MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN:—A distinguished member of this body not
long since remarked that a fire-proof building was easily defined:
“It is a building which cannot burn, and which contains nothing that
will burn.” Admitting the definition, I do not propose to dispute with
the gentleman, neither do I intend to enter into an elaborate and
scientific investigation of the subject; to do so would be to essay a
task far beyond my powers, and one which might result in stultifying
myself and wearying you. The best I can do is to collect some of the
scattered results of thought and observation, into what I trust you
will consider to be but a rambling dissertation upon a subject which is
of great interest to all of us. It is, therefore, less with the desire
to display any erudition, than to introduce the subject, and call forth
the views of those assembled here, that I have chosen to address you
some remarks on fire-proof buildings. In so doing it is possible that
I may enter the field of criticism, and may comment upon the works of
some who are here present; but whatever I may say in that direction,
allow me to assure you, will be said with justice and candor, and an
endeavor to follow Matthew Arnold’s definition of criticism—to find the
best ideas in everything. I will look to those whose experience has
been more extended than mine, for a continuation of the discussion of
what I may only hint at.
It is very seldom that any building is required for such use that only
non-combustible material shall be placed in it; but it is still a
fact that fire-proof buildings are often called for, and are needed,
wherein large amounts of combustible materials are to be placed.[A] To
supply such a demand, is one of the most important problems offered to
the architect for solution. Of such buildings, are storage warehouses,
and stores or shops, wholesale and retail, as well as buildings for
certain kinds of manufacturing processes, such as sugar-houses and
carriage or furniture shops.
Having devised a building of non-combustible material throughout,
the question which next arises is how to keep a conflagration in one
part from extending to all the contents of the building. It seems to
me, that in buildings for such purposes, the idea of making them only
partially fire-proof is not to be considered for a moment, unless,
perhaps, the material contained is so highly inflammable that it would
destroy the material of the building, even if it is divided into
fire-proof compartments, in which case it seems to be folly to go to
the expense of fire-proof materials at all. When you know that no part
of your building can burn of itself it is evident that every atom of
it will offer some resistance to the enemy confined within. I believe,
too, that it is impossible to smother or choke a fire once commenced,
by the use of closed compartments. Accident or carelessness may leave
some openings which will facilitate a draft in some unforeseen way.
And even supposing that you have shut in your fire by some arrangement
of closed compartments, can you give your compartments less air than
a charcoal pit? Close it as much as you will, your confined goods,
if the barriers are not forced by the immense power generated by the
heat, will at last be reduced to charcoal; for you cannot open a door
or window upon such a smouldering fire, but that it will instantly
burst into flames. Ships have been brought to port with smouldering
fires under their closed hatches, which have been in existence for
weeks at a time, while but few have been eventually saved under such
circumstances, except by scuttling. Such conditions do not exist with
regard to buildings; in them there is not the risk of human lives,
which may be saved on shipboard only by closing down the hatches, and
scuttling is obviously out of the question.
Store-houses are the only class of buildings which admit of division
into airtight compartments, and there is a practical objection to
them in even buildings of this class; but few kinds of goods can be
preserved without good ventilation. It seems, therefore, that the
compartments should be open and accessible from without, but carefully
divided from each other. If so, they afford good facilities to those
employed in extinguishing fires; and I think that in a building thus
arranged, there would be a more reasonable chance of a portion of its
goods being saved.
The division of buildings into horizontal compartments, rather than
vertical ones, is so much more desirable, where land is expensive,
that inventors have almost exhausted their ingenuity in devising
thoroughly fire-proof floors. It is obvious, however, that the division
of a building by vertical fire-proof partitions, is a matter so easy
of accomplishment, that it is questionable whether the horizontal
division, so beset with practical difficulties, so expensive, and
withal so much less to be depended upon, even when the best systems
of construction are used, is ever economical, even where ground
is expensive. I even question whether it is of any use to build
iron floors, or floors with iron supports, for buildings to contain
goods; brick piers and groined arches are alone reliable. If you
divide horizontally you must have stairways within and windows on the
exterior, both of which welcome the ascending flames. You may enclose
your staircase in a fire-proof enclosure, and you may put the heaviest
iron shutters on your windows, but you must have doors through which to
gain access from your stairways, and you must open your shutters when
you want light. There is a contingency that these traps may be set when
the enemy comes, and then all your expensive floors represent so much
wasted capital.
As yet, I believe, that no buildings in this vicinity, built purely
for storage purposes, have been constructed entirely of fire-proof
materials, except the St. John’s Depot of the Hudson River Railroad
Company. I am not aware that any attempt has been made in these
buildings to stop a conflagration among the goods on storage either
by horizontal or vertical compartments. The floors, to be sure, are
of iron and brick, non-combustible, but with hoistways; and it is not
difficult to conjecture, even supposing that all horizontal openings
and iron shutters were closed, what would be the result of a fire
raging on one of those floors, hundreds of feet in expanse.
Several fires occurring recently in the Brooklyn warehouses have
warned their owners to take extra precautions, even though none of
these warehouses are fire-proof, if I am rightly informed. One of the
best is known as the Pierrepont Stores, near the Wall Street Ferry,
and the arrangement of them is well worthy of notice. These are about
three hundred feet in length, and are divided into six compartments by
fire-proof party walls; the width of each compartment is consequently
about fifty feet, and the length about two hundred feet. The floors
are of wood, and it would have been useless to make them of iron and
brick; for the goods taken in them are mainly sugars, and it would
be folly to attempt to arrest a fire of such combustible material in
its ascending course, by any practicable device. But what is most
interesting in these buildings is that each is fortified against its
neighbor. Recently the party walls were carried up about six feet above
the roofs, and were pierced with embrasures, through which firemen can
play from the roof of one building upon the flames of another, with
perfect safety to themselves. Here is an instance wherein capital would
have been wasted on the expensive materials required for fire-proof
floors.
It is the duty of the architect, as I conceive it, to guide the
capitalist in coming to a decision on such points. If he devises
economical methods, his commission is lessened, but thereby so much
more capital remains unemployed, but ready for investment in other
enterprises. It would be foreign to my subject to enlarge upon this
point, and show how much more it is to the interest of the architect
to study reasonable economy in his works, especially buildings for
business purposes; but I will let the suggestion stand for what it
is worth. Perhaps a knowledge of the fact that most members of our
profession agree with me in this opinion would go far toward disarming
the misgivings of many a client upon the question of commissions.
Buildings for manufacturing purposes next demand attention. Some time
since a manufacturer and contractor for iron work remarked to me, that
if some one would only put up a large fire-proof building, with good
steam power, to be rented out for manufacturing purposes, his fortune
would easily be made. I have often thought of the suggestion, and
wondered why it had not been acted upon. He said that at that time it
would be impossible to hire a fire-proof shop or room, with power,
in this city. Now, there are many occupations requiring delicate,
and not easily replaced machinery, or in which are involved elaborate
experiments, running for long periods—the derangement of which could
not be recompensed by any amount of insurance—for which a fire-proof
building would be almost invaluable. The saving of insurance on such
a building and its contents would be greater than the interest on the
extra cost of fire-proof floors, and would enable the owner to rent
his rooms at a lower rate—in proportion to the equivalent given—than
could the owners of buildings with wooden floors. The extra cost of
fire-proof construction in a manufacturing building is small when
compared with that of a bank or public building. The walls and ceilings
require neither lath nor furring, and the floors may be of flags
or slate, bedded on the brick arches, or what is better, plates of
cast-iron bolted to the beams—which will presently be described. All
inside finish may be discarded, and iron doors, of No. 16 iron, with
light wrought-iron frames, hung to stone templates in the jambs, are
the only coverings required for the openings.
Such fire-proof buildings as have been erected for manufacturing
purposes have been specially designed for single occupants. The most
perfect and the earliest that I know of is a building erected on Vestry
street, about ten years since, for the Grocers’ Sugar Refining Company.
This building, as far as its material is concerned, is absolutely
fire-proof. It is most remarkable for its floors, which are made of
plates of boiler-iron, riveted together and secured to the beams in
large sheets. This is the most simple system of floor construction
I have ever seen, and has many advantages. But I have not seen the
building in use, and do not know how the floors answer the ends for
which they are intended.
Some of the new buildings for the various gas works in this city are
fire-proof. The best are those of the Metropolitan Company, at the
foot of Forty-second street, North river. But they are at best, only
sheds—brick walls, with iron shutters and roofs. Large, open, and well
ventilated, they serve their purposes well; but they can hardly be
called architecture.
The most extensive attempt to build a fire-proof building for
manufacturing purposes was the enterprise of Harper & Brothers. This
was one of the pioneer buildings of the new dispensation. The Harper
girder is well known; it is an ornamented cast-iron beam, with a tie
rod, and was the father of the truss beam, now so extensively used
for supporting the rear walls of stores. It has been succeeded by the
built-up beam, now generally used for girders, and the double rolled
beam. It was eminently a constructive beam, using iron according to
its best properties, cast-iron for compression and wrought-iron for
tension. I doubt not that it will some day be again used where girders
are required. The built-up beam was invented for the restorer of the
“pure” styles, who think that furring strips, laths, plaster and a
modicum of run moulding, not to forget “a neat panel on the soffit,”
to be a good substitute for the honest lintel of the Greeks, and more
artistic than the constructive beam which James L. Jackson & Bro.
designed and executed for the Harpers. When men are no longer ashamed
to display good iron construction, and bend their artistic conceptions
to their constructive skill, we may hope to see something like the
Harper beam revived, and decorated in a manner befitting its use. But
I fear that this will be done when a more rational generation than
our own holds the sway. But to return. In Harper’s building, as in
the Cooper building, the deck beam was used for the floors, and brick
arches, such as those now in use, were employed. The deck beam has
also gone out of use. When first employed, iron beams were not made
for houses, but for ships. The I beam, has replaced the deck beam for
the former purpose. And in this connection, I would suggest an inquiry
into the practicability of using the deck beam inverted. It has always
seemed to me that the broad flange would best sustain compression,
and that the roll, having the form of a round bar, would best resist
tension. The matter of the bearings is easily remedied by a cast-iron
shoe on each end of the beam and bolted to it. This shoe, with a broad
foot, would answer the purpose both of template and anchor, and if
made to project from the wall and assume an ornamental shape, might
become a visible and constructive bracket. The deck beam inverted would
evidently present the best appearance from below in cases where the
flooring is placed on top of the beams—the various methods of doing
which I propose to discuss further on. Should the deck beam come again
into use, it might be made of more ornamental form without detriment
to its strength. The bottom roll or flange could be moulded in various
ways.
But, except in so far as the floors are concerned, the Messrs. Harper’s
building is far from being fire-proof. There is much wood-work in its
inside finish, and the contents being of a highly inflammable nature,
I fear that fire would have its own way in that building unless early
checked.
Besides these buildings two partially fire-proof publishing houses have
been built; the Times Building and the Ledger Building; but there is
nothing in either that it is pertinent to my inquiry to mention;—they
are manufacturing buildings in the same sense that the Harper’s
Building is, but the former might as well come within the class of
office buildings.
The fact of the American Bank Note Company having taken quarters in
the Mutual Life Insurance Building, upon their expulsion from the
Custom House, illustrates what my friend mentioned about the demand
for buildings for delicate and elaborate processes, such as the art of
bank note engraving, and goes to show that such branches of business
are obliged to settle in buildings erected for other purposes. The
work of a bank note company is in some respects a heavy manufacturing
business, which any one will believe who examines the powerful boilers
and engines in the cellar of the Mutual Insurance Building; but it is
also a delicate artistic business, requiring steady floors, good light,
and absolute safety from fire, to the valuable materials used and kept
in it, which not money alone could replace.
From the Bank Note Company we come next to the Assay office whose risks
are similar. I am informed that it is absolutely fire-proof, but I have
had no occasion to visit it.
Of Banks and Insurance Buildings we certainly have a large number
which are to all intents fire-proof, though but few are thoroughly so.
It is generally admitted that such buildings are not in danger from
their contents, and to this belief may be ascribed the fact that we
already have so many of this class. The Continental Bank, the American
Exchange Bank, the Mutual Life Insurance Company’s building, the Park
Bank, and the City Bank building, recently remodeled, are absolutely
fire-proof. Nothing less than a bonfire of all the furniture, books,
and papers that could be collected together in any one room of any of
these buildings would endanger its destruction. They are safe from
any ordinary casualty. But in all the rest there is enough wood-work
to make the word “fire-proof,” as applied to them, of very doubtful
significance. To show what a practical eye the Insurance Companies
have, let me say that in nearly all the so-called fire-proof bank
buddings the rates of insurance are as high as in ordinary business
buildings. The rates are unusually high in the building which I happen
to occupy, on account of a well hole in the centre which is trimmed
with wood, and would carry a fire through the whole building in an
instant. What I might say in relation to buildings of this class will
be comprised in some practical suggestions upon fire-proof buildings
generally. Let us then look for a few moments into the matter of
constructive details.
And, firstly, how shall floors be constructed? Before the “iron
period,” when our Washington Capitol, our City Hall, our old Exchange
and Custom House were built, the Roman Mediæval vaults only, were
used—either of stone or of brick plastered. When the width of a room
was too great for one span, granite columns or brick piers were used,
as in our old Exchange, now the Custom house. The floors above the
vaults were leveled up and paved with flags or marble tiles. As far
as grace, strength and absolute relief from the dangers of fire were
concerned, this was a perfect system. But now space is demanded; there
must be no more heavy piers and no great thickness of floors. We are
therefore forced to use a material which, though not combustible of
itself, will do little work if exposed to great heat; and in this is
seen the great difference between our fire-proof buildings of the
brick period and those of the iron period, and the inferior fire-proof
qualities of the latter. The problem now is, to use the minimum of
brick and the maximum of iron. I think, therefore, it must be conceded
that with the best we can do with this material, there is danger; and
the problem might be put thus: “Given Iron, make as nearly fire-proof
buildings as possible out of it.” What, then, has been done with it
thus far? For columns, we have used cast tubes of all shapes and sizes
and the wrought-iron pillars of the Phoenix Iron Company; for girders,
we have used compound beams of cast-iron, with wrought ties—built up
beams of various forms of rolled and plate iron, bolted and riveted
together—and common rolled beams, used double; for floor beams we first
used deck beams for wide spans and railroad iron for narrow spans;
these have now been superseded by the I beam of various sizes. The
Rolling Mills now have on their circulars I beams of great dimensions
and suitable for girders, but refuse to fill any but large orders;
indeed, I believe that only one mill has rollers for beams larger than
thirteen inches, while the others will not put up machinery until
they get large enough offers. So we are thus far deprived of large
smooth beams of one piece, for girders of long span—beams which no
one would desire to hide from view, but which might honestly tell
their use to every beholder. For supports between beams we have had
Peter Cooper’s _terra cotta_ pots and the four inch brick arches. The
former are out of use and the latter are almost universally employed.
Corrugated iron—first used in the Columbian Insurance building by Mr.
Diaper—has also gone out of use. The destruction of the Fulton Bank,
a so-called fire-proof building, sealed its fate as far as floors
are concerned.[B] We have also had the experiment of stone floors in
the American Exchange Bank, by Mr. Eidlitz, and repeated by another
architect in the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Building, at Newark, N.
J. The stone slabs, brick arches, and the Parisian floors—of plaster or
concrete, bedded upon bar iron gratings inserted between the beams—are
the only practical systems of fire-proof floor construction, now in
use. The only attempt to lay the floor _on_ the beams, of which I have
knowledge, is in the sugar house above mentioned. This has suggested to
me several methods of laying rigid floors upon beams at considerable
spaces (three to five feet) from one another. Preliminary to so doing,
I have above suggested the revival of the deck beam, or the I beam
with a better form for the bottom flange, and the adoption of cast-iron
shoes for the bearings.
The objections to the brick arches are that their great weight requires
heavier beams than would otherwise be used, and that the form of their
soffits is not beautiful; for they have the appearance of a long
succession of little wagon vaults, requiring a resort to the doubtful
expedient of furring the ceiling with iron lath. I think it might be
objected to the French system of floors, that the expense would be too
great, plaster being a dear article with us in comparison with its
price in France, while our own cement has not the requisite properties
to enable it to be substituted, besides being almost equally costly.
The stone slabs, of Mr. Eidlitz, are the only rigid material thus
far used successfully with iron beams, and could be used to better
advantage if laid _on_ the beams rather than resting upon their lower
flanges, as is done in the American Exchange Bank. They are doubtless
the handsomest material that can be used for this purpose, but are
open to the objection of being heavy and expensive—where expense is a
question, and utility only is sought—requiring heavy beams and calling
for elaborate cutting on the under side. It will be pertinent to our
inquiry, therefore, to ask if there are any other rigid materials
adaptable to this purpose, and possessing the desired quality of
lightness and cheapness. A former draughtsman of mine, now a member of
the Institute, first suggested the use of slabs of slate, about two
inches in thickness, for spans of four feet, and thicker or thinner
in proportion to the distance of the beams from centres. I give his
suggestion for what it is worth. But it led me to believe that we would
eventually come to cast-iron as the practicable material for this
purpose, possessing the requisite qualities of lightness and cheapness
and capable of being bolted to the beams, thus answering all the
purposes of flooring and bridging. Cast-iron plates may be used for
flooring in two ways; first, when deafening and finished floor covering
are required; second, when neither is required, as in manufacturing
buildings, wherein a reasonably smooth flooring is required, and a few
planks, laid where workmen habitually stand, will answer the purpose
of non-conductors of heat. Experiment must determine the minimum
quantity of iron (in proportion to the strength required) to be used
in the floor plates. In obtaining the proper form for strength, and
to ensure true castings, the bottoms of the plates will naturally be
covered with raised flanges, except at the edges, where they bear on
the beams. These flanges or ribs may assume a decorative form, either
a plain diaper or a larger pattern to form a complete design for the
ceiling when many of them are combined. By a judicious arrangement
of the flanges the actual thickness of the iron may be reduced to
three-eighths, or a quarter of an inch. When deafening is required,
strengthening flanges may also be cast on top of the plates, and
consequently the beams can be placed at wide intervals. The flanges on
the top will then serve to keep the concrete, used for deafening, in
its place, and avoid the cracks which might occur in a large surface
of cement. The deafening may be of any thickness required, and will
serve as a bed for the floor tiles. All that is then required for the
underside is judicious decoration of the beams and floor plates. When
deafening is not required, as in manufacturing buildings, the tops
should be smooth. It has been objected by a manufacturer, to whom I
explained this system of construction, that the floors of iron would
be too cold for the feet of workmen. But it would be very easy to put
down platforms of wood where the men habitually stand. Besides, when
the lower story is heated, the stratum of hot air immediately under the
ceiling would naturally keep the floor at a higher temperature than
that of the air in the room, and the greater conductibility of the
iron would rather tend to warm the feet of those who stand upon it.
The plates, in all cases, being bolted to the flanges of the beams,
would serve as bridging for the floors.
By the above-described construction of floors, I would attempt to get
rid of the obnoxious and expensive iron lath, so generally used. But
it is more difficult to avoid their use on side walls, when the walls
are to be plastered—and let me say here, that there can be no excuse
for plastering the side walls in a fire-proof building, except for
economy’s sake. The easiest and by all means the cheapest expedient
when plastering is required is to build four inch walls, secured to
the main exterior walls by iron straps. These will not conflict with
the building laws, provided you build your walls thick enough at the
outset. There is, however, no better way in which to finish interior
walls than to line them with stone or marble, or both combined. Where
decorative effect is desired, I would use stone with marble panels.
Our native quarries now afford stone light enough in color to set at
rest all objections that may be made to its use on the score of light.
But if those should hold good the material might be marble paneled
with marble, the former white, and the latter colored. Obviously the
cheapest material for wall covering in natural materials would be
slabs of white marble. Let us then make some comparison of figures,
and see what can be done with this material. Iron lath, of the form
generally used, cost $1.25 per foot. Three coat plastering costs nine
cents per foot. A responsible dealer in marble informs me that he will
put up inch slabs of Italian veined or Vermont marble for one dollar
and a half per foot. Which, then, would you choose, polished marble at
$1.50, or plaster, as good in appearance as that in any tenement house,
at $1.34? This is a fair comparison for exterior walls or ceilings.
Italian marble slabs can be procured in any quantity, from eight to
nine feet long and three feet wide. In a room fifteen feet high,
allowing four feet for wainscot and two feet for cornice, you may line
your walls with one length of marble.
What treatment do we now give to doors? We build brick jambs with
wooden or iron lintels, as if we would trial the doors with wood.
We then put up cast-iron jambs, rivet to their edges pilasters or
architraves of the same material, and then surmount the whole perhaps,
with a cast-iron cornice and pediment. Some have gone so far as to
inlay the panels of the iron work with bits of colored marble, thus
heightening the effect of the already rough finish of the iron, a
roughness which the best foundrymen have been unable to prevent, and
which, it would cost untold money to reduce down to the smoothness of
ordinary work in pine wood. In one of our most pretentious houses on
Fifth Avenue, they are now putting up jambs, architraves and cornices
made of sawn slabs of marble or marble boards, in the same manner in
which wood and iron have been used. And what does all this amount
to? In the category of shams, there is no equal to this monstrous
succession. You have imitated a Greek or Roman architrave and cornice
by a wooden sham, your wooden sham has been imitated by an iron sham,
your iron sham has been imitated by a marble sham; and what is the
result? You have kept the form all along; you have come back to the
original material by a succession of imitations, and have at last a
shell without meat, marble carpentry instead of marble architecture.
In all the stages of your attempt to revive the old forms, you have
sham imitation of shams down to the final achievement of your carpenter
in marble. Next must follow, I suppose, the imitation marble-vender,
who will crown the whole fabric of shams and give you something which
can as much be called architecture as Mr. Shoddy’s painted “red
backs” and “blue backs” resemble standard literature. I offer no
original suggestion to remedy this condition of affairs. Go back to
your old Greek, go back to your old Roman models, if you like them,
and seeing how they are built, go and do likewise; but spare us these
sham contrivances. Set up your door posts and plant your lintel upon
them, whether for exterior or interior use, and carve them to suit your
fancy. They will be at least _good_ so long as they be genuine and
strong. Then figure up the cost of this kind of work, and see how much
you have saved for your clients.
In conclusion, let me urge you to study diligently the various problems
affecting this subject, which, in your experience, are continually
offered for solution. In so doing, look mainly to a practical solution
of the questions which may arise, and free yourselves from all
consideration of so-called rules of art, which might control you. The
development of architectural design was no less affected by local and
circumstantial conditions, with the ancients, than it is with us; but
the conditions at the present time are essentially different from,
and decidedly more various than those which controlled our ancestors,
whether of the classic or mediæval period. Whatever may have been
achieved by art in those times, was the result of, and co-ordinate with
the practical solution of problems then offered.
We have ignored the conditions which specially affect us, and the
result is that our architecture, for whatever purpose, is without
originality, and wholly irrational. As long as we allow ourselves to
be governed by rules of art founded on the experience of the past, and
precedents established by conditions which now do not exist, we need
hope neither for good construction nor good art. The attempt to engraft
the traditions of the past upon the practical work of this century has
resulted in failures involving the waste of hundreds of millions of
capital in this country alone; I might name from memory a score of
buildings, many of them the most prominent, and all the most costly
that have been erected, in proof of this assertion. I would commence
with our national Capitol, in whose dome may be seen the most flagrant
attempt in all modern time to perpetuate a traditionary style in a
material entirely different from that in which the style was developed;
so different that the foundations under it could not carry the
superstructure, if it were erected of the material for which it would
appear to have been designed; and for want of foundations of sufficient
breadth, even to carry the iron work, it has been necessary to carry
the whole exterior iron colonnade upon iron brackets, concealed
beneath what appears to be the podium for the whole dome, but which
is in reality a box of thin plates of cast-iron, secured to a light
framework, built out over the roof of the building.
In erecting modern fire-proof buildings, especially in so far as iron
work is concerned, all the conditions imposed upon the architect are
different from those which existed in past ages. The same may be said
of the use of iron in any building. Subserviency to style, when the
material used is not such as was the controlling element of that style,
is destructive to all good art; for there can be no truly artistic
effect except that which is produced by the best use of material, and
its decoration in best accordance with its nature. If the use of iron
is ever to lead to the erection of buildings worthy of being called
works of art, such a result must be attained only by the recognition of
this principle.
The best thinkers have doubted whether there can be any such thing
as architecture in iron, assuming, of course, that to be called
architecture, the material must be constructively used; and there
is good reason for these doubts. An iron building does not always
require the force of gravity to maintain the cohesion of its parts; it
possesses such properties that it may be swung in the air or balanced
on a single point, if it is necessary so to do. It is a machine
admitting of as little decoration as a steam engine or a printing
press. If iron alone were used for buildings, constructive necessity
and economy combined, might lead us to build houses like steam boilers
or water tanks.
What has been done thus far toward the erection of iron buildings on
constructive principles? We can only recur to the buildings of the
Crystal Palace pattern. We had a beautiful one in New York, admirably
constructed, and well designed for its purpose; but even that building
was decorated in the Moresque style, perhaps as nearly appropriate
to the material employed as any that could have been selected. Here
originality in treatment failed, just where it was wanted. The same
constructive principles were involved in the design of this building
which would have been involved in the erection of a fire-proof
building. In this respect it was a success.
In the erection of fire-proof buildings, we are forced to do the best
we can with iron while using it in the most varied capacities; but when
its use can be spared, let me entreat you to rid yourselves of it;
where it must be employed, use it rationally and constructively; but
better not decorate it at all, than imitate styles not in harmony with
its constructive properties. As all iron must be painted, I am inclined
to believe that the best method of decorating it is in colors; for
this treatment the iron must be plain and simple, and the colors may
be proportionately brilliant. With regard to other materials, I would
suggest nothing more than is said above—in all things build rationally.
First, let your work be strong and well balanced—no part too heavy—no
part too light. Then decorate it in harmony with its constructive
features, never concealing materials, except where necessary to
protect them, and emphasizing the main lines of the construction by
ornamentation. Thus only can the great problem of the day be solved,
and the fire-proof architecture of the nineteenth century be made
worthy of a rational and progressive age.
NOTE.—An inspection of HARPER & BROTHERS’
building, since writing this paper, has convinced me that
the principle of division into horizontal compartments
has been carried out more thoroughly in it than in any
other building of the kind. There are no openings through
the floors. It contains neither interior stairs nor
hoistway; both are on the exterior. The stairs are in an
isolated tower approached by bridges, and the hoistway is
without enclosure. This arrangement is however extremely
inconvenient.