Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/117

Rh HERE is a feeling abroad among the discriminating that the new Municipal Buildings are not what they might hae been, and this despite the panegyrics of the daily press. What might, what should they have been ? With such a subject, such a site, and such an outlay of money, the city might and should have had a building to mark an epoch in the architectural history of the nineteenth century in this country as did the Manchester Town Hall fifteen years ago, to draw the eyes of the art-world to Glasgow, and give its citizens something to be proud of besides their Cathedral and their ships. Such is the ideal ; for the reality Glasgow has got a building, very large, and costly, and gorgeous, of the kind which people generally call a ' very fine edifice," but one which can scarcely be called, con- sistently with truth, very beautiful or dignified. It is the lack of this last quality which we have especially to comjjlain of, for it is that which should above all characterise the municijaal centre of such a city as Glasgow. Wherein then does the fault lie .'' Not certainly in the style selected. The noble palaces of Rome and Florence, the Reform and other club-houses in London, as examples of civic, the cathedrals of Saint Peter's at Rome and Saint PauFs at London, of religious art — to mention only a few of the best- known examples — show how the style of the Italian Renaissance lends itself to dignified treatment, when rightly handled. It is not the fault of the architect's ground-plan, which, while excellent from a practical point of view, shows a skilful balancing of important departments which is justly rendered in elevation by well-marked and symmetrical masses. These masses, the central feature, the connecting wings, the corner pavilions of each elevation are in them- selves of good proportion, and generally of simple and harmonious outline. The fault, or faults, therefore, must lie in the working out of this architectural scheme, in the many minor features which go to make up the whole, and unfortunately, in the present instance, to destroy its effect. These we consider mainly to be : — An undue j'l'eponderance of horizontal lines, a faulty system of fenestrations producing a want of unbroken wall-spaces, a lack of artistic refinement in the details, and an over lavish use of sculpture. These defects characterise especially the principal elevation to George Square ; some of them are to be found there only, but throughout the entire building there is evidence of a constant tendency to break up the wall spaces by a great variety of projections, horizontal and vertical, in such a manner as to be totally destructive of repose. Yet the most casual observer cannot but be struck with the superiority of the sides in dignity, in im- portance, to the front ; and this effect would be increased could we see either of these elevations from a distance as we do the principal facade. In each elevation, it will be observed, a well-con- sidered and legitimate endeavour has been made to give dignity by the coupling of two stories, but while to the sides it is the first and second that have been so joined, to the front it is the ground and first floors, and in tliis case the effect is almost entirely lost by the want of boldness and simplicity in the treatment of the connecting piers, and by the fact that a strongly marked string-course is carried through them at about midway in their height. It is the first of four which, with the base, divide the whole building into five strata of nearly equal im- portance. It is, however, chiefly to its fenestration, that most important feature in determining the character of every building, that the front owes its trivial character. We refer to the excessive use of the so-called Venetian windows, formed of a circular headed opening flanked by two smaller square headed side-lights, from which it is separated by columns. Possibly Mr. Young has not read Sir William Chambers's standard work on Civil Archi- tecture, or having read it he does not agree with the author. For in the chapter which treats of windows we find him writing : — ' Venetian windows are on some occasions necessary,. . . but where they can be avoided it is best, for the columns which separate the large interval from those on the sides, form such slender partitions that, at a distance, they are scarcely perceived, and the whole looks like a large irreffular breach made in the wall. And however advisable it may be to repeat the same form, the repetition of these Venetian windows should always be avoided, for this. . . keeps the eye in a per- petual dance to discover the outlines, than which nothing can be more unpleasing, or destructive of effect.' Mr. Young, not content with giving us one row of these windows along the entire front, has added a second in the central and side features, and the study of this fa^de completely afiirms both Sir William Chambers's dicta.