code this tendency to reduce the quantity of material used was very
evident in the discussions which centred around the problem of whether
the brick walls for small houses should be 12 or 8 inches thick. In
Colonial days they thought nothing of building them 2 feet thick.
To-day we hesitate at building them as thick as 12 inches. In fact, our
building codes show no uniformity of opinion on the matter, and our
experts disagree. The preliminary form of the above-mentioned code has
settled upon an 8-inch thickness for walls not exceeding 30 feet, and
made additional allowance for an extra 5 feet in height on the gable
end of the building.
The process of thinning down is still going on, as this indicates.
The illustrations representing briefly the historical progress of
styles in domestic architecture in the United States are given to show
how these styles have varied, and impress the reader with the rather
constant undercurrent of construction methods throughout these changes.
In the early Colonial houses the wooden frames were built of heavy
oak timbers which were hewn into shape and dressed down with the adze.
Sometimes rafters and joists were sawn, and the further along we
progress in time the more we find the saw being used.
[Illustration: AMERICAN DOMESTIC]
[Illustration: AMERICAN DOMESTIC]
[Illustration: AMERICAN DOMESTIC]
If we now jump to the period between 1865 and 1889, we find that the
awful atrocities of architecture were being built in the East with
similar heavy frames, although slightly less massive. Where tradition
was less strong in the West, the balloon frame had grown up, but during
the same period houses of equally bad design were built with one or
the other systems, showing that the system of construction had very
little to do with the style of architecture. Even consider the variety
of styles used in modern domestic work, and then one can realize that
all of these different types of buildings are built much in the same
way. Good design has apparently little relation to good construction,
although good design is improved when it expresses the construction. We
often see very beautiful houses set up for moving-picture plays, but
these are built of flimsy stage scenery. We have also seen very ugly
houses which make us curse the builder for having built them so well.
_Fundamental Building Traditions Inherited from England_
It is from England that we have inherited most of our building
traditions of domestic work. The earliest methods of constructing a
home were much the same for all European countries. Woven brushwood
of the crudest sort was undoubtedly the first beginnings of domestic
construction. The next step in advance was, according to a German
theory, invented by a woman. It consisted of erecting leaning poles
and stakes and filling the space between with inwoven wattlework. The
shapes were conical, like the Indian tents, but later the gable roof
shape was adopted because of the greater interior space allowed.
In building the gable-shaped houses the early builders used very heavy
and massive construction for the ridge-pole and its support, for
they believed that this upheld the rafters. This tradition was kept
alive until quite recent times, but now we know that when rafters are
supported at their base, the ridge-pole practically takes none of the
weight and need only be used for ease of erection.
[Illustration: PRIMITIVE TYPE OLD ENGLISH CRUCK CONSTRUCTION]
But to our ancestors the important problem in first erecting the house
was to secure the substantial support of the ridge-pole. Obviously
the erection of two forked trees at either end of the ridge-pole made
an excellent solution, but when the room was long this meant that the
interior had to be cluttered up with interior posts. We find then that
one of the primitive methods in England of eliminating the interior
posts was the adoption of the cruck system of construction which is
shown in Fig. 2. By selecting two bent trees and placing them together
in a shape like a wish-bone, the ridge-pole could be well supported
without interior columns. By placing cross-tie beams on these bent
trees and extending them outward, the plates for supporting the lower
ends of the rafters could be held in position. This permitted the
carpenters to erect the exterior walls independently of the roof, a
thing which they seem to have desired.
There is another variation of the above method of supporting the
ridge-pole, and that is shown in Fig. 3. Instead of selecting a bent
tree, one was secured which was upright for a certain height, and then
which bent to one side with a branch. By placing two of these trees
together, a perfect end was formed for the house. However, this was not
a very good type, since it meant the selecting of very unusual-shaped
trees.
[Illustration: ENGLISH POST & TRUSS CONSTRUCTION]
For this reason the system of post-and-truss construction, which is
shown in Fig. 4, was the natural outcome of the above. Diagonal bracing
at the corners evidently was found to be useful in resisting high
wind-storms, and it was usually employed.
There apparently remained a distrust of masonry walls among the
carpenters, for they continued to support the roofs entirely upon heavy
timber framing, and records show that the exterior walls were built up
after the roof-framing had been completed. There are evidences that the
early types of walls, after the primitive woven brushwood walls proved
insecure, were made like a barricade of trees; that is, they were
merely a continuous line of vertically placed tree-trunks. This, of
course, was a ruinously expensive type of wall when timber became
scarce, and it is no wonder that it grew to a system of construction
like that shown in Fig. 5. Even this required a good deal of wood, so
that the filling of the space between the timbers rather logically
became masonry or plaster on lath. However, the method of building
shown in Fig. 5 has all of the elements of the system of construction
used in framing modern exterior walls. The most important difference is
in the size of the timbers used.
[Illustration:TYPE OF ANCIENT WOODEN WALL ENGLISH HALF TIMBER
CONSTRUCTION]
The half-timber construction of the Middle Ages was only the artistic
treatment of this crude system of building. In drawing number 6 is a
very simple half-timber house which shows practically no attempt at
all to decorate. The construction is perfectly evident, and there are
no curves and carving used to ornament the building, as can be seen on
some of the more elaborate houses of the cities. This simple building
system was the traditional background of the English carpenter, and it
is not at all extraordinary that he brought his methods of building
over to this country.
[Illustration: TYPE OF FRAMING FOR COLONIAL OF FIRST PERIOD