COTTAGE DESIGN

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 117, 15 February 1928, Page 17

COTTAGE DESIGN

GOOD AND BAD FEATURES DETAILS THAT COUNT make up perfection, and perfection is no trifle.” This is essentially true of' cot.tage designs. In the old homes, so mulch admired, simplicity is the . keynote. -Where “features” were introduced they served sonie definite purpose; sometimes they got over some little building difficulty. As a result they look “constructional,” and also have a charm essentially their own. In old work there is no visible “straining for effect.”

Modern houses frequently have a restlessness due to too many “features” being embodied in a single building. In one case a mock half-timber gable, dormers, semi-hipped ends, bay windows, elm boarding, and tile hanging are all found crowded together. Some of these “bits”—obviously copied from “period” originals—are quite good, but the general effect is a “hotch-potch ” Each feature seems to be crying for attention, and the result is by no means restful.

Most “old-world” cottages . . . are rectangular in shape and roofed in a plain, straightforward manner. Some have simple barn roofs with gables at each end; others are hipped all round. Thus comparatively large wall surfaces result, and even quite small homes have a feeling of breadth. The roofs, again, have a seeming solidarity which is lacking itr those which are much “cut about.” .

Of late we seem to have lost the art ‘ of plain walling and simple roofing. L,'T, E, and plans confront us at every turn. This means that the brickwork is cut up into small sections and excessive roof cutting is made necessary by all the sundry projections. If ideal planning demanded it no one would cavil at such treatment. It is obvious, however, from many plans that some “letter” outline was first decided upon and the rooms then schemed to fit into this shape. Many of these plans are most inconvenient. That “low-to-ground” appearance of old thatched cottages is largely due to the absence of vertical breaks. in the ■ walling. Projections, with their extra verticals—especially when carried up two stories—add apparent height and detract from the breadth. It is this feeling of breadth which is so. difficult to obtain in small cottages. The “features” of old homes are often caricatured in the copying. The deep •overhanging eaves of thatch necessary to throw the roof, water clear of the walls,' for gutters were rarely used—are emulated in wood, and large sprockets introduced under the tiling. Thus many new "homes seem to have “hats” which are too large for them. In old cottage work, except Georgian, it is rare to find a tile or slate roof with an eaves projection of .more than a foot, including the gutter. To-day ISin. and 2ft projections are quite common, and all sorts of difficulties arise in treating the returns against gables, so that the ugly heavy spandril ends may be disguised?' Old-world chimney caps have been lifted wholesale and planted on modern homes with little thought as to. the result. ' Five or six courses of bricks, each’ projecting beyond the one below, may look “just right”, on the .massive stack of a hundred-year-old building. A similar cap, however, appears topheavy.on, a shaft 18in. wide. Chimney cap. design,, apparently so simple., needs considerable experience. Projections that are suitable when "seen 30ft. from the ground look heavy on a full-size detail, whilst those that seem excellent on the drawing-board are often lost on the building. Our great-grandfathers were skilful in the building of such details, for many • examples may be found where the projections at each end exceed those on the long.side of the stacks. the result is a well-proportioned cap, viewed either from the side or end, and the method by which it is obtained is only ' found bv measurement. What is wrong with our modern sasli windows? Most of them appear sorry specimens when compared with those of the Georgian period. The . old builders let the woodwork show, even emphasising it witlt an. additional moulding, so that some 6in. of white frame was visible externally. Nowadavs we build sash windows in reveals, with practically no woodwork showing at the .sides. *I he result is that the “eyes of the home” appear gaunt—mere holes in the wall and have no character in their own. Practical men assert that the modern practice makes windows more weatherproof. Is there anv truth in this? Usually it is the inhabitants of modern houses’ who have trouble with damp, whilst those in “ramshackle” homes rest snug and drv. Modern doors, like windows, have, become mere holes in. the wall. Why is it that people, who can afford to spend £3O or £4O on crazy paving or stone terraces, grudge the little extra for a simple door .“surround,” two shaped brackets, and a hood ?-Clement Frost in the “Illustrated Carpenter and Builder.”