Page:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu/292

 242 Sloan's Architectural Review and Builders' Journal. [October, and rather inadequate for true health- fulness of air. The back dwellings are never further apart than the distance just specified ; and frequently even this is much reduced where the allotment for the front of the lot is narrower than that on which we have been basing these remarks, viz., 25 feet. We need hardly here dilate on the utter absence of comfort, and, above all, of privacy, which, of necessity, such a S3'stem in- volves. This must be at once apparent to the most careless observer. But still, with all these disadvantages — and thej^ of no insignificant a character — this plan of construction evidently possesses some attractions — some charms — which compensate for all the drawbacks we have hinted at ; since fully three-fourths of the city of Philadelphia is built in this manner. One, we must presume, is habit, long residence in homes of this particular style, and acquired familiarity with, and fondness for, the internal arrangement of the rooms consequent thereon. Another — but, in our opinion, very objectionable — perhaps, may be, that it allows greater internal privacy, the chambers not necessarily opening inV> or being accessible, one from the other, and the upper back rooms of the building being entirely separate, and having distinct entrances, from the front rooms. There are few things in this world, the origin of which the research and in- genuity of man have not been able to trace ; but, we must confess, that the origin of this attenuated style of build- ing is one beyond our comprehension ; and on which we are unable positively, to enlighten our readers. We can only throw out, as a general suggestion, that it may possibly have arisen at a time, when the value of the land in city lots was beginning to be sensibly felt, and the size of the frontage assigned for dwell- ings, dimidiated, or halved, was so con- tracted that the owner was compelled to extend his building back, to obtain a sufficient amount of room, which, other- wise, he could not have gained, except by additional and excessive height. There is yet another way, after the fact, of accounting for this peculiarity, namely, a presumption that, in the out- set, the lots themselves having a nar- rower frontage and greater depth than is usual in our cities, when extensive accommodations became necessar3 r , doubtless occasioned the introduction of this general plan. But what deter- mined the primary contraction of the fronts ? After all, the theory of second- ary dimidiations glimpsed above, is probably correct. In laying before our readers the de- sign and plans, which form the subject of these remarks, we are only following out the programme we laid down for ourselves at the beginning of our work, viz., to present, from time to time, such conceptions as may exhibit what can be done in the way of erecting our dwell- ing-houses, under different, and perhaps unfavorable circumstances, as to local- ity ; and to suit various modes of life, along with the infinite variety of opin- ions existing, as to what really consti- tutes a comfortable and convenient arrangement of the interior parts of a residence. We do not venture to ex- pect, or hope, ever to produce a plan that would at once please and satisfy all ; but simply strive to show what it is possible to do, leaving it to the judg- ment and individual taste of projectors, to adopt whichever pictured thought more particularly coincides with their views. We will now proceed to give a de- scription of one of the two contiguous dwellings, which — simply reversing the sides of the plans — will answer equally well for both. By referring to the designs and plans it will be seen that each separate build- ing is 25 feet in front by 42 feet deep, four stories high, exclusive of an attic story, presenting a French roof. On the first floor, the hall, P, leading from the front entrance through a small