Our 73rd Competition.

Progress, Volume XVI, Issue 11, 1 July 1921, Page 251

Our 73rd Competition.

In connection with the competition for a Band Stand which was published in our last issue, we have received a letter from one of the competitors whicn runs as follows

TO THE EDITOR. June 22nd, 1921. Sir, —On inspecting the winning design for a Band Stand in your 73rd Competition, 1 note one or two points which the assessor, Mr. B. B. Hooper, A.R.1.8.A., of Dunedin, has overlooked. I wish to draw Mr. Hooper’s attention to these points, as they are of vital importance to students in their construction, and I do so in a friendly spirit. The points are as follows Should not the drum of the conical dome be in line with the outside face of the column, and is it not shown wrong in elevation where it meets the pediment?

Further, the drum of the conical dome cannot be constructed as shown. A cross-section at an angle of 45 degrees on plan will show that the drum of the dome is carried on nothing.

The architecture or beam between the two square columns at the angles is of unusual shape and has very little bearing on those supports. I do not wish to discourage “ Damascus ” in competition, but the above points will be of benefit to all students in their construction, and in future competitions.

I admit that “Damascus” has a good, simple design of pleasing proportions, but as the dome could not possibly be constructed he must be ruled out of court.

I hope the assessor will admit these points in construction, and cause to have “ Dalkeith’s ” de-

sign published with the honours which should be due to it and for the benefit of my fellow-students. In the “ Conditions ” of Competition I note the Editor reserves the right to publish any or all designs, but I ask for the benefit of my fellowstudents that “ Dalkeith’s ” design be published to show the construction of the section?—Yours, etc., “ DALKEITH.”

The letter was forwarded to the assessor, Mr. Basil Hooper, who replies as follows:

TO THE EDITOR.

June 30th, 1921.

Sir, —With reference to Mr. Drummond’s letter on the above subject, which you have sent me for my views thereon. I had noticed the errors in

“ Damascus’ ” design, after publication, and intended writing to point them out. The drum most certainly is carried on the columns, but the porticoes have not been projected far enough to take the full circumference of the drum. The drawing, too, makes the mistake of showing the parapet or drum finishing with a vertical line against the rake of the pediment, instead of a slightly curved line with the cap coming nearly out to the full circumference.

These are certainly errors in construction, but with a little more careful setting out, “ Damascus’ ” design could be made quite workable. I would like to make it clear that, as far as I am concerned, I am chiefly desirous of encouraging the qualities of design in the students. Correct construction is certainly important, but that I feel is not the chief aim of these competitions. “ Damascus’ ” design shows the germs of the qualities I was seeking to bring out, and, in spite of its inaccuracies, is still, in my way. of looking at the matter, entitled to first place.

I think “ Dalkeith’s ” design is quite worthy of being published, as he requests, and also “ Damascus’ ” perspective, and trust you will see your way to doing so. —Yours, etc..

BASIL HOOPER, A.R.1.8.A.

[ln response to “ Dalkeith ” and the assessor’s request, we publish the perspective of “ Damascus’ ’ design as well as “ Dalkeith’s ” design and perspective.—Editor.]