Volume XVII 
J anuary, 1910 
Number 1 
One of the great advantages of half-timber houses is that the windows can be put where wanted; they need not be symmetrically 
located as in classic design. A residence at Minneapolis, Minn. Harry W. Jones, architect 
The Case for the Half-timber House 
by Allen W. Jackson 
Photographs by James Huntington, T. E. Marr, Wm. T. Clark and others 
The problem of choosing an architectural style for the American country or suburban home is one of the most puzzling that confronts the home-builder. 
In order to bring about a better understanding of the more common types and with the idea of clarifying, as far as possible, this whole matter, we have 
asked a number of prominent architects to present each the case for one particular style. In the last issue Mr. Frank E. Wallis, the well known authority 
on Colonial architecture, told why a house of that type is the only one to build. Mr. Jackson presents herewith the case for Half-timber with as enthusi¬ 
astic an advocacy. A number of other styles will be explained and illustrated in future issues — the Gambrel-roof, Colonial, Italian Adaptations, Modern 
English and German Plaster Houses, The Patio Type, and probably one or two others. 
L ET me warn the young architect about to dine out that, 
while the first question asked of him may be about the 
weather, the second will surely be “Why don’t architects invent 
a new style of architecture?” 
There may be more than one answer as to why we do not 
invent a new set of forms out of hand, but if it can be made 
perfectly clear what an architectural style really is we are pro¬ 
vided at the same time with the answer to the question. If it is 
thoroughly understood that an architectural “style” is but a 
reflection of a certain type of civilization, is but a mirror of the 
customs, manners, limitations and environment of a race, show¬ 
ing the slow, painful, process of the growth and development of a 
people, it ought to be apparent why it is that “styles” are not 
invented in the study. 
Even when it becomes no longer possible truthfully to reflect 
the manners and customs, the requirements and desires of a people 
in the old inherited forms—even then we may not talk of a new 
style, but of modifications of the current one, the whole problem 
being one of growth. It is as impossible for us wilfully to repu¬ 
diate our architecture as it would be our literature. A people’s 
architecture fits them, and no one else can wear it. We may 
admire others, but only our own is flesh of our flesh. 
The particular style that we have been born into, developed 
by our forefathers through centuries, keeping pace with the slow, 
painful progress of the race, always a true index of its contem¬ 
porary condition, a perfect inarticulate measure of its culture and 
refinement; this style, this growing embodiment in stone of a 
people’s dreams and idealism, keeping step down through the 
centuries with the upward march of the race—this for us is the 
Gothic style of England. 
Stone and brick were the materials used for the important 
work and plaster and timber for the farms and houses of the 
gentry. 
The Georgian style, also brought over to this country, where 
we know it as the Colonial, was not an indigenous manner of 
building; it was but an imported fashion, an alien style, as little 
( 3 ) 
