Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/392

 370 THE BUILDING NEWS. ne ene eT he ‘May 10, 1872. tect. Tere 7s his system in full work right in the midst of us, and its glorious results are— our London houses ! So much for the last new patent medicine. To the student of mental science it may be a curious question whether its inventor had really ‘persuaded himself of its virtues and had really forgotten to notice the some- what pertinent fact we last referred to. This, however, is beyond our province. We are more concerned with the real evils which he enumerates than with the illusory scheme by which he professes to cure them. We think, too, that they are more likely to be amended by gradual and tentative reforms than by an imposing revolution anda brand-new system of government. We have alwaysurged the cul- tivation of the workman’s mental power— have insisted that the architect should work more in presence of his buildings and less at his desk; have deplored and sought by all possible means to lessen the influence of un- educated judges, and the unhealthy accumu- lation of practice in a few fashionable offices. All these topics, as well as the evil of short building leases, and some other evils as yet unobserved by our censor, have had, for half a lifetime, the earnest consideration of archi- tects. If anything has been done—and much, certainly, fas been done—for architectural progress, it is they who have done it. If no more has been effected, it has been for lack of publie support; the outside world was satis- fied with architecture as it was, and wanted no progress. The architectural profession have at last taught it a higher ambition, and the grateful return it makes is to demand their immediate ruin. ee COMPETITIVE DESIGNS, S. MARY NEWINGTON, PARISH CHURCH. HERE is nothing particularly exciting, as a rule, about a competition for a parish church, and the world at large, generally, is not much indebted to the gentlemen who engage in such competitions so far as the suggestion or development of any new idea in the way of church building is concerned. The above-named competition is no exception to the rule, as the best of the designs embody little of extraordinary interest, and the less skilful ones display a lack of ability that seems to us to promise but little in the way of improving the ecclesiastical architecture of the south of London. The designs are, as might be expected, of very unequal merit, and some of them—more particularly the successful ones—suffer grievously from the rough handling the ideas of the architect haye received at the hands of the draughtsman. Tt is not our intention to offer any opinion regarding the award made by the committee, but simply to give our impressions of the general character of each design. The first thing that struck us on entering the room where the drawings were shown was the total absence of those eccentric and deceptive pro- ductions known as coloured perspectives, in which all the phenomena of Nature haye generally combined to throw out the building in bold relief. It was refreshing to miss the ladies and gentlemen, so beautifully dressed, and pointing from all parts of the picture with parasols andsticks to the various beauties of the structure ; but, on the the other hand, it must be borne in mind that itis often diffi- eult for a professional perscn, and impossible for an amateur, to form a correct idea of a building when none but geometrical drawings are shown, and we feel quite sure that had several of the designs forthe churchin question been drawn in perspective, following faith- fully the proportions given on the drawings, no one would have been more surprised than the competitors themselves at the effect pro- duced. Why do not committees ask for out- line perspective views without colour or pictorial effect? The fine example set by two or three of our leading architects of drawing erspectives in common ink might well be ollowed by other men in the profession, and then a committee might understand a design | same, and the monotonous effect is by no without being misled by a grand effect of sun- shine or cloud. The désign marked No. 1 (Mr. Fowler) is a fair though rather monotonous one for a church of First Pointed character. The west end is good, although rather loose in character and deficient in horizontal lines. The detail is coarse, but this may be partly the result of the bad drawing that disgnises the design throughout. The drawings are overlaid with very fine and unmeaning ‘cross hatching” that gives them the appearance of badly printed lithographs, without any real effect to compensate for the labour thus bestowed upon them. The tower is fairly designed, but the spire is meagre and flimsy, and sadly wanting in character. The buttressing of tower has the common fault of a monotonous series of ‘‘off-sets” from base to cornice. The east end is unsatisfactory; the rose window in gable placed over the row of lancets of equal height giving a rigid and rather incongruous effect. The plan is good, , means diminished by the over-large cusping that disfigures the tracery. The east end ex- ternally is poor, and the depth of the south transept—a great disadvantage to persons oceupying this part of the churech—secems unnecessary, in view of the space left unbuilt upon at the west end of the site. Mr. Brooks shows, as usual, to great ad- vantage in the matter of loftiness and grandeur of general proportion. His church is of stone throughout, and the moderate amount of decorative detail is thoroughly good, and judiciously disposed. He proposes a great western tower, terminated by an octagonal short spire or stone roof; but the huge mass of the tower in perspective would certainly try to the utmost the effect of the church generally—lofty and grand as it is. The east end is semi-circular, with two tiers of lancet windows of nearly the same height. The transepts are narrow, and poor in design. ‘The church is groined throughout, and rather French in character. The though in this particular there is a great | fldche at intersection of nave and _ tran- sameness in all the designs, owing to the little latitude allowed to the competing architects, by reason of the confined nature of the site. The nave seats are rather too long, the chancel is too short, and the sanctuary a mere recess. The clerestory of lancet windows is monotonous, and the ill effect of this is heightened by the fact of the clerestory windows and the aisle windows being of about equal height and width. The roof is good, of lofty proportion and _satis- factory construction. The church is of brick inside, and stone externally. Mr. Blomfield’s design is one in which his usual thoughtfulness and care are conspicu- ous. He proposes a church of brick with stone dressings. The east end is admirably designed, with a chancel arch of noble pro- portions. The nave arcade isextremely good, and the roof is lofty, and, both from a con- structional and artistic point of view, excel- lent. The chancel is short, and a passage behind the reredos diminishes still more the length of this part of the church, although the effect of the receding east end might be good in execution. The organ is made an effective and picturesque feature, and the arcade supporting it is beautifully propor- tioned. The east wall has five lancet win- dows, of good design, in the upper part of gable, andasubordinate andadmirably propor- tioned series of small lancets in an arcade below, and ample space is left in the lower por- tion for a good reredos and mural decoration. The west elevation, with its narthex, is well designed, although the low pitch of the roof gives the western gable an appearance of want of height. The tower is of good solid vertical character, but is rather deficient in unity and soberness of design, and the but- tresses lack the simplicity so desirable in this feature, while the arcaded base to spirelet detracts somewhat from the beautiful propor- tion of the belfry windows. Mr. Pearson contributes a fine church, vaulted throughout in brick, with a really grand west end. This part of his church is, however, somewhat marred by the effect of the turrets north and south of the gable, which dwarf the proportions of the central group of windows, and make the west gable comparatively insignificant. This is the more to be regretted, as the staircases appear to be of little use, being merely an access to roof. ‘The tower and spire are of huge proportions and meagre design, and we question very much whether it is desirable that the spire from cornice to top of vane should be of about equal length with the tower from base to cornice. The large traceried window of belfry-stage is strangely inconsistent with the general poverty that characterises the design of both tower and spire. The nave arcade appears to be too low for the large clerestory windows above, and although these windows are of beautiful pro- portion and design, they are all exactly the septs is coarse in form and detail, and con- trasts strangely with the generally fine character of the work. The design by Mr. Jarvis is characterised by a disregard to all proportion and unity of purpose that renders his work one of little interest ; while the defiance of all precedent, and the apparent forgetfulness of the use of a window in the confused and purposeless tracery which disfigures his design, must be fatal to any architectural effect he may have been desirous of producing. The tracery is designed to show the stone rather than for glass and light, and the east window is ludicrously small, and eyen if it were not so crowded with stonework, this feature would be quite inadequate to its purpose. The tower is unmeaning and poor, and the three- storied arrangement of the west end is more suggestive of a dwelling-house than a church. Mr. Bignell exhibits a fair design of the Early Geometrical period, with tolerable regard to proportion; but it is disfigured by a tower and spire of really elephantine proportion and detail. This tower and spire, seen in perspective, would, we cannot help thinking, astonish its author not a little. The projection of the huge spire over the edge of the tower, and the coarseness and lack of true character in the buttresses, remove this part of Mr. Bignell’s design, to our thinking, beyond criticism. The tracery is coarse, and the combination of the wheel with the tracery of the west window is badly managed, and would look heavy when seen from the interior of the church. The inside of this church sadly lacks interest. THE DESIGNS FOR A MISSION CHURCH. These are naturally less attractive than the designs submitted for the larger work; but the selected one by Mr. Cutts is of good pro- portion, simple, and fairly adapted to its: purpose. This design is almost the only one in the series of any interest, although Mr. Wagstaff’s unfinished drawings and Mr. Gile’s well-proportioned nave are not without merit. There is nothing in Mr. Wiggenton’s de- signs, so far as could be discerned in their unfinished state, to cause any great regret at the incompleteness of the drawings, and Messrs. Giles & Gane’s design fora church in one span of roof looks very unsatisfactory, and by no means safe in construction. Whether the designs, taken generally, have materially advanced the cause of true art in this country, or whether they are generally worthy of the metropolis of England, wedonot undertake to say, but we cannot help thinking that the draughtsmanship displayed in the above competitions is by no means above the average ; and we would ask whether it is not worth while for an architect, when he sends drawings for a building—whether in competi- tion or otherwise—to see that his designs are adequately represented in the manner in which his drawings are executed.