“Ragdale,” the home of Mr. Howard Shaw, architect, Lake Forest, Ill., shows an unusual combination of cream plaster, 
dark brown woodwork and bronze-blue blinds 
Modern English Plaster Houses for America 
WHY THE TYPE OF PLASTER HOUSE THAT IS BEING BUILT IN ENGLAND TO-DAY 
COMES NEAREST TO FULFILLING THE AMERICAN REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOME 
by J. Lovell Little, Jr. 
Photographs by T. E. Ellison 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 December 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. Mi. Allen W. ‘Jackson presented in the 
January issue the case for the Half-timber house. In February Mr. Aymar Embury, II., added his convincing argument for the picturesque 
Dutch Colonial. A number of other styles will be explained and illustrated in futuie issues—Italian adaptations, the Patio type and probably one or 
two others. The Editors will gladly do all in their power to answer any questions regarding style, details or construction .] 
W HEN I was asked to write one of a series of articles, each 
advocating a particular style of architecture for the 
country or suburban home, 1 protested. 1 said it was foolish to 
try to prove that one style or another is the only one in which to 
build a house. The word style loomed large in the foreground; 
horrid, with all its arbitrary importance, and exceedingly inde¬ 
pendent and pompous on account of the adulation and attention 
which it is always receiving from the public. 1 started to explain 
to the editor that style is a growth, a long painful process of 
evolution; brought about by the life of the people that has 
developed and perfected it, and not an arbitrary attribute to be 
bought and sold. You know the argument; for no doubt you 
have cornered an architect and asked him some poser about style, 
and he has retired behind this well worn armor; but I gave it up 
and said — well never mind what I said, but I accepted the invita¬ 
tion to argue for a style. 
I was not only to argue for a style but I was to present an 
enthusiastic argument. So at this stage in the game 1 was 
committed to do something that I didn’t believe in doing, and 
do it enthusiastically at that. 1 was to stand up and say, “You 
must build your house in this style or not at all.” I was to be 
uncompromising in favor of a certain fashion. I had begged the 
editor to let me “hedge” a little, and I wrote him some very sound 
truths on tolerance, but he scorned them. 
Then he told me that 1 should present the case for the Modern 
English Plaster House. He knew I liked the modern English 
house and he played to my weakness. 1 still pretended to be 
disgusted, but 1 no longer worried, for I saw a great light, and 1 
hope now to show why 1 felt that my troubles were over. 
In “A Dictionary of Architecture and Building” by Russell 
Sturgis, there are two definitions of “Style” in the following 
order of importance. 
“I. Character; the sum of many peculiarities, as when it is 
said that a building is in a spirited style. By extension, signifi¬ 
cance, individuality; especially in a good sense and imputed as 
a merit, as in the expression 'Such a building has style.’ 
“II. A peculiar type of building, or ornament, or the like, 
and constituting a strongly marked and easily distinguished group 
or epoch in the history of art;.” 
There is more of this second definition, but this is enough to 
show its meaning; it is a type, a fashion. I might have added 
to the sentence quoted, “such as the American Colonial Archi¬ 
tecture,” by way of further explanation. 
But turn to the first definition and read it again, carefully. 
(95) 
