November, 19 19 
21 
rapidly, perhaps, than ever before, we may 
surmise from the housing clamor heard on 
every side. The common outcry about high 
rents, the stimulus to domestic building ac¬ 
tivity administered by a Government bureau 
especially charged with that duty, the co¬ 
operative building projects now and again 
mooted by divers groups of disgruntled rent 
payers-—-all these are unmistakable indications 
of a seething unrest that may ere long break 
forth into a spawn of hideous domiciles. 
Inferior Small Houses 
The ground plan of the early 
New England central chimney 
type shows the utmost simplicity 
The failure of the average 
small house architecture to real¬ 
ise a more satisfactory standard 
of performance is attributable 
in part to certain popular pub¬ 
lications that have consistently 
apotheosised and held up for 
imitation second and third rate 
models. It is due also in part 
to the short-sightedness of 
“practical” clients; in part to 
the not altogether unnatural 
temptation for the architect to 
court the one large commission 
rather than two or three of lesser 
size; and in very large part to the ignorance 
and stupid avarice of the speculative builder. 
Fortunately, there now seems to be a wider 
recognition of responsibility towards the small 
house, on the architect’s side, and this hopeful 
attitude needs only the sympathetic co-opera¬ 
tion of the laity to ensure a gratifying measure 
of good results. Fortunately, also, some of 
the speculative builders seem inclined to learn 
wisdom and to understand, thanks to several 
mental jolts and wholesome object lessons, 
that “beauty is the most utilitarian asset we 
possess.” 
So far as the house of modest size is con¬ 
cerned, the most insistent problem to be met 
Then a lean-to was added to this 
central chimney type 
The two chimney type 
also characteristic 
Floor plan of Middle Colonies type with 
two end chimneys, occurring both with and 
without kitchen extension ' 
just now is the demand for simplification. In 
this connection two considerations loom large. 
First, the difficulty of the domestic servant 
question invites the greatest measure of elim¬ 
ination possible. And that, of course, means 
simpler household arrangements, fewer but 
more fully used rooms, and reducing house¬ 
work to its lowest denominations. Second, 
there is the high cost of building materials 
and of labor. The aforesaid considerations 
apply with equal force both in the country 
and in suburban districts. 
Now simplicity is not to be 
confounded with ugliness, pov¬ 
erty of invention, threadbare 
crudity, or shoddiness. Under 
ordinary circumstances, in the 
past, nothing could be much 
uglier or more stupid than the 
average small house unfortunate 
enough to have been built 
under stress of close economy. 
Nothing could betray a more 
deplorable lack of imagination, 
especially if left to the concep¬ 
tions of the speculative builder 
or the local jobbing contractor, 
as too many appear to have 
been; nothing could react more unfavorably 
upon the consciousness of those obliged to in¬ 
habit it or to behold it daily. 
Abundance of Good Precedent 
There may be causes a-plenty, but there is 
absolutely no reason whatever why the solution 
of the present problem in modest and simple 
domestic architecture should assume anything 
but a thoroughly agreeable aspect. The key 
to the situation is to be found in our openness 
of mind and in our willingness to heed and 
apply a lesson from the great body of past 
architectural experience within our ken. 
(Continued on page 80 ) 
T bird, the 
lean-to was 
partitioned 
In remodeling this almost im¬ 
possible old house the rear is 
put on the street and the 
kitchen in the parlor 
The house as found is one of 
the apparently hopeless mid- 
19th Century types. The 
drawings show it transformed 
In the remodeled design the living-rooms open 
on the side where is the most agreeable outlook, 
the chimney is placed outside and French doors 
added. Edmund B. Gilchrist, architect 
j 
1 Ipf 
rn ] 
I' 
! p 
i jyt, i 
l i. 
