In a tolerantly critical notice of the REVIEW recently published in
the _Builder_, we find an effort to substantiate a charge formerly
made by it, and replied to by us, on the subject of “trickery” in the
construction of the exteriors of American buildings. The _Builder_
reiterates the charge and points to Grace Church, New York, in proof
of the truth of it. That marble edifice, he avers, has a wooden spire,
crocketted, etc., painted in imitation of the material of which the
body of the church is constructed. Alas, we must acknowledge the wood.
And we will make a clean breast of it, and still farther acknowledge
that at the time that Grace Church was built, our land of wooden
nutmegs, and other notions, had not an architectural idea beyond the
wooden spire, and that our city and country churches, that aspired
at all, were forced to do so in the national material of the day.
That said sundry spires of wood were _of necessity_, painted, is most
true; and furthermore, white-lead being a great favorite with the
people generally, [when our manners, customs, and tastes were more
immaculate than in these degenerate days of many colors,] that pigment
was the ruling fashion. That the color of the marble, of which Grace
Church’s body is constructed, should be similar to that with which
said ecclesiastical edifice’s spire was coated, is unfortunate; but,
that the resemblance goes to prove any attempt at a _cheat_, we most
strenuously deny. Grace Church is of a by-gone taste,—an architectural
era which we now look back to in order to see, by contrast, how far
we have advanced in architectural construction. Trinity Church, New
York, was the first great effort at a stone spire which our Architects
ventured to rear. And although hundreds have followed its lead, none in
this soaring republic have gone so near to heaven as that yet. But the
thing once effected is sure to be improved upon.
We are not at all abashed then, to own to the _wooden spire painted to
imitate stone_, which crowns the steeple of old Grace Church, New York.
And the less annoyance should it give our most sensitive feelings,
when we reflect that the dome of the great ST. PAUL’S, London, is no
less a delusion and a cheat, it being of wood, coated with lead and
painted on the outside, having a false dome on the inside, considerably
smaller than the external diameter would naturally lead the confiding
observer to expect. The body of St. Paul’s is of stone. Why, according
to the requirements of the _Builder_, is not the dome, like that of the
Pantheon at Rome, likewise of stone?
Do we suppose, for an instant, that Sir Christopher Wren was guilty
of a deliberate cheat in so constructing it? Certainly not. He used
the material which he considered best suited to his purpose and his
means. And so we should, in charity, suppose did the Architect of Grace
Church, New York.
The _Builder_, like too many of our English cousins, who do us the
honor of a visit, falls into error in supposing that wood is generally
used for ornamentation of exteriors. In none of our larger cities is
this the case. And when that critical and usually correct authority
says, “Even the Fifth avenue itself is a sham as to much of its
seeming stone-work,” it displays a melancholy absence of its uniform
discernment, judgment, and sense.
The only other constructive material to be found on the fronts of
the Fifth Avenue, New York, besides marble, brown stone, or pressed
(Philadelphia) brick, is in the gutter, which is either of zinc or
galvanized iron, and forms the upper portion of the cornice.
Porches and Hall-door frontisces, of every style, are of marble or
stone, and never of wood. Pediments and all trimmings around windows
are invariably of stone. In fact we are not a little surprised at the
apparent want of information on this subject by so well posted an
observer as the _Builder_ is acknowledged to be. Some twenty years
ago the taunt might lie most truthfully applied to our efforts at
architectural construction, but to-day the “trick” of painted and
sanded wood would be hissed down by our citizens who claim to live in
residences the majority of which are greatly superior to residences of
the same class in London, as far at least as material is concerned. No,
no—criticism to be useful must be just; and to be just must be founded
strictly on truth unbiassed by prejudice.
We do not desire in these remarks to throw the slightest doubt on the
good intentions of the London _Builder_ in its monitorial check, but
our wish is to correct the erroneous information which it has received,
and which has led to the mistake under which it evidently labors.
We as utterly despise any falsehood in construction as our honestly
outspoken contemporary, and will at every opportunity disclose and
denounce its adoption in this country in all cases where there is any
pretension to architectural design. For a new country like this, it
is at least creditable that, even in a small class of dwellings, the
architect is, as a general thing, called on to design and frequently
to superintend—every thing is not left to the builder as in London.
Yet there is and always will be in this as in all other countries a
large class of private buildings outside the pale of legitimate taste;
creations ungoverned and ungovernable by rule. But such should never
be taken as examples of the existing state of the constructive art of
the day; they should rather prove the unfortunate exceptions to the
fact of its position. Even these it will be our duty to watch over
and try to set right; for we are ardent believers in the influential
power of information, and look with assurance to the education of our
people generally on this subject of judgment and taste in building as
the infallible means of turning to good account the remarkable progress
in that constructive art of the American nation, which the observant
London _Builder_ notices with the generous well-wishing of a kindly
professional brother.