■.^c—.>r;;9-j:r...Y,-^>. 



MAT IS, 1918. 



The Florists* Review 



and one other things that ought all to 

 be decided onee and for all for every- 

 body. He would save further on re- 

 pairs, for parts would all be stock items 

 apd easily procured on short notice at 

 any time. What an advantage this 

 would be in case of damage by fire or 

 storm I How easy td add houses or ex- 

 tend their length 1 



Uniformity Without Monotony. 



This is not all that it would mean. 

 Aside from the mere question of mak- 

 ing or saving money on the materials, 

 ease of erection, the natural simplicity 

 of construction that would surely be 

 brought about, and the quick and easy 

 repairing, what a pleasure it would be 

 to go about tne country and miss see- 

 ing some of those horrid examples of 

 greenhouse building! What a pleasure 

 it would be to find every greenhouse or 

 range neat and trim, spick and span, 

 up-to-date and modern! How many 

 failures it would help to prevent and 

 how many successes it would really 

 help to make! 



Don't form an idea in your mind that 

 I would like to establish a standard for 

 just one size and kind of greenhouse. 

 No, no; don't get that impression, for 

 it would be impossible, and if it were 

 possible it would not be practical. It 

 would end competition if all houses were 

 to be the same, and the whole green- 

 house business would become stagnant, 

 just like the water in the old pond in 

 summer. There must be several stand- 

 ard types of construction and several 

 standard widths. [Fig. II shows 34-foot 

 houses that are so frequently called for 

 as to approach a standard width.] The 

 individuality of each manufacturer's 

 product must not be changed, but be- 

 come a part of the standardization 

 plan — must conform in a general way 

 only to the scheme of standard sizes. 



How to Begin. 



You are probably not aware of the 

 fact that almost all of the greenhouses 

 built vary in the pitch of the roof. Why 

 should there be any variation for houses 

 built in the same town, in the same de- 

 gree of latitude and longitude, special 

 conditions excepted? If there must be 

 variation to conform with the angle 

 of the sun's rays during the winter, 

 why not establish a standard for this 

 variation for different portions of the 

 country? Would not this be the sim- 

 pler and better method! Is it neces- 

 sary to have seven or seventeen differ- 

 ent degrees of pitch for greenhouse 

 roofs in one certain, designated local- 

 ity! It is not a necessity; it is a mis- 

 take. 



The width of the house has some- 

 thing to do with the pitch of the roof. 







Fig. II. Type of 3Moot Houses that are Ahnost of Standard Width. 



A wide house, say forty feet, is not 

 as steep in the roof aa a narrower 

 house would be, say tweri^ feet wide. 

 [Fig. III.] The wide house would get 

 too high if the same degree were taken 

 as is used for the narrow house and it 

 would present too large a surface to 

 the wind and snow; it would mean 

 stronger bracing and more expensive 

 construction in many ways. Another 

 point is, that with a house forty feet 

 wide and over, the expanse of roof 

 contains more glass in one body com- 

 pared to the ground covered and the 

 number of eaves, and therefore will 

 drain a greater amount of water and 

 melt a greater amount of snow in a 

 given time than the amount of glass 

 on narrow houses. The steep pitch is 

 not required for wide houses. 



Regulating the Boof Fitch. 



Whatever be the reason or the neces- 

 sity for pitch of roof on account of 

 width of the house, why not establish 

 a limit for width for one pitch and a 

 limit for width of house for another 

 pitch? Why have several degrees of 

 pitch for the same width of house? 

 One pitch is not desirable for all widths 

 of houses, in my opinion, but if a 

 pitch is desirable for a certain width 

 it should be made the standard for that 

 width. I do not believe it is neces- 



sary to establish different degrees of 

 pitch to suit different localities, for 

 the variation throughout that portion 

 of the country which has need for 

 greenhouses to any great extent is 

 small, and does it really make a dif- 

 ference when you go south of Mason 

 and Dixon's line? 



For houses up to and including 

 twenty-one feet in width, center to 

 center of posts, a pitch of 32 degrees 

 seems best. Whether or not this should 

 be adopted as a standard for all types 

 of houses, is a matter for discussion. 

 The 32 degree pitch is one that was 

 established a number of years ago and 

 is practically equal to a rise of seven 

 inches on the roof to every foot of 

 width in the greenhouse. Probably 

 custom or habit has had a great deal 

 to do with the keeping of this pitch 

 for comparatively narrow houses. There 

 seems to be no really good argument 

 in favor of changing the pitch for 

 •kouses twenty-one feet wide and nar- 

 rower and, likewise, no especially good 

 reason for retaining it. The advantage, 

 however, seems to be in favor of the 

 32 degree pitch, when construction, re- 

 flection of light, strength, wind pres- 

 sure, snow pressure, ice conditions, 

 condensation and everything else are 

 considered, and I am of the opinion 

 it should be adopted as the standard. 



Fig. in, Illustrating How the Pitch of the Roof Varies with the Vidth of the House. 



