426 REPOET — 1891. 



individual expression in the buildings. Then, owing to the 

 abnormal values city properties have attained in the central 

 portions, a tendency to excessive height has of late years become 

 a marked feature, rendering a limitation in this direction also 

 advisable for the public good. What it should be will depend 

 on various circumstances, such as climate, width of street, 

 density of population, character of water-supply, and liability 

 to spread of fire. In Paris it has been fixed for private build- 

 ings at seven stories, or 65ft. 6in., in streets of that width, with 

 a less height for streets of less width. Above this height 

 (which is that of the front wall), the roofs may be raised to any 

 point within a semicircle having half the width of the street, 

 or not more than 27ft. 6in., for its radius. The working of this 

 rigid rule is very evident in the architecture of the city, for, the 

 height being moderate, every foot of space within the permitted 

 lines is utilised, and great sameness and uniformity is the 

 result. In London the new County Council Bill proposes a 

 limit of 90ft. to the parapet, with permissive regulations as to 

 gables and roofs ; and this, if passed, gives ample height for 

 ordinary purposes, without meddlesome restriction of terminal 

 features. 



Special regulations against the spread of fire are, of course, 

 necessary, but these are not of such a character (except in pro- 

 hibiting wooden buildings) as to much affect external archi- 

 tectural treatment. The great safeguard is the limitation of 

 the size of blocks of closely-packed buildings, and their sub- 

 division by wide open streets. Where such dangerous blocks 

 exist it is the duty of the city authorities to resume sufficient 

 property to form a new street or streets, and compensate the 

 owners at the general expense. Such subdivision is a gain not 

 only in safety, but in health, convenience, and architectural 

 effect. A striking example in point is the proposed continua- 

 tion of Post Office Street, Sydney, which may now be regarded 

 as an accomplished fact. But for the late disastrous fire it 

 would most probably never have been seriously considered. 



There is, however, another class of regulations, dealing in 

 the most minute way with the architectural features of a 

 building, against which I would enter my earnest protest. 

 Every projection is limited, window-frames must be fixed in an 

 allotted position, and generally the designers' hands are so tied 

 that he has no freedom of treatment, and is condemned to the 

 monotony of a flat front. The London Building Act is the 

 parent of these vexatious restrictions, which have been copied 

 into those of many a colonial city. Their absurdity has, how- 

 ever, become so patent that of late years it has been quite the 

 custom in London to apply to the Superintending Architect for 

 a special exemption, and to obtain it almost as a matter of 

 course. I wish that our local authorities would do likewise ; 



