Building Indestructible Homes in 
Four Days 
By LAWRENCE La RUE 
H ad some of our mechanical geniuses been 
contemporaries of Romulus, the old adage, 
“Rome was not built in a day,’’would 
probably have had but small excuse for ever existing. 
It would have been a close call at least, for had the 
old Romans possessed our modern method of build¬ 
ing a substantial, permanent dwelling in four days 
with the employment of but a comparatively small 
number of men, it is difficult to surmise just what 
they would have been able to accomplish with their 
multitude of slaves and their prowess, push, and 
pluck which enabled them to perform so many 
seemingly impossible tasks. Under those condi¬ 
tions, Rome would probably have sprung up as 
quickly as some of the “mushroom” cities of our 
own Western frontier during a “boom,” and its 
seven hills would have been covered with palaces, 
residences, and villas in almost as many days. 
One would not ordinarily suppose that a house 
sprung up in a night, as it were, or in four days at 
the most, could furnish as substantial or comfortable 
living accommodations as one built of wood, stone, 
or brick in [the construction of which several 
months must needs have been spent; but a trial has 
proved that such is the case, and concrete, both in 
the brick and “monolith” form, has stepped to the 
front as a building material which, in point of the 
ease and despatch with which it may be used, bids 
fair to rival the mud and clay of the Southern In¬ 
dians; as a material which combines the strength of 
iron and steel with the enduring qualities of granite ; 
is a substance as fireproof as asbestos, as imper¬ 
vious to water or dampness as stone; and as easily 
obtained as the cement, water, and sand of which it 
is composed. In consequence, all buildings con¬ 
structed of reinforced concrete are fireproof, clean, 
cool in summer, warm in winter, as easily erected as 
an adobe or log cabin, and as strong and substantial 
as any refuge which our primitive forefathers ever 
hewed out of the solid rock in the cliff. 
Let ft by no means be supposed that concrete is 
new as a building material for it was used by the 
Romans several years before the days of Julius Caesar. 
It is evident then, that the progress has been made, 
not so much in the manufacture of the concrete, as in 
the methods of applying it in suitable shapes for 
forming the desired buildings, and it is in this that the 
two methods of “monolith” concrete construction 
now before the public differ. Thomas A. Edison’s 
device, or idea rather, consists in constructing the 
shell or mould of the entire house from steel or other 
suitable material and then filling this with the con¬ 
crete. After this has dried sufficiently, the shell or 
mold may be removed and a building of solid con¬ 
crete remains which will become harder and more 
substantial as time progresses. Houses built by 
this method are known as the “monolith” type as 
opposed to the pressed block style which, as the 
name implies, uses pressed blocks of concrete laid one 
above another as a mason would lay brick or stone. 
Construction of the latter type naturally necessitates 
a plant for the mixing of the cement, sand, and other 
ingredients, and machinery for forming the pressed 
blocks. Even then, when these have been trans¬ 
ported to the building site, the work has progressed 
no farther than would be the case were the structure 
to be built of stone, and as a consequence, concrete 
as a building material has proved to be more expen¬ 
sive, even, than stone. 
The monolith, or one-piece, method of concrete 
construction has been in use for years, but it too, 
demanded an initial outlay of capital that proved 
prohibitive in most cases, and in consequence, private 
buildings of solid concrete are exceedingly rare. 
Mr. Edison pointed out that the excessive cost of this 
construction lay in the fact that the molds, used for 
forming the frame or shell of the building and into 
which the concrete was poured, were of wood and 
consequently could be used but once, and that the 
erection of these same molds formed a large part of 
the initial outlay required. “If,” argued he, “I 
could make some steel molds which could easily be 
erected and which could be used over and over again 
in the construction of successive buildings, I would be 
able to cut the cost of construction in half and build 
a completed house in a few days.” Briefly stated, 
the outcome of Mr. Edison’s reasoning resulted in the 
design of a complete hollow steel structure having 
the shape of the house to be built and which is to be 
completely filled from the top with the concrete mass. 
This concrete can be poured in twelve hours, and 
after the mass has dried sufficiently, the frame may be 
removed, and—behold, the finished house. If the 
concrete, as it is poured, be reinforced with steel rods, 
so much the better, as these serve to give extra 
strength and to prevent the walls from cracking. 
It is evident that the chief objection to this method 
of construction will be found in the time and labor 
required to supply and erect the mammoth steel 
molds, and that many days might be wasted in the 
