GOOD & BAD ARCHITECTURE

Evening Star, Issue 19796, 21 February 1928, Page 2

GOOD & BAD ARCHITECTURE

WHAT IS THE ANSWER ?

[Written by L. D. Coombs, lor the ‘ Evening Star.’]

What is the difference between good and bad architecture? This question is easy enough to answer in a general theoretical way, but, as no two people have the same opinions and views, the answer that would satisfy one would consequently fail with another. The safe rule in judging the design of a house is to carefully consider to what extent it fulfils its particular purpose, and whether it looks what it is. According to the decisions arrived at, so the quality of the architecture may he placed. This sounds easy. The average man with usual reasoning sense may decide fairly accurately to what extent a house fulfils its requirements, for when the bathroom opens off the kitchen, or when the living rooms arc without sun, etc., etc., he has no difficulty in deciding that the architecture is bad. Conversely, if be finds the place convenient to live in and bis wife assures him that it is easy to work, he places it ns good. When it comes to deciding about flic appearance ho may have much greater difficulties. How is be to judge? His usual method is to compare it with other houses that he knows. That, although the usual method, for most people are as sheep, is usually a very bad way of deciding. How is be to know what value the other places have as examples of architecture? Ho would be better to reason the matter out for himself. He must examine and study the sensibility, or otherwise, of the treatment of the whole and of every feature, and also the use and applicability of every detail. A cottage must look a cottage and a palace a palace. It is bad architecture when a cottage apes a mansion, or when a palace lias no more dignity and character than a cheap boarding house.

Features, such as verandahs, sun balconies, etc., want to look as if they are well placed and useful, and are not merely ornaments for ostentation or for selling purposes. Details such as gables, windows, doorways, etc., must all be in proportion to the real requirements. and not be introduced to satisfy but whim and fancy. They must have a reason, and they must bo decorated in reason. Look at the gables of Dunedin houses. With many of them one cannot suggest a reason—a sensible reason—for many of the strange forms of decoration that one secs. There must bo no shams or architectural lies about a house, especially in the use of materials. Some people seem to glory in making things like What they are not. That is wrong. As Keats wrote:—

Beautiy is (.ruth; truth beauty; that is all We know on earth, and all we need to know.