A PAPER READ BEFORE THE NEW YORK CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, APRIL 6TH, 1869.

By P. B. Wight, F. A. I. A.

Mr. President and Gentlemen:—A distinguished member of this body not long since remarked that a fire-proof building was easily defined: “It is a building which cannot burn, and which contains nothing that will burn.” Admitting the definition, I do not propose to dispute with the gentleman, neither do I intend to enter into an elaborate and scientific investigation of the subject; to do so would be to essay a task far beyond my powers, and one which might result in stultifying myself and wearying you. The best I can do is to collect some of the scattered results of thought and observation, into what I trust you will consider to be but a rambling dissertation upon a subject which is of great interest to all of us. It is, therefore, less with the desire to display any erudition, than to introduce the subject, and call forth the views of those assembled here, that I have chosen to address you some remarks on fire-proof buildings. In so doing it is possible that I may enter the field of criticism, and may comment upon the works of some who are here present; but whatever I may say in that direction, allow me to assure you, will be said with justice and candor, and an endeavor to follow Matthew Arnold’s definition of criticism—to find the best ideas in everything. I will look to those whose experience has been more extended than mine, for a continuation of the discussion of what I may only hint at.

It is very seldom that any building is required for such use that only non-combustible material shall be placed in it; but it is still a fact that fire-proof buildings are often called for, and are needed, wherein large amounts of combustible materials are to be placed.[A] To supply such a demand, is one of the most important problems offered to the architect for solution. Of such buildings, are storage warehouses, and stores or shops, wholesale and retail, as well as buildings for certain kinds of manufacturing processes, such as sugar-houses and carriage or furniture shops.

Having devised a building of non-combustible material throughout, the question which next arises is how to keep a conflagration in one part from extending to all the contents of the building. It seems to me, that in buildings for such purposes, the idea of making them only partially fire-proof is not to be considered for a moment, unless, perhaps, the material contained is so highly inflammable that it would destroy the material of the building, even if it is divided into fire-proof compartments, in which case it seems to be folly to go to the expense of fire-proof materials at all. When you know that no part of your building can burn of itself it is evident that every atom of it will offer some resistance to the enemy confined within. I believe, too, that it is impossible to smother or choke a fire once commenced, by the use of closed compartments. Accident or carelessness may leave some openings which will facilitate a draft in some unforeseen way. And even supposing that you have shut in your fire by some arrangement of closed compartments, can you give your compartments less air than a charcoal pit? Close it as much as you will, your confined goods, if the barriers are not forced by the immense power generated by the heat, will at last be reduced to charcoal; for you cannot open a door or window upon such a smouldering fire, but that it will instantly burst into flames. Ships have been brought to port with smouldering fires under their closed hatches, which have been in existence for weeks at a time, while but few have been eventually saved under such circumstances, except by scuttling. Such conditions do not exist with regard to buildings; in them there is not the risk of human lives, which may be saved on shipboard only by closing down the hatches, and scuttling is obviously out of the question.

Store-houses are the only class of buildings which admit of division into airtight compartments, and there is a practical objection to them in even buildings of this class; but few kinds of goods can be preserved without good ventilation. It seems, therefore, that the compartments should be open and accessible from without, but carefully divided from each other. If so, they afford good facilities to those employed in extinguishing fires; and I think that in a building thus arranged, there would be a more reasonable chance of a portion of its goods being saved.

The division of buildings into horizontal compartments, rather than vertical ones, is so much more desirable, where land is expensive, that inventors have almost exhausted their ingenuity in devising thoroughly fire-proof floors. It is obvious, however, that the division of a building by vertical fire-proof partitions, is a matter so easy of accomplishment, that it is questionable whether the horizontal division, so beset with practical difficulties, so expensive, and withal so much less to be depended upon, even when the best systems of construction are used, is ever economical, even where ground is expensive. I even question whether it is of any use to build iron floors, or floors with iron supports, for buildings to contain goods; brick piers and groined arches are alone reliable. If you divide horizontally you must have stairways within and windows on the exterior, both of which welcome the ascending flames. You may enclose your staircase in a fire-proof enclosure, and you may put the heaviest iron shutters on your windows, but you must have doors through which to gain access from your stairways, and you must open your shutters when you want light. There is a contingency that these traps may be set when the enemy comes, and then all your expensive floors represent so much wasted capital.

As yet, I believe, that no buildings in this vicinity, built purely for storage purposes, have been constructed entirely of fire-proof materials, except the St. John’s Depot of the Hudson River Railroad Company. I am not aware that any attempt has been made in these buildings to stop a conflagration among the goods on storage either by horizontal or vertical compartments. The floors, to be sure, are of iron and brick, non-combustible, but with hoistways; and it is not difficult to conjecture, even supposing that all horizontal openings and iron shutters were closed, what would be the result of a fire raging on one of those floors, hundreds of feet in expanse.

Several fires occurring recently in the Brooklyn warehouses have warned their owners to take extra precautions, even though none of these warehouses are fire-proof, if I am rightly informed. One of the best is known as the Pierrepont Stores, near the Wall Street Ferry, and the arrangement of them is well worthy of notice. These are about three hundred feet in length, and are divided into six compartments by fire-proof party walls; the width of each compartment is consequently about fifty feet, and the length about two hundred feet. The floors are of wood, and it would have been useless to make them of iron and brick; for the goods taken in them are mainly sugars, and it would be folly to attempt to arrest a fire of such combustible material in its ascending course, by any practicable device. But what is most interesting in these buildings is that each is fortified against its neighbor. Recently the party walls were carried up about six feet above the roofs, and were pierced with embrasures, through which firemen can play from the roof of one building upon the flames of another, with perfect safety to themselves. Here is an instance wherein capital would have been wasted on the expensive materials required for fire-proof floors.

It is the duty of the architect, as I conceive it, to guide the capitalist in coming to a decision on such points. If he devises economical methods, his commission is lessened, but thereby so much more capital remains unemployed, but ready for investment in other enterprises. It would be foreign to my subject to enlarge upon this point, and show how much more it is to the interest of the architect to study reasonable economy in his works, especially buildings for business purposes; but I will let the suggestion stand for what it is worth. Perhaps a knowledge of the fact that most members of our profession agree with me in this opinion would go far toward disarming the misgivings of many a client upon the question of commissions.

Buildings for manufacturing purposes next demand attention. Some time since a manufacturer and contractor for iron work remarked to me, that if some one would only put up a large fire-proof building, with good steam power, to be rented out for manufacturing purposes, his fortune would easily be made. I have often thought of the suggestion, and wondered why it had not been acted upon. He said that at that time it would be impossible to hire a fire-proof shop or room, with power, in this city. Now, there are many occupations requiring delicate, and not easily replaced machinery, or in which are involved elaborate experiments, running for long periods—the derangement of which could not be recompensed by any amount of insurance—for which a fire-proof building would be almost invaluable. The saving of insurance on such a building and its contents would be greater than the interest on the extra cost of fire-proof floors, and would enable the owner to rent his rooms at a lower rate—in proportion to the equivalent given—than could the owners of buildings with wooden floors. The extra cost of fire-proof construction in a manufacturing building is small when compared with that of a bank or public building. The walls and ceilings require neither lath nor furring, and the floors may be of flags or slate, bedded on the brick arches, or what is better, plates of cast-iron bolted to the beams—which will presently be described. All inside finish may be discarded, and iron doors, of No. 16 iron, with light wrought-iron frames, hung to stone templates in the jambs, are the only coverings required for the openings.

Such fire-proof buildings as have been erected for manufacturing purposes have been specially designed for single occupants. The most perfect and the earliest that I know of is a building erected on Vestry street, about ten years since, for the Grocers’ Sugar Refining Company. This building, as far as its material is concerned, is absolutely fire-proof. It is most remarkable for its floors, which are made of plates of boiler-iron, riveted together and secured to the beams in large sheets. This is the most simple system of floor construction I have ever seen, and has many advantages. But I have not seen the building in use, and do not know how the floors answer the ends for which they are intended.

Some of the new buildings for the various gas works in this city are fire-proof. The best are those of the Metropolitan Company, at the foot of Forty-second street, North river. But they are at best, only sheds—brick walls, with iron shutters and roofs. Large, open, and well ventilated, they serve their purposes well; but they can hardly be called architecture.

The most extensive attempt to build a fire-proof building for manufacturing purposes was the enterprise of Harper & Brothers. This was one of the pioneer buildings of the new dispensation. The Harper girder is well known; it is an ornamented cast-iron beam, with a tie rod, and was the father of the truss beam, now so extensively used for supporting the rear walls of stores. It has been succeeded by the built-up beam, now generally used for girders, and the double rolled beam. It was eminently a constructive beam, using iron according to its best properties, cast-iron for compression and wrought-iron for tension. I doubt not that it will some day be again used where girders are required. The built-up beam was invented for the restorer of the “pure” styles, who think that furring strips, laths, plaster and a modicum of run moulding, not to forget “a neat panel on the soffit,” to be a good substitute for the honest lintel of the Greeks, and more artistic than the constructive beam which James L. Jackson & Bro. designed and executed for the Harpers. When men are no longer ashamed to display good iron construction, and bend their artistic conceptions to their constructive skill, we may hope to see something like the Harper beam revived, and decorated in a manner befitting its use. But I fear that this will be done when a more rational generation than our own holds the sway. But to return. In Harper’s building, as in the Cooper building, the deck beam was used for the floors, and brick arches, such as those now in use, were employed. The deck beam has also gone out of use. When first employed, iron beams were not made for houses, but for ships. The I beam, has replaced the deck beam for the former purpose. And in this connection, I would suggest an inquiry into the practicability of using the deck beam inverted. It has always seemed to me that the broad flange would best sustain compression, and that the roll, having the form of a round bar, would best resist tension. The matter of the bearings is easily remedied by a cast-iron shoe on each end of the beam and bolted to it. This shoe, with a broad foot, would answer the purpose both of template and anchor, and if made to project from the wall and assume an ornamental shape, might become a visible and constructive bracket. The deck beam inverted would evidently present the best appearance from below in cases where the flooring is placed on top of the beams—the various methods of doing which I propose to discuss further on. Should the deck beam come again into use, it might be made of more ornamental form without detriment to its strength. The bottom roll or flange could be moulded in various ways.

But, except in so far as the floors are concerned, the Messrs. Harper’s building is far from being fire-proof. There is much wood-work in its inside finish, and the contents being of a highly inflammable nature, I fear that fire would have its own way in that building unless early checked.

Besides these buildings two partially fire-proof publishing houses have been built; the Times Building and the Ledger Building; but there is nothing in either that it is pertinent to my inquiry to mention;—they are manufacturing buildings in the same sense that the Harper’s Building is, but the former might as well come within the class of office buildings.

The fact of the American Bank Note Company having taken quarters in the Mutual Life Insurance Building, upon their expulsion from the Custom House, illustrates what my friend mentioned about the demand for buildings for delicate and elaborate processes, such as the art of bank note engraving, and goes to show that such branches of business are obliged to settle in buildings erected for other purposes. The work of a bank note company is in some respects a heavy manufacturing business, which any one will believe who examines the powerful boilers and engines in the cellar of the Mutual Insurance Building; but it is also a delicate artistic business, requiring steady floors, good light, and absolute safety from fire, to the valuable materials used and kept in it, which not money alone could replace.

From the Bank Note Company we come next to the Assay office whose risks are similar. I am informed that it is absolutely fire-proof, but I have had no occasion to visit it.

Of Banks and Insurance Buildings we certainly have a large number which are to all intents fire-proof, though but few are thoroughly so. It is generally admitted that such buildings are not in danger from their contents, and to this belief may be ascribed the fact that we already have so many of this class. The Continental Bank, the American Exchange Bank, the Mutual Life Insurance Company’s building, the Park Bank, and the City Bank building, recently remodeled, are absolutely fire-proof. Nothing less than a bonfire of all the furniture, books, and papers that could be collected together in any one room of any of these buildings would endanger its destruction. They are safe from any ordinary casualty. But in all the rest there is enough wood-work to make the word “fire-proof,” as applied to them, of very doubtful significance. To show what a practical eye the Insurance Companies have, let me say that in nearly all the so-called fire-proof bank buddings the rates of insurance are as high as in ordinary business buildings. The rates are unusually high in the building which I happen to occupy, on account of a well hole in the centre which is trimmed with wood, and would carry a fire through the whole building in an instant. What I might say in relation to buildings of this class will be comprised in some practical suggestions upon fire-proof buildings generally. Let us then look for a few moments into the matter of constructive details.

And, firstly, how shall floors be constructed? Before the “iron period,” when our Washington Capitol, our City Hall, our old Exchange and Custom House were built, the Roman MediÆval vaults only, were used—either of stone or of brick plastered. When the width of a room was too great for one span, granite columns or brick piers were used, as in our old Exchange, now the Custom house. The floors above the vaults were leveled up and paved with flags or marble tiles. As far as grace, strength and absolute relief from the dangers of fire were concerned, this was a perfect system. But now space is demanded; there must be no more heavy piers and no great thickness of floors. We are therefore forced to use a material which, though not combustible of itself, will do little work if exposed to great heat; and in this is seen the great difference between our fire-proof buildings of the brick period and those of the iron period, and the inferior fire-proof qualities of the latter. The problem now is, to use the minimum of brick and the maximum of iron. I think, therefore, it must be conceded that with the best we can do with this material, there is danger; and the problem might be put thus: “Given Iron, make as nearly fire-proof buildings as possible out of it.” What, then, has been done with it thus far? For columns, we have used cast tubes of all shapes and sizes and the wrought-iron pillars of the Phoenix Iron Company; for girders, we have used compound beams of cast-iron, with wrought ties—built up beams of various forms of rolled and plate iron, bolted and riveted together—and common rolled beams, used double; for floor beams we first used deck beams for wide spans and railroad iron for narrow spans; these have now been superseded by the I beam of various sizes. The Rolling Mills now have on their circulars I beams of great dimensions and suitable for girders, but refuse to fill any but large orders; indeed, I believe that only one mill has rollers for beams larger than thirteen inches, while the others will not put up machinery until they get large enough offers. So we are thus far deprived of large smooth beams of one piece, for girders of long span—beams which no one would desire to hide from view, but which might honestly tell their use to every beholder. For supports between beams we have had Peter Cooper’s terra cotta pots and the four inch brick arches. The former are out of use and the latter are almost universally employed. Corrugated iron—first used in the Columbian Insurance building by Mr. Diaper—has also gone out of use. The destruction of the Fulton Bank, a so-called fire-proof building, sealed its fate as far as floors are concerned.[B] We have also had the experiment of stone floors in the American Exchange Bank, by Mr. Eidlitz, and repeated by another architect in the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Building, at Newark, N. J. The stone slabs, brick arches, and the Parisian floors—of plaster or concrete, bedded upon bar iron gratings inserted between the beams—are the only practical systems of fire-proof floor construction, now in use. The only attempt to lay the floor on the beams, of which I have knowledge, is in the sugar house above mentioned. This has suggested to me several methods of laying rigid floors upon beams at considerable spaces (three to five feet) from one another. Preliminary to so doing, I have above suggested the revival of the deck beam, or the I beam with a better form for the bottom flange, and the adoption of cast-iron shoes for the bearings.

The objections to the brick arches are that their great weight requires heavier beams than would otherwise be used, and that the form of their soffits is not beautiful; for they have the appearance of a long succession of little wagon vaults, requiring a resort to the doubtful expedient of furring the ceiling with iron lath. I think it might be objected to the French system of floors, that the expense would be too great, plaster being a dear article with us in comparison with its price in France, while our own cement has not the requisite properties to enable it to be substituted, besides being almost equally costly. The stone slabs, of Mr. Eidlitz, are the only rigid material thus far used successfully with iron beams, and could be used to better advantage if laid on the beams rather than resting upon their lower flanges, as is done in the American Exchange Bank. They are doubtless the handsomest material that can be used for this purpose, but are open to the objection of being heavy and expensive—where expense is a question, and utility only is sought—requiring heavy beams and calling for elaborate cutting on the under side. It will be pertinent to our inquiry, therefore, to ask if there are any other rigid materials adaptable to this purpose, and possessing the desired quality of lightness and cheapness. A former draughtsman of mine, now a member of the Institute, first suggested the use of slabs of slate, about two inches in thickness, for spans of four feet, and thicker or thinner in proportion to the distance of the beams from centres. I give his suggestion for what it is worth. But it led me to believe that we would eventually come to cast-iron as the practicable material for this purpose, possessing the requisite qualities of lightness and cheapness and capable of being bolted to the beams, thus answering all the purposes of flooring and bridging. Cast-iron plates may be used for flooring in two ways; first, when deafening and finished floor covering are required; second, when neither is required, as in manufacturing buildings, wherein a reasonably smooth flooring is required, and a few planks, laid where workmen habitually stand, will answer the purpose of non-conductors of heat. Experiment must determine the minimum quantity of iron (in proportion to the strength required) to be used in the floor plates. In obtaining the proper form for strength, and to ensure true castings, the bottoms of the plates will naturally be covered with raised flanges, except at the edges, where they bear on the beams. These flanges or ribs may assume a decorative form, either a plain diaper or a larger pattern to form a complete design for the ceiling when many of them are combined. By a judicious arrangement of the flanges the actual thickness of the iron may be reduced to three-eighths, or a quarter of an inch. When deafening is required, strengthening flanges may also be cast on top of the plates, and consequently the beams can be placed at wide intervals. The flanges on the top will then serve to keep the concrete, used for deafening, in its place, and avoid the cracks which might occur in a large surface of cement. The deafening may be of any thickness required, and will serve as a bed for the floor tiles. All that is then required for the underside is judicious decoration of the beams and floor plates. When deafening is not required, as in manufacturing buildings, the tops should be smooth. It has been objected by a manufacturer, to whom I explained this system of construction, that the floors of iron would be too cold for the feet of workmen. But it would be very easy to put down platforms of wood where the men habitually stand. Besides, when the lower story is heated, the stratum of hot air immediately under the ceiling would naturally keep the floor at a higher temperature than that of the air in the room, and the greater conductibility of the iron would rather tend to warm the feet of those who stand upon it. The plates, in all cases, being bolted to the flanges of the beams, would serve as bridging for the floors.

By the above-described construction of floors, I would attempt to get rid of the obnoxious and expensive iron lath, so generally used. But it is more difficult to avoid their use on side walls, when the walls are to be plastered—and let me say here, that there can be no excuse for plastering the side walls in a fire-proof building, except for economy’s sake. The easiest and by all means the cheapest expedient when plastering is required is to build four inch walls, secured to the main exterior walls by iron straps. These will not conflict with the building laws, provided you build your walls thick enough at the outset. There is, however, no better way in which to finish interior walls than to line them with stone or marble, or both combined. Where decorative effect is desired, I would use stone with marble panels. Our native quarries now afford stone light enough in color to set at rest all objections that may be made to its use on the score of light. But if those should hold good the material might be marble paneled with marble, the former white, and the latter colored. Obviously the cheapest material for wall covering in natural materials would be slabs of white marble. Let us then make some comparison of figures, and see what can be done with this material. Iron lath, of the form generally used, cost $1.25 per foot. Three coat plastering costs nine cents per foot. A responsible dealer in marble informs me that he will put up inch slabs of Italian veined or Vermont marble for one dollar and a half per foot. Which, then, would you choose, polished marble at $1.50, or plaster, as good in appearance as that in any tenement house, at $1.34? This is a fair comparison for exterior walls or ceilings. Italian marble slabs can be procured in any quantity, from eight to nine feet long and three feet wide. In a room fifteen feet high, allowing four feet for wainscot and two feet for cornice, you may line your walls with one length of marble.

What treatment do we now give to doors? We build brick jambs with wooden or iron lintels, as if we would trial the doors with wood. We then put up cast-iron jambs, rivet to their edges pilasters or architraves of the same material, and then surmount the whole perhaps, with a cast-iron cornice and pediment. Some have gone so far as to inlay the panels of the iron work with bits of colored marble, thus heightening the effect of the already rough finish of the iron, a roughness which the best foundrymen have been unable to prevent, and which, it would cost untold money to reduce down to the smoothness of ordinary work in pine wood. In one of our most pretentious houses on Fifth Avenue, they are now putting up jambs, architraves and cornices made of sawn slabs of marble or marble boards, in the same manner in which wood and iron have been used. And what does all this amount to? In the category of shams, there is no equal to this monstrous succession. You have imitated a Greek or Roman architrave and cornice by a wooden sham, your wooden sham has been imitated by an iron sham, your iron sham has been imitated by a marble sham; and what is the result? You have kept the form all along; you have come back to the original material by a succession of imitations, and have at last a shell without meat, marble carpentry instead of marble architecture. In all the stages of your attempt to revive the old forms, you have sham imitation of shams down to the final achievement of your carpenter in marble. Next must follow, I suppose, the imitation marble-vender, who will crown the whole fabric of shams and give you something which can as much be called architecture as Mr. Shoddy’s painted “red backs” and “blue backs” resemble standard literature. I offer no original suggestion to remedy this condition of affairs. Go back to your old Greek, go back to your old Roman models, if you like them, and seeing how they are built, go and do likewise; but spare us these sham contrivances. Set up your door posts and plant your lintel upon them, whether for exterior or interior use, and carve them to suit your fancy. They will be at least good so long as they be genuine and strong. Then figure up the cost of this kind of work, and see how much you have saved for your clients.

In conclusion, let me urge you to study diligently the various problems affecting this subject, which, in your experience, are continually offered for solution. In so doing, look mainly to a practical solution of the questions which may arise, and free yourselves from all consideration of so-called rules of art, which might control you. The development of architectural design was no less affected by local and circumstantial conditions, with the ancients, than it is with us; but the conditions at the present time are essentially different from, and decidedly more various than those which controlled our ancestors, whether of the classic or mediÆval period. Whatever may have been achieved by art in those times, was the result of, and co-ordinate with the practical solution of problems then offered.

We have ignored the conditions which specially affect us, and the result is that our architecture, for whatever purpose, is without originality, and wholly irrational. As long as we allow ourselves to be governed by rules of art founded on the experience of the past, and precedents established by conditions which now do not exist, we need hope neither for good construction nor good art. The attempt to engraft the traditions of the past upon the practical work of this century has resulted in failures involving the waste of hundreds of millions of capital in this country alone; I might name from memory a score of buildings, many of them the most prominent, and all the most costly that have been erected, in proof of this assertion. I would commence with our national Capitol, in whose dome may be seen the most flagrant attempt in all modern time to perpetuate a traditionary style in a material entirely different from that in which the style was developed; so different that the foundations under it could not carry the superstructure, if it were erected of the material for which it would appear to have been designed; and for want of foundations of sufficient breadth, even to carry the iron work, it has been necessary to carry the whole exterior iron colonnade upon iron brackets, concealed beneath what appears to be the podium for the whole dome, but which is in reality a box of thin plates of cast-iron, secured to a light framework, built out over the roof of the building.

In erecting modern fire-proof buildings, especially in so far as iron work is concerned, all the conditions imposed upon the architect are different from those which existed in past ages. The same may be said of the use of iron in any building. Subserviency to style, when the material used is not such as was the controlling element of that style, is destructive to all good art; for there can be no truly artistic effect except that which is produced by the best use of material, and its decoration in best accordance with its nature. If the use of iron is ever to lead to the erection of buildings worthy of being called works of art, such a result must be attained only by the recognition of this principle.

The best thinkers have doubted whether there can be any such thing as architecture in iron, assuming, of course, that to be called architecture, the material must be constructively used; and there is good reason for these doubts. An iron building does not always require the force of gravity to maintain the cohesion of its parts; it possesses such properties that it may be swung in the air or balanced on a single point, if it is necessary so to do. It is a machine admitting of as little decoration as a steam engine or a printing press. If iron alone were used for buildings, constructive necessity and economy combined, might lead us to build houses like steam boilers or water tanks.

What has been done thus far toward the erection of iron buildings on constructive principles? We can only recur to the buildings of the Crystal Palace pattern. We had a beautiful one in New York, admirably constructed, and well designed for its purpose; but even that building was decorated in the Moresque style, perhaps as nearly appropriate to the material employed as any that could have been selected. Here originality in treatment failed, just where it was wanted. The same constructive principles were involved in the design of this building which would have been involved in the erection of a fire-proof building. In this respect it was a success.

In the erection of fire-proof buildings, we are forced to do the best we can with iron while using it in the most varied capacities; but when its use can be spared, let me entreat you to rid yourselves of it; where it must be employed, use it rationally and constructively; but better not decorate it at all, than imitate styles not in harmony with its constructive properties. As all iron must be painted, I am inclined to believe that the best method of decorating it is in colors; for this treatment the iron must be plain and simple, and the colors may be proportionately brilliant. With regard to other materials, I would suggest nothing more than is said above—in all things build rationally. First, let your work be strong and well balanced—no part too heavy—no part too light. Then decorate it in harmony with its constructive features, never concealing materials, except where necessary to protect them, and emphasizing the main lines of the construction by ornamentation. Thus only can the great problem of the day be solved, and the fire-proof architecture of the nineteenth century be made worthy of a rational and progressive age.

Note.—An inspection of Harper & Brothers’ building, since writing this paper, has convinced me that the principle of division into horizontal compartments has been carried out more thoroughly in it than in any other building of the kind. There are no openings through the floors. It contains neither interior stairs nor hoistway; both are on the exterior. The stairs are in an isolated tower approached by bridges, and the hoistway is without enclosure. This arrangement is however extremely inconvenient.

FOOTNOTES: