THE 



CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S 



JOURNAL. 



BRIDGE WATER HOUSE .—Charles Barrv, Esq., R.A., Architect. 



C Tilth an Engraving, Plate l.J 



It is only exceptionally tliat any of our English nobility or aris- 

 tocracy build for themselves mansions in the metropolis. In Italy, 

 every city of any note is indebted for much of its architectural 

 reputation to the private palazzi of noble families; nhich, if they 

 sometimes exhibit very questionable taste, possess at least phy- 

 siognomy, and have an air of patrician dignity. Here, on the 

 contrary, rank and opulence do not seek to distinguish themselves 

 by their habitations making any architectural display, externally : 

 the abstinence from wliich may be partly attributed to indiifer- 

 ence for architecture itself, but is also in a great measure owing to 

 the system, prevalent here among even the wealthiest classes, of 

 occupying houses only upon lease — a system almost prohibitory of 

 the erection of town residences of a really palatial character. 

 Like any other wholesale manufacturer, the speculator-builder can 

 only provide such houses as are likely to meet the general require- 

 ments of a class of occupiers ; and that class must suit themselves 

 as well as they can from the stock provided for the market. 

 Actual accommodation and fashionahlpness of situation are the two 

 points chiefly considered by those who resort to that market ; for 

 as to the architectural fashion of the commodities, that must be 

 taken for better or worse, or just as it can be had: and whatever 

 the taste of it be, that is no aft'air of the occupiers, since they are 

 " only lodgers here." A duke and a drysalter may be next-door 

 neighbours to each other, and their dwellings Dromios, — two slices 

 of the same piece, and consequently just of the same pattern. 

 The speculator-builder cannot possibly tell beforehand who are to 

 be his customers : duke or drysalter is to him all one. Besides, he 

 cannot, or else fancies he cannot, aiford to look to taste : had he a 

 third eye, he probably might be able to do so ; but as he has not, 

 he must keep both the eyes he has upon per cent. People who 

 build for themselves, build also for their posterity ; but a specula- 

 tor has no posterity, — he looks only to number one and to-day. 

 Under such a system, what can we expect better than the mush- 

 room architecture which has sprung up in that ultra-fashionable 

 spot, Belgravia. As to Belgrave-square itself, it is to us far more 

 unsatisfactory than Russell-square — the butt of the very vulgar 

 and very flunkey wit of our Hoods and Crokers. The latter place 

 is, at least, exempt from all paltry architectural pretension; which 

 is more than can be said of the other. It honestly confesses itself 

 to be very — or for "very" we should, perhaps, say "rather" — dull 

 and stupid; whereas the other is a grimacing pretender, who gi\es 

 himself what he fancies are high-bred airs. As architecture, Bel- 

 grave-square is only bloated insignificance; of design, properly so- 

 called, there is not a particle in it. It is a compound of the most 

 hackneyed ideas vulgarised. Where there is no aim, there is no 

 miss ; but there a good deal — at any rate, much more than was 



No. 136.— Vol,. XII.— January, 1S49. 



then usual — %vas evidently aimed at, and the result is intolerable 

 insipidity of ensemble, and equally intolerable cockneyism of de- 

 tail ; the style, if such it may be called, being best described as 

 Cockneyfied-Italian. Yet, what better can be expected from the 

 present system of building streets and squares by wholesale ? It 

 would be objectionable enough, if only because it flings away op- 

 portunities for architectural design, a single idea repeated again 

 and again being made to serve for several scores of houses. 

 Merely such wearisome repetition would be bad enough; yet, as if 

 it were not sufficiently so, the architectural pattern set for what 

 is afterwards to be carried on ad libitum, is invariably of the most 

 trumpery and tawdry character,— crude and unstudied — appa- 

 rently the production of either the speculator-builder himself, or 

 of one of his drawing-board journeymen. 



Under such circumstances as these, Bridgewater House may be 

 regarded as an architectural phenomenon in the British metropo- 

 lis. The term "phenomenon," however, is not meant to imply that 

 there is anything extraordinary in regard to the general idea, or to 

 style or design. Being, strictly speaking, a palazzo, Bridgewater 

 House identifies itself architecturally witli a class of structures of 

 very recent date in our metropolis. Any one unacquainted with 

 the' fact of its ownership, would, almost of course, take it for a 

 clubhouse ; it having, in every respect, far more the character of 

 an edifice of that kind, than the appearance of being a private 

 residence. Almost the only other mansion erected within our 

 memory, which makes any pretension to rank as a work of archi- 

 tecture, is the neighbouring Stafl"ord, alias Sutherland, House, 

 originally designed by two of the Wyatts as a residence for the 

 late Duke of York. For this reason, and also on account of their 

 propinquity, some comparison of the two mansions naturally sug- 

 gests itself ; and although comparisons are said to be odious, we 

 may be very well satisfied with the result of the one on the present 

 occasion, since it makes evident how greatly architectural taste 

 has advanced among us in the interim between the dates of the 

 two buildings, which may be taken as the representatives of the 

 ante-Barry-an, and the Barry-an period. vV^hile the style of 

 Sutherland House is essentially mean and undignified, and partakes 

 of the regular or ordinary office drawing-board school of design, 

 and is utterly devoid of aught approaching to gusto, it might 

 be many degrees more faulty without being by several so trivial, 

 flat, and mesquin in taste. It can find favour only in the eyes of 

 a surveyor or builder, for there is not a single touch of the artist 

 perceptible in it. Perhaps even such a piece of honest, unso- 

 phisticated dowdyism as Marlborough House is the less offensive 

 of the two ; for to be at once dowdy and pretentious is, if not in- 

 tolerable, amusing — that is, ridiculous. Frederick of York was 



7 5 ^S ^/ 



