430 



HORTICULTURE, 



October 20, 1906 



GREENHOUSE CONSTRUCTION. 



(A paper read by J. B. Velie before the 

 Gardeners' and Florists' Club of Boston, 

 October 16, 1906.) 



Greenhouse construction may be 

 divided into two classes, private and 

 commercial. In tlie former class ap- 

 pearance enters more largely in the 

 design and construction than in the 

 latter, but the object in both is to 

 secure the most durable construction 

 combined with that of one that will 

 admit the greatest amount of light, the 

 element of expense nearly always be- 

 ing a factor to be considered. 



For private use where it is assumed 

 the owner is not compelled to sacrifice 

 durability or appearance because of a 

 lack of capital, the almost uniform 

 construction is an iron frame green- 

 house on masonry walls. This has 

 been proven by years of experience to 

 more nearly meet the requirements 

 than any other construction. 



The person desiring to build com- 

 mercially, who to be successful, must 

 closely count expenditures, cannot 

 usually afford to place a large amount 

 of money in expensive masonry walls. 

 To this person a choice of several dis- 

 tinct forms of construction is offered: 

 first, the iron frame greenhouse on 

 cast iron foot pieces; second, the wood 

 frame or so-called sash bar house, hav- 

 ing angle iron plate and posts with 

 east iron foot pieces: third, trussed 

 roof house having angle iron plate and 

 posts and cast iron foot pieces: fourth, 

 an all wood house of sash bar con- 

 struction having wood plate and wood 

 posts; and fifth, an all wood sash bar 

 house having wood plate and wood 

 sill on concrete walls. 



For one starting in the florists' busi- 

 ness or adding to their present range, 

 the question is. which construction 

 will pay the greatest dividends in the 

 business. This point rests on the 

 amount of light admitted, the dura- 

 bility of construition, and the prob- 

 able cost of repairs. 



From the standpoint of light, 

 assuming that all of the construc- 

 tions have lfix24 inch glass placed 

 the Iti-inch way. the iron frame house 

 has a considerable advantage. The 

 size of the standard sash bar in this 

 construction is l.=)-lfi x 1 7-8 inches and 

 the wood cap for rafter is 1 7-8 inches 

 each way. The size of the standard 

 bar for sash bar construction is 1 3-8 

 inches wide by 2 1-2 inches deep. In 

 an iron frame house 100 feet long, pro- 

 viding the sun shines at right angles 

 to the length of the house, you would 

 have 6 feet G .",-4 inches of shade 

 against 8 feet :J inches in sash bar 

 house, which makes a difference in 

 favor of the iron frame house of 1 

 foot 8 1-4 inches of solid shade. It 

 has been argued that because of the 

 depth of the iron rafters, ihat when 

 the sun shines from the direction of 

 the gable of the liouse, there is more 

 shade with the iron frame construc- 

 tion than in the sash bar. This is not 

 so. There is about 1.5 degrees more 

 shade in the sash bar house if the 

 sun shines from the direction of gable 

 than in the iron frame hotise with 3- 

 inch iron rafter.s. Furthermore, in one 

 construction the iron frame supports 

 the house while in the other the sash 

 bars only, give strength to the roof. 

 This allows the bars to be omitted un- 

 der ventilating sash in iron frame 

 house, while they have to be run to 

 the ridge in sash bar house, making 

 additional shade at that point in the 



latter construction by having two rows 

 of bars, one above the other at ridge 

 sash. 



It may seem to some that these fig- 

 ures show so small a difference in light 

 between one method of construction 

 and that of the other that it would not 

 pay in dollars and cents as far as light 

 goes, to invest any greater amount of 

 money in one construction than in the 

 other. I think, however, if you will 

 go into a house of sash bar construc- 

 tion and then into one of iron frame 

 construction, yoti will at once notice 

 a difference in the amount of light in 

 the houses and I also think you will 

 admit that if this is easily discernable 

 to the eye, better results will be ob- 

 tained in the lighter houses, provid- 

 ing all other conditions are the same, 

 than in 'be one having more shade. 



As for strength of construction, the 

 iron frame house is decidedly the 

 strongest, especially in a wide house. 

 But tor a house not over 33 feet 4 

 inches wide of usual pitch, which al- 

 lows for five benches about 4 feet 4 

 inches wide each, with usual walks, 

 the sash bar construction with angle 

 iron post and plate offers an excel- 

 lent solution for a person who has not 

 the capital to invest in an iron frame 

 structure. Although many sash bar 

 houses are built wider, in my opinion, 

 to secure an element of safety and 

 strength without tindue supports and 

 trussing, the iron frame house should 

 be used in wider structures than that 

 of about 33 feet. This sash bar con- 

 struction, as previously stated, has 

 some disadvantages, as regards the 

 amount of light admitted, but com- 

 pares favorably in durability to the 

 iron frame structure. The same gen- 

 eral form of cast iron foot piece and 

 angle iron plate is used in both con- 

 structions. 



The trussed roof house of sash bar 

 construction, having angle iron posts 

 and plate and cast iron foot pieces, 

 has the advantage of doing away with 

 supporting columns in house not over 

 29 feet wide. 



The all wood house of sash bar con- 

 struction, having wood plate and posts 

 has the redeeming feature of being the 

 least expensive construction that one 

 can erect considering first cost only. 

 The sash bar house having wood i)Iato 

 and wood sills on concrete walls is a 

 construction more expensive than a 

 house having angle iron plate, angle 

 iron posts with cast iron foot pieces, 

 doulde lioarding of cypress below glass, 

 and removable base board, while it has 

 the disadvantage of not being as dur- 

 able because of the liability of the 

 wood plate and the wood sill on the 

 masonry wall to decay in a short time. 

 Especially is the wood sill on masonry 

 wall a weak member in greenhouse 

 construction. 



(To be continued.) 



GREENHOUSES BUILDING AND 

 PROJECTED. 

 New. 

 Ayer, Mass. — E. A. Richardson, one 

 house. 



Iowa City. la. — Iowa University, one 

 house, 18x60. 



Additions. 

 Covington, Ky. — Covington Seed Co., 

 three houses, 18x105, 24x120, 24x105. 



Lebanon, Ind. — P. O. Tauer, four 

 houses, each 20x150. 



Sterling, 111.— Sterling Floral Co.. 

 two houses, 9x125, 25x125. 



In a Premier 

 Greenhouse— 



all good points are combined. There's 

 durability, artistic appearance, ease of 

 erection — and — ease of RE-erection. 



It'a a better house than is usually built; 

 the price is ONE THIRD of that usually 

 charged. 



S!n<f for hooklet No. G-48. 



Chas. H. Manley, 



Premier Mfg. Works, St. Johns, Mich. 



:<iliJJ!MJ!IHJII!l!< 



THE ORIGINAL ANDGENUINE 



NICOTINE FUMJGANT 



■" " ' /^r::zz:::^' '^'?c" " 



PRICE 60C 

 PER BOH OP 

 LONG SMEETST 



/V 



"^:^^^^\^ 



50PER 



ASE Of 



2 BOXES 



j^i:ii:<.tjjj:i^ 



FOR3PRAXINO-OR-VAPORIZ1NC 



DDICE $1 50 

 PER PINT 

 BOTTLE 



/ 





£1300 PEP 

 CASE OF 10 

 PINT BOTTLES 



Nicotine MfgCo. SiLouis Mo. 



CYPRESS 



SASH BARS 



3 '2 fe«t er longer 



HOT BED SASH 

 PECKY CYPRESS BENCH LUMBER 



GREENHOUSES 



ERECTED AND EQUIPPED COMPLETE IF DESIRED 



Write for Circular "D" and Prices 



The A. T. STEAR\S LCWBER CO. 



NEPOIVSET, BOSTON, MASS. 



BOSTON PLATE & WINDOW GLASS CO. 

 GREENHOUSE GLASS 



German and American 

 m to 287 i St., BOSTON 20-22 Canal St. 



