Our 56th Competition.

Progress, Volume XIII, Issue 3, 1 November 1917, Page 57

Our 56th Competition.

This competition drew only two designs, viz: — “Pylon” by G. Glenton-Hunt, with Messrs. Wade and Wade, architects, Auckland; and “Lotus,” by Harold L. White, City Engineer’s Department, Auckland. Mr. C. H. Mitchell, A.R.1.8.A., who kindly set this subject, reports as follows:

lacking in this proportion the design by ‘Lotus’ has much to recommend it owing to its simple treatment, and first class results would be assured if he were to study the problem on similar lines to those described later. As drawn, the pavilion rises behind a solid balustrade in the foreground, and the top of this balustrade appears, from the elevation, to he the ground line of the Pavilion, thus making the follow-

“It is dissappointing that only two designs were received for the above competition, which 1 place in order of merit as follows:‘Lotus’ Ist, ‘Pylon’ 2nd. The problem set is similar to junior subjects given in many ateliers and architectural schools, and forms a basis of more intricate designs and consequently is a good grounding for the students. In any good design each unit must be in proportion to, and harmonise with the other, and although

ing illusionthe vertical distances between the evident ground line and the line of eaves, and between the latter and the ridge, appear to be too nearly equal, and the floor line appears to be only 10 inches above the evident ground line, but this would have been obviated had the foreground (alone) been shown slightly in perspective, thus showing the true height of the Pavilion (similar to the treatment of buildings illustrated by the numerous design plates

of The Grande Prix de Rome, The Ecole de Beaux Arts, and others). The dimensions of the three openings to the loggia and the width of the piers between them arc the worst defects, and if ‘Lotus’ had studied the following rule taken from almost lany text book on design ’‘that the proportion of circular headed arched openings should be twice the height of their width,” the result as regards the proportion of the building would have been almost beyond criticism. To obtain this the piers should be widened to approximately twice their present width, and the openings narrowed in consequence, and made, as near as possible, twice as high as they are wide. The distance between the crown of the arches and the line of eaves is hardly enough, and would be improved if slightly deepened. Further, the width of the doors entering into the tea room scale only 3 ft. 8 inches between the jambs. Now, I am sure, if ‘Lotus’ bad considered that in case of one only of the leaves of the door being open at a time the 1 ft. 7 inch opening would be very cramped for a person of average size to pass through in comfort, and he would have made them at least 5 ft. in width. In offering these suggestions to ‘Lotus’ I am not condemning his design, but calling the attention of other students to likely mistakes, as one has only to look about to note, in practice, window and door openings out of all pleasing proportion, and it is this proportion of openings that would be severely criticised by an architectural critic in the modern schools of architecture. The design by Pylon ’ is, as his nom-de-plume infers, chiefly pylons, and no doubt he would have been able to produce a much better attempt had he kept more to the conditions and less to an elaborate scheme. ‘Pylons’ idea is good, but such a Pavilion is not asked for, nor was it desired, and as it involved far more knowledge of desism than is expected of students, his attempt in detail is poor . In conclusion, I suggest as a help to other students studying design problems, that they be not in too much hurry to use the Tee and Set squares, but work up the main lines of the design in freehand; and if the first attempt docs not satisfy yon, then (and it is unlikely to), put a piece of tracing paper over it and alter the proportion of the units slightly, on lines as suggested to “Lotus.” Conthis process until you obtain something that is pleasing to look at, then, and not until then, use the Tee and Set squares.”

“To design a comfortable and beautiful house for a limited sum of money is perhaps one of the most difficult problems the modern architect has to solve. It is also the most important problem— the housing question, as applied to the great majority of the people, is still a question which remains unanswered in an intelligent way. The long, unlovely streets which the jerry builder creates, or his undesirable villa residences, are the only available dwellings for the average man.”H. Baillie Scott.