Page:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu/233

 1868.] Mutual Conformity of Houses and Furniture. 189 citizens, who, in speaking of our great progress in science, mechanics and in- vention, are apt to assume, that we are far superior to all who have preceded us. We are on the lowest rounds of the ladder of science, whose topmost has been reached thousands of years past. But we are progressing ; and have the advantage over the ancients, as we have their master-pieces for models, whilst, with them, it was original conception. In ancient times a particular charac- teristic architecture pervaded the whole design of a building. The most general was Grecian, Roman and Gothic, and if it was intended to' erect a building in either of these styles — the architect was strict in having no intrusion of any other. In modern times, we make a combination, with good effect ; as is seen in many of our public buildings such as the Girard Bank, the Custom House and Girard College, in Philadel- phia. As a general rule, the architecture of our houses is of an indescribable order, or disorder, for which it will be neces- sary, some time, to coin a name. The builder, be he a carpenter, bricklayer, or stone-mason, makes a contract to build a house ; with certain specifications as to size of front building ; with such and such back buildings ; height of ceil- ing in each story ; and such kind of materials to be used. The stone-mason is the architect for the foundation; the bricklayer, for the walls ; and the car- penter and the plasterers for their part ; with the general superintendence of the contractor for the whole. The conse- quence is, that a comfortable looking in- convenient house is the result. In build- ing such a house, a bricklayer would be considered a fool, if he built up solid walls ; and left the carpenter to cut holes through, for windows and doors ; but things equally inconsistent are being continually done, when there is no regu- lar architect employed. Our house architecture is essentially too monoto- nous in the parts of use. That is, three or four-storied brick fronts, with white marble window and door-sills and lin- tels. Three-story back buildings, ex- tending almost to the next street, leaving a very small square yard at the rear end of the lot and a long, damp, narrow side-yard, of four to six feet in width, the length of the back building. Thus, row after row is put up in pairs, two back buildings facing each other, with two narrow yards, separated by an eight or ten foot fence, exposing the domestic operations of each family to the other, even though there may be no disposition, in the case of either party, to be inquisitive. The close contiguity of the second-story back — which is al- most always the family sitting-room — makes it nearly impossible, to avoid seeing what is going on in the next house.* There is no other city in the nation, that has so persistently adhered to this plan of building as Philadelphia Besides the above-mentioned inconveni- ences, are the distance from the front door to the various stories in the back- building, and the fact that the most de- sirable part of the house is taken for a parlor, which is the least used of any part of a Philadelphia home. With an eastern and western expo- sure, the sun will in summer dry up the moisture in the narrow side-yards; but with a northern exposure, there is but little chance for the sun to operate ; and the consequence is green mould (a growth of poisonous fungi) on the wall and brick pavement, much to the injury of the health of the occupants. This occurs to some extent, in the southern exposure; but we have become so ac- customed to this, that a damp, unpleas. ant smell is noticed, but no attempt made to remedy it. known instances, where — by mutual understanding, both between families who did, and those who did not visit — the blinds of the two confronting sitting-rooms were always kept raised and opened in the evening, and the gas lighted, for sociability and security between the women-folk of the two houses, the men being often ab- sent.— Ed.
 * This is correct. But, singularly enough, we have