Designs for H ouses of ft Indiana Limestone Being the best designs submitted in "a competition for a detached resi- dence, faced with Indiana Limestone conducted by The Architectural Review ALBERT HARKNESS, ARCHITECT 107 WESTMINSTER ST. PROVIDENCE, R. 1. Volume 27 of tke Lib rary Series Published by Indiana Limestone Quarrymen s Association O. Box 400, Bedford, In diana I ■ fM£KY LIBRARY V COlljUBlA UtUYERSW DESIGNS for HOUSES built of INDIANA LIMESTONE Reprinted from A SPECIAL ISSUE of THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Comprising twenty-one of the best designs submitted in the Indiana Limestone House Competition Including the PRIZE, MENTION and certain other drawings selected for publication, and extract from the Report of the Jury of Award Uolume 27 Series B INDIANA LIMESTONE LIBRARY 4th Edition September 1922 Indiana Limestone Quarrymen's Association BEDFORD, INDIANA What Is Indiana Limestone? E VERYWHERE in America w here good archi- j lecture exists the stone residence stands out serenely superior to its tellows built of lesser materials. The desirability of the stone house hardly needs an advocate. A great majority of the finest homes in the land are of stone (a host of them Indiana Limestone), and the builder ot a moderate-priced home is de- terred from using stone usually only by what he conceives to be the prohibitive price of stone. And, no doubt because of the imposing effect of even a small Indiana Limestone building, he has presumed Indiana Limestone to be a costly building material. Fortunately, for those who appreciate beauty and permanence this is not so. Indiana Limestone, “The Aristocrat of Building Materials,” is both low in price among stones, and moderate in cost when compared with other building materials and is within reach of the home builder of moderate means. Lay your building problem before an architect, who is familiar with the characteristics of Indiana Lime- stone and he can design you a dignified home which will cost but little more in this beautiful, natural stone than ii built of other less permanent material. The reason for this lies in the truly unique endow- ment ot Nature, which has bestowed an abundance of this material, having beauty along with strength, and every desirable physical quality usually associated with great rarity, combined with ease of access. Indiana Limestone is obtained only in two counties of the State of Indiana; yet in those two counties it lies in an enormous deposit extending over an area for miles and miles, and is quarried in great uniform masses. It is not very hard as it lies in the ground anti therefore can be quarried by machinery in blocks of any size that a derrick can lift, after which it is cut up and shipped to all parts of the United States and Canada with the same ease and speed of handling throughout as with other highly developed manufac- tures. The whole production process is carried on by machinery and is more like modern large-scale manu- facturing than ordinary quarrying. Indiana Limestone is very easily worked, — sawn, planed, turned, and carved, — another thing that operates to keep its price within the reach of moderate means. As a result of all this, Indiana Limestone has become something no other stone could possibly become, — a real National Standard building material, and is justly termed The Nation’s Buiedino Stone. Millions of cubic feet ol it are used each year, and there is not a State in the Union which has not a multitude o! buildings, public and private, great and small, built of this fine natural stone. In color, Indiana Limestone offers a choice among BUFF (a yellowish gray), GRAY (a silvery gray), and VARIEGATED (a mixture ot the two). Its general tone when in place in a building is of a misty delicacy. Its texture while generally rather fine, varies Irom very fine to somewhat granular, making possible a variety of textural effects, and its structure, whether in the finer or coarser, is always homageneous or massive- that is, without strata, or layers. Every well-designed house built of this beautiful stone is pervaded by an indescribable effect of solidity and permanence, a well-established home- likeness plus a certain opulence or comfort well provided for — the ideal toward which all ambitious home-builders instinctively aspire. One of the most effective steps you can make in the direction of this ideal is to provide yourself with full knowledge of Indiana Limestone, its possibilities and its low cost. To this end you should read Volume I of the Indiana Limestone Library, which will be sent free on request. Indiana Limestone Ouarrymen’s P. O. Box 400 Bedford, Association Indiana The Architectural Review Volume V (Old Series, Vol. XXII) September, 1917 Number 9 A Competition tor a Detached Residence of Indiana Limestone Reprinted from the Report of the Jury of Award Messrs. Franklin Abbott, J. E. R. Carpenter, Ralph Adams Cram, Charles Z. Klauder, and Richard E. Schmidt Announcing the Results of the Competition, Accompanied by a Reproduction of the Prize, Mention and Certain Selected Designs A Summary of the Program T ill! program required a design for a detached residence, suitable to the requirements of an ordinary American family, with the outer walls faced with 4-inch ashlar of Indiana Limestone. The location was an inside lot having a frontage ol 100 feet and a depth of 150 feet, with a restriction set-back of 30 feet from the street and 10 feet from each side lot line, — beyond which restricted area, however, the porches could approach toward the street line. The lot had a slight pitch along the street trontage, and the land rose about 10 feel gradually towards the rear, which faced a little west of north, leaving the front towards the street as south, southeast. The required drawings included a perspective; first and second floor plans; two elevations; a cross section; and a detailed drawing of the entrance- door, a typical bay or porch, with a detail of a lime- stone fireplace and a choice of profile sections. The competitors were also required to use limestone on the staircase hall and vestibule floors, and indicate the scheme for its employment on the floor plan. In order to keep the house within reasonable limits of cost, the floor area was set at 1,300 square feet, allowing an additional 100 square feet for an enclosed porch or 200 feet additional for an open porch, while the height from basement floor to attic floor was not to exceed 27 feet. The Jury was composed of Messrs. Franklin Abbott, ol Pittsburgh, Pa.; J. E. R. Carpenter, of New York City; Ralph Adams Cram, of Boston; Charles Z. Klauder, of Philadelphia (who kindly consented to take Mr. Albert Kahn’s place, as Mr. Kahn was, at the last moment, prevented by camp construction work in the vicinity of Detroit from attending the session of the Jury on the date selected) ; and Richard E. Schmidt, of Chicago, 111. The competition closed on July 2, 1917, and after the drawings had been opened, numbered, and checked, the Jury met at Nantucket, Mass., on July 31 and August 1, where they considered all the plans submitted on the basis of the excellence and originality of the design and its appropriateness to the chosen material, the convenience and arrange- ment of the plan, and the ingenuity shown in the use of the material, and, finally, the practical possi- bility of building the house for somewhere near the established limit ol cost. An Introduction by the Jury After enjoying the opportunity ol examining the designs submitted in this Competition for a Lime- stone House, the Jury cannot help but be both impressed and gratified at the wide geographic interest shown in the somewhat unusual problem established by the program published by The Architectural Review. After their judgment had been made, the Jury found that the drawings had come from every part of the United Stales, and even from Canada; showing a gratifying general interest in the problem, — and a more than gratifying ambi- tion, on the part of both draughtsmen and archi- tects, — to see what they could do with the problem in design that thus inspiringly differed lrom the ordinarv run of problems with which most of them would have to do in their usual practice. Of the total number ol designs submitted, the Jury were able immediately to sort out some forty or fifty drawings, which were unquestionably well above the average of merit disclosed by the Competi- tion, as being worthy of the most careful analysis, in order to give them their due consideration for prize position or mention. Of these, at least thirty- designs showed that practically all their authors understood to a notable degree the nature of the material involved, and handled it with a surprising 4 and easily apparent familiarity with its possibilities, artistic, structural, and mechanical. If any further explanation is necessary or desirable, it might be said that the Jury finally assorted, from these thirty or more designs, a set of twenty; and from these a final set of ten; and that, while all the premiated designs in this set of ten were — in the opinion of the Jury — easily superior to those that remain unmentioned, yet that five or six of the designs ran a very close race for final premiation, and the four selected were only obtained after thorough and careful consideration, and their long- continued analysis and discussion by all the members of the Jury. In regard to the six drawings whose authors have received mention, the Jury feel that, while they endeavored to select these with quite as great care as the prize designs and, as a result ol the consider- able amount of talent and ingenuity displayed by a number of the other competitors and the fact that many of the second ten are to all intents and purposes quite as good as some of those finally selected for official mention, the Publishers of The Architec- tural Review have been requested to include in their publication of the Competition an assortment from the twenty designs which did not receive mention or prize, in the endeavor to show the wide variety of choice from which the judges made their selection, and also to give the designers who developed such individual ideas so interestingly at least the recognition and satisfaction of seeing their work preserved in print. If any general suggestions are to be made by the Jury, it would be to encourage the competitors always to stud } 7 their problem, and their material, so far as possible with the object of obtaining a fresh and individual design, of which unusual and refresh- ing quality at least two of the prize designs partake in a very successful manner. If any of the com- petitors appeared to disadvantage, it was in the case of those who had chosen to develop a design along some already well known and established type, — such as was provided by English Classical domestic precedent, for instance, — when, in the mere endeavor to make their selection with the utmost care, the Jury were compelled to consider such designs as a group, in which case only those that had best solved the problem, both in plan and design, in that particular group earned their admit- tance to the final ten designs from which the prize- winners were finally selected. The Jury also regretted to find so few competitors who had worked out their problem of the relation of the house to the lot in any thorough, consistent, or understanding manner. An inside lot was pur- posely adopted both because of its being more prevalent under actual conditions, and also because it offered particular difficulties — as well as oppor- tunities — for the more conscientious and thoughtful designer. A number of competitors altogether ignored the opportunity thus to study the lot as a part of the plan of the house. Others did not give sufficient consideration to the grade relations, and the location of the house in relation to the points of the compass; while by far the greater majority altogether ignored the lot plan, many failing even to locate the house in any particular position upon the site; while others utilized a plan arrangement obviously unadapted to an inside lot, or only possible on a corner lot with two entrance frontages. Fhe Jury believe that even the most modest and unpretentious house should be designed from the “lot line in" — as is always the case with the most successful and individual dwellings! Hence the lot described was intentionally given somewhat greater area than is customarily allowed in the usual real- estate development scheme, on purpose to point this opportunity both to the quondam designer and — incidentally — to the real-estate promoter besides! Immediately on assembling, the Judges also decided to include a dozen or more plans which, through the apparent neglect or inefficiency of the various express companies, had arrived the morning following the date of closing of the Competition; and further, in a few cases where the assessor engaged in checking the area of the houses varied his figures slightly from those submitted, but yet did not exceed the established limit by more than a few 7 feet, the Jury decided to admit that design and judge it quite as though it had met with the exact requirements of the Competition. A certain amount of latitude was also permitted in considering these houses from the point of view of the element of cost, as it w r as obvious that, with even the more pretentious designs, the element of variation of cost because of the outer face of the walls being made of limestone wrnuld not exceed over four or five per cent of the total cost of the building. So, in the case of those w r ho did not too far exceed the stipulations of the program, either in regard to area or apparent cost, the Judges w 7 ere glad to consider their designs on their merits of architectural plan and elevation, combined with an intelligent use of the material. If any one conclusion is evident or possible of being deduced from the results of this Competition, it is a rather regrettable feeling that so many among these competitors failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to develop their solutions of this com- paratively fresh problem w r ith that originality and 5 distinction that was clearly suggested in the program. uninteresting, besides generally failing to be con- it was also rather surprising to find that, with sistently harmonious in style with the elements comparatively few exceptions, so many of the comprising the remainder ol their design. The competitors failed to employ limestone satisfactorily treatments suggested by the competitors for the in their accompanying mantel designs with the limestone floors in hallways and vestibules also desired amount of originality, interest, and success; seldom display appreciation of the possibilities for while it was especially noticeable that most of the effective treatment latent in the opportunity thus interiors shown were regrettably commonplace and provided by the program. An Appreciation 1st Prize: The design given first prize, No. 42, the Judges considered as easily expressing the best and most intelligent regard for the combined decora- tive and structural employment of limestone. Certainly this design could not be translated success- fully into any other available building material. The author is also to be congratulated on his strict adherence to the program, not the least part of which was the obvious merit of the design in being the most economical use possible for the material, limestone, veneered in this frankly logical fashion upon the face of the structural wall of a simply arranged parallelogram. The plan was one of the simplest, most economical, and most livable among those submitted, with particularly good fenestration, and, in arrangement, design, and detail, exhibited a strict consideration on the part of the competitor of the established limit of cost. One considerable element ol economy would con- sist in the fact that practically all the stone required by this house could be cut and finished at the works, and all the limestone is used absolutely as “ashlar,” i. e., designed in thin slabs facing a solid wall con- struction, without imitating a structural relation to the wall behind — which does not, actually, exist! This competitor also employed varying textures in his stone surface with great intelligence and origi- nality. In addition to the simplicity and distinction of the design, the drawings themselves are to be regarded as having been rendered in an excep- tionally beautiful and workmanlike manner. 2nd Prize: The second prize, or No. 117, shows the material used legitimately, and in a totally different type of architectural design. The composi- tion is here original and picturesque. This scheme is very domestic, and could not possibly be mistaken for anything else than a private house. The scale is also both delicate and beautiful, — perhaps a little too small for actual practical development. The scheme would undoubtedly appear to better advan- tage on a house of somewhat larger size. The style has been handled with absolute knowledge, sym- pathy, and competence, and the plan is both attrac- tive and intimate, being precisely the sort of a house of the Prize Designs one would delight to live in. The drawings are also very minutely and beautifully drawn, with appar- ently precise understanding and knowledge of the requisite type of detail to accompany this general scheme. 3rd Prize: The third prize, No. 30, is regarded as one of the most intelligent and original plans brought out in the entire competition. The author has chosen to incorporate a garage — not required in the program — into his design, and has corre- spondingly condensed his floor area in the endeavor to keep the entire structure down as nearly as possible to the established limit of cost. He has further made full use of his garage as an important element in the exterior handling of his design, as well as an integral element in the plan arrangement. The success of the plan comes largely from the daring disposition of the drive to the garage, and the brilliant adaptation of the entire plan to a staircase established at the very back of the building, with the corresponding compactness in the location of the principal rooms across the front that it was then possible to produce. The second-story plan is not so good as the first. Without the necessity of carrying the staircase to the attic story, it could easily and obviously have been improved. The exterior is a fine composition, with excep- tionally successful fenestration, while the whole is most strictly to be considered as a design for Indiana Limestone, although it must be confessed that it is not the most economical use of limestone, because of the very considerable amount required on the walls inside the porches and outside the walls of the garage. For this reason only, this design was not alloted the second prize, for which it was first considered by the Jury. A house of this sort would undoubtedly appeal most attractively to the owner, while the architectural eye could not help but notice the unusual and original treatment of the walls at either end of the terrace, where the structural end wall of the house has been accepted — and utilized — by the designer as a valuable adjunct extended to bound and enclose the terrace. In this way he made it possible to arrange the two pavilions com- 6 prising the garage and porch, which otherwise would be found somewhat too nearly clear of and unrelated to the small block of the main house. This novel treatment is original, structurally sound, and artisti- cally significant, while the drawings are beautifully made and accompanied by admirably rendered and thought-out details. 4th Prize: The fourth prize, No. 64, is perhaps the most domestic in effect of all those submitted. It is engaging, distinguished, colloquial, and finished in its composition of voids and solids, and absolutely independent of unnecessary or extraneous embellish- A Criticism of the 1st Mention: No. 100 is a truly admirable scheme, very beautifully presented. The plan is compact and definite, although it would not make an entirely satis- factory house for everyone, because it contains only one staircase. While it is sometimes necessary to eliminate a back staircase on account of expense and the consequent necessity of reducing the area to be covered by the dwelling, it would seem that a back stair arrangement of some sort should be considered almost as an essential in a house for a family with aspirations towards a limestone dwelling! While it is true that the third prize design also has only a single staircase, both from its unusual location and the exceptional privacy given its service start, this arrangement is there made as endurable and con- venient as is possible. The entrance arrangement is indirect and a little congested. The exterior presents an original and beautiful scheme, with perfectly rendered and with most intelligently con- sidered details. The designer's apparent inability to restrict his artistic tendencies to a point where he could have maintained a greater consistency between these very simple plans and the more pre- tentious exterior design lost him his chance at a higher award, which the Jury felt it could not, under the circumstances, conscientiously allot him. With a simpler and less expensive, but an equally appropriate exterior, this design might easily have won high place among the prize designs. As it is, it should undoubtedly be considered as among the five designs which the Jury believe to be obviously better than all the others submitted. 2nd Mention: No. 103 is to be regarded as a most gentlemanly, self-respecting, and refined type of dwelling. Although not necessarily a design to be carried out in or exclusively appropriate to limestone (it would as a matter of fact, be equally good in a brick or stuccoed masonry wall, with stone trim- mings), the plan is simple and satisfactory’, and the design is shown by a very beautiful drawing, while the author expresses an adequate knowledge of detail, ments. It is a beautifully simple and consistent study in proportion and composition, accomplished without placing any reliance on superfluous orna- ment. Again this is scrupulously considered as a problem in limestone design, and the result is a most reasonable and practical conception of the whole problem. The plan is especially personal, intimate, and yet simple; while the whole house is presented by the most excellently rendered drawings, and the most intelligent and competent details are also consistently employed throughout the handling of the design. Designs Given Mention the mouldings being of an unusual simplicity and effectiveness. 3rd Mention : No. 89, this design is, also, not neces- sarily limited to execution in limestone. It certainly could equally well be carried out with the central motive of stone, with wings of brickwork trimmed with stone. The design is extremely personal, good in proportion, and with successful fenestration. The plan is not entirely convincing. It is perhaps to be criticised for being a little arbitrary and eccentric, and lacking in directness and simplicity. The drawings are excellently presented, but the detail is hardly up to the high standard established by the treatment of the remainder of the design. 4th Mention: No. 3 is an admirable example of the best modern type of English work. The acces- sories of gates, posts, etc., are perhaps somewhat out of scale with the remainder of the design, making it look rather unfortunately like the gate-house to a gentleman’s park and the design would appear better with these omitted. The plan is strikingly' direct. The geometrical balance and distribution of parts throughout both sheets of drawings is an unusual and interesting element. The detail is competent, and the whole design is to be regarded as a fine, vigorous, and effective treatment of its chosen style. 6th Mention: No. 55 is particularly to be com- mended for its beauties of composition and draughts- manship, the whole making as beautiful and satis- factory drawings as have been submitted in the competition. The drawings show a perfectly reason- able use of limestone, and although the author indicates by the variety and texture of the material on his perspective that he understands its possibilities. The design would be equally good and effective if the walls were built of other material trimmed with limestone. It was a gratification to the Jury to see, and have an opportunity to appreciate, such excep- tional understanding of the psychological value of the suggestive use of the composition of lines in adding effectiveness to the perspective. This design should also be highly recommended for the simplicity of its exterior treatment. W hile the Jury realized its possibilities tor certain sites, they still do not feel it to be of quite as general or practical use as most of the other plans obtained in this competition. Note: — No. 31, the Fifth Mention Design, a fine piece of draughtsmanship, is omitted from this volume because of its eccentric character (termed theatric by the Jury) involving irregularities of plan and elevation and certain illogical construction features. Brief Comment on the Other Published Designs From the Report of the Jury No. 12 indicates an endeavor to combine a little "too much architecture” for the plan and bulk of the building. The result resembles a one-story house with the bed rooms placed in the roof. While eco- nomical of limestone, this introduces an element ot second-story sloping ceilings which would not be ap- preciated by many American families. It rather suggests "a pavilion in a French park,” and the idea is engaging and attractive trom the element of novelty it contains. Publisher’s Note: — This design could be greatly improved by raising the cornice and roof lines. No. 14 would have had a higher rating but for the fact that it exceeded the prescribed area limit. The plans and elevations also fail to agree in exact arrange- ment of certain features of the design, which could easily be corrected. It is sufficiently effective, however, to recognize and commend and because of its very effective plan, win reproduction. The perspective shows a fine exterior composition, but the details are not based on the best work used as precedent. No. 47. This design is perhaps better adapted to a small library or fraternity house, being hardly domestic in style. Unquestionably a stone design, of an excellent type but requiring careful handling in scale and detail, in order to be successful in execution. No. 61 consists of a dignified exterior arrangement of voids and solids, without striking originality in treatment. The details are not quite as good as in some other designs. No. 76. This design is based upon an economical, somewhat crowded, plan. The exterior is of effective proportions, and excellent workmanship and feeling are evidenced in the careful relationship established. However, it is not considered a design exclusively for limestone. The perspective certainly does not do full justice to the excellent proportions and architectural quality apparent in the elevations. No. 81 is a good plan, with an effective exterior, well presented, but with an unfortunate and struc- turally unsound use of a heavy segmental arch over the porch, insufficiently balanced by a pergola upon the opposite end, which is out of key with the whole English cottage scheme of the building. Publisher's Note: — With the removal of the objectionable porch feature, replacing same by a porch more in keeping with the design and which will balance the pergola, this is a most excellent type of design for the moderate size home and is one that may be built with equal effectiveness, either entirely of Limestone or of rough fieldstone, rubble, or even brick trimmed with Limestone. No. 86. One of the most agreeable and pleasing of the designs incorporating French characteristics, with especially interesting fenestration and a carefully handled entrance motive. The cornice indicates a simple and inexpensive, yet effective, stone treatment. No. 107 seems better calculated for the use of rubble treatment, rather than that of ashlar face, limestone. The material designated at the quarry- plant or as “odds and ends” could be employed in this design, and the treatment is therefore to be approved as indicating an unusual yet legitimate use of the chosen material. The scale is nicely- domestic and the composition graceful and satisfactory, with the exception of the too small sizes of the stone blocks as indicated in the perspective. No. 135 shows an unusual but good first-floor plan, accompanied by- a poorly drawn perspective with a somewhat over accented entrance motive. The use of columns on either side and on the porch is con- sidered both pretentious and rather expensive. The motor entrance indicated in plan and section, is a very effective and convenient feature of the house, although it has only been obtained at the cost of expensive grading and most regrettably- cutting up the entire front portion of the lot! In other words, while this scheme might be suitable to certain con- ditions of site and contour, it is here incorporated only by- working against natural conditions. No. 142. Outside the over-large and somewhat pretentious porch motive, this house presents an essentially- simple treatment of the material, after an evidently inexpensive fashion; though one perhaps rather more suggestive of a coarse stone like granite than limestone, however. Also sloping ceilings would occur in the second-story. Publisher's Note:- — This could be modified by raising the roof line somewhat higher without detriment to the design and by a little rearrangement of the second-story plan that would eliminate all objectionable effects of the sloping roof design in the second- storv rooms. 8 No. 42. FIRST PRIZE DESIGN. ALFRED FELLHEIMER & STEWARD WAGNER. NEW YORK CITY !) design fora detac/dedlfsidence of Indiana limestone. No. 42. FIRST PRIZE DESIGN. ALFRED FELLHEIMER & STEWARD WAGNER, NEW YORK CITY 10 DE5J6 N ■FOPL-Ar'CETTCHEP EESTDENCE-OF 1NDJANA.-TJME-5IDNE SUB/AITT-Ep - BY' /S. - - ■ ■ { I jj - -I 1.1 VI NG • IOC*. L •-F-1R.-S.PI ACE 3 -E CON T> --T LOOK T> 1. A M No. 117. SECOND PRIZE DESIGN. ROBERT A. TAYLOR, WEST COLLINGSWOOD. N. J. 11 D"ETA1 L.-CTF -MAIM- ENTRANCE k — ■ . i - DESIGN -FOR.- A'TOACHED 'RESIDENCE-CF-INDIAA-'LJMESTCNE. S U C>AM TT"E.D • B Y * /\ No. 117. SECOND PRIZE DESIGN. ROBERT A. TAYLOR, WEST COLLINGSWOOD, N. J. 12 I - 'X)i lQ <0 cm — Ck? M 13 ' X 16 ' — f.n LIVING ROOM 15 ’ X E-V 6 '* BedRoufTi Bed Room lfc'-rf* 15 0’ SECON D FLOOR. 6 u&K»iTtr Fv- The Living HoomAYant ■ - ' \ m 1 P^Vlll * 7 t . 7X6' | KITCHEN (1 — j 12-6X15' j_j ■ 1 1 ' 1 ^ * 1 j 1 cjos 1 , , J-xl— r - 1 — FpHttiT. L ^ m H Bed Room 1 Ffj ll*X » 3 ’ Ll u ■ rc ' ■ ■■ if gijffi J rr ! W*i jBllgfe No. 100. FIRST MENTION DESIGN. O. R. EGGERS. NEW YORK CITY 17 No. 100. FIRST MENTION DESIGN O. R. EGGERS. NEW YORK CITY Gar. din Si nr i.vrfefc TTRIM 10 FT, COARSE SAND RUBBED EXCEPT STJACE BETWEEN PILASTER. 1 ' AND WINDOW TRIM. THIS AXXY BE ft CUT _ -VslIL \RTO 1ST GANG SAWED WITH STEEL CHIPS OR. FILINGS GIVING TEXTIRE AXPAA VRSIF.R. TONE AIL STONE TO BE TOP LIMESTONE. THE .ASHLAR- TO BE AS VARIEGATED AS POSSIBLE - - 18 No. 103. SECOND MENTION DESIGN. ALFRED COOKMAN CASS, NEW YORK CITY 19 « . . A. - ZX- M i i 1 1 i i V<(MS*OV< C-’U-l-* NOTE .AU-rxrti^p«-a- , HfcSTCMi To COAtit CrtA v AXD iMCErH Tianb.6 E 1 XVAT 1 GM AT C Ct^M^cr- ^■UlU'HCr SICTION ELEVATION OF MAIN ENTRANT CE CD DESIGN FOR A DETACHED OT INDIANA LIMESTONE C-TDDN C r COv-SM- No. 103. SECOND MENTION DESIGN. ALFRED COOKMAN CASS. NEW YORK CITY 20 DESIGN FORA PE7ACHE.D RESIDENCE OF INDIANA LIMESTONE No. 89. THIRD MENTION DESIGN ALBERT HARKNESS. FLUSHING, L. I. No. 89. THIRD MENTION DESIGN ALBERT DARKNESS. FLUSHING. L I. 22 No. 3. FOURTH MENTION DESIGN. SEPTIMUS WARWICK, MONTREAL, CANADA 23 No. 3. FOURTH MENTION DESIGN. SEPTIMUS WARWICK, MONTREAL, CANADA 24 No. 55. SIXTH MENTION DESIGN RUSSELL BARR WILLIAMSON, KANSAS CITY, MO. No. 55 . SIXTH MENTION DESIGN. RUSSELL BARR WILLIAMSON, KANSAS CITY. MO. 26 ELEVATION OF LIMESTONE MANTE.L IN UVINQ fcOOM F W • • J /i i _LI F1R3T FLOOR PLAN DESIGN FOR A DETACHED RESIDENCE OF INDIANA LIMESTONE No. 76. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY JERAULD DAHLER, NEW YORK CITY NORTH-WEST ELEVATION DESIGN FORA DETACHED RESIDENCE OF INDIANA LIMESTONE No. 76. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY JERAULD DAHLER, NEW YORK CITY 28 No. 86. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY DANIEL NEILINGER, NEW YORK CITY 2 <> No. 86. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY DANIEL NEI LINGER, NEW YORK CITY 30 v * 'SECOND • fLOOR. IS . r i _ljg_ FIRST • FLOOR. • soli • or- *«.**r*c*nvt • h ? * ■< K H Mi k K M?- • -Scale or - hjuu » tLU'Arroni • Detail - or • Living • Room • fireplace • StALt r * ^ ? » < “ -5lOE • E.LEVATION Rear. • Elevation Cross • Section DESIGN • FOR° A 'DETACHED • RESIDENCE » OF • INDIANA • LIMESTONE - No. 61. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY E. A. WIKANDER, BROOKLYN. N. Y. 31 PROFILE OF FIRE PLACE ft Y T Q a A N D J E R R Y O PLOTPLAN ° I ‘hi eg' 11 1' BESEGM FOB A BETACMEB RESIDENCE OF INDIANA LIMESTONE No. 142. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY ANTONIO DI NARDO &l J. IVAN DISE, NEW YORK CITY 32 No. 135. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY CHARLES MANNING FOSTER. NEW YORK CITY A0£T// ELEMT/M yOw riJUTOL / sjr&^/rrEE e/' ® Z /y/A/C EOO/tf f/EEPlACE ~ i~~1 J "\ /^'■- M -' •PIUT-fLOOL-PLAN- CtOKT SECOND FLOOK. PLAN DESIGN FOR A DETACHED RESIDENCE OF INDIANA LIMESTONE No. 47. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY FRANCIS H. CRUESS & ROSWELL F. BARRATT, NEW YORK CITY No. 107. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY GUY STUDY & M. BOULCAULT, ASSOCIATED. ST. LOUIS. MO. 36 37 DETACHED <¥g|> Y No. 12. DESIGN SUBMITTED BY L. V. LACY, SKANEATELES, N. Y. 38 No. 14. DESIGN BY R. HALDANE DOUGLAS, PITTSBURGH, PA. Comments by the Publisher Indiana Limestone is first the ideal material of which to face or build the entire walls ot your home but even though you decide on local material for the field of the walls you will require material for the trim, if the design ot your home has any at the usual architectural detail upon which all better type designs rely for the expression ol character and refinement. Indiana Limestone is also the ideal material for this purpose. No other material can so easily be wrought into the required shapes and various architectural forms, except wood, which requires painting and is therefore not a proper material for combining with enduring masonry walls, beyond its use tor doors and windows and their frames. Whether your walls are built ot rough field stone, rubble masonry, ashlar or local stone, brick (either common or face brick), or stucco on hollow tile, you should have the sills and window trim, entrance features, belt courses, porch piers or columns and any wall quoining, pilaster or other trim and certain cornice members, etc., of this fine stone which gives just the right contrast, blending perfectly with any of these other wall materials. Many of the designs illustrated are suitable for building the walls of other masonry materials com- bined with Limestone trim tor the architectural features and detail. The Plans on the Preceding Pages This booklet, Volume 27 of the Indiana Limestone Library is the result ol an effort to demonstrate in definite form the fine effects that can be obtained in medium-priced homes built of Indiana Limestone. The Architectural Review (a prominent journal for the architectural profession) conducted for our association a competition, open to architects and architectural draughtsmen, in which prizes were offered for the best designs for a Detached House of Indiana Limestone of moderate size and cost. The prizes were awarded and the best of the other drawings were selected by a jury of five of the most prominent architects in America. You can, there- fore, appreciate the authoritative character of these designs, which we take pleasure in presenting for your guidance in building your own home. The comments contained in the report of the Jury of Architects being of a professional character, do not attempt to point out in detail the many excellent features of these designs, or the convenient arrangement of the floor plans, which will be evident to anyone who studies them. For instance Designs No. 14, 47, 64, 81, 107 and 117 could all be built with rough field stone or ran- dom ashlar walling with Limestone trim. Designs No. 4, 61, 86, 96, 100 and 104 could be built ol brick with Limestone trim and Designs No. 55, 64, 100 and 104 lend themselves to execution in stuccoed hollow tile with Limestone trim. Furthermore a rather thin Limestone ashlar facing may be combined with a backing of hollow tile giving an economical permanent masonry wall that has many advantages for residence and apartment wall construction. If your home is of the simplest sort you will at least want Indiana Limestone window and door sills, chimney caps and other utilitarian features. And in order to grace the interior of even the smallest home with the great comfort and true hospitality of a real open fireplace, you should have an Indiana Limestone mantel in your living room, library or hall. No other material is so suitable tor this purpose, whether it be an elaborately or delicately carved mantel, or simple moulded fireplace facing. Indiana Limestone mantels will be found in most of the better class homes as well as in clubs and more pretentious buildings throughout the country. Several excellent designs for simple Limestone mantels are illustrated accompanying the house designs. How to Get Indiana Limestone Owing to the circumstances outlined above and to the central location of the quarries, Indiana Limestone is regularly shipped to all parts of the United States and Canada. Stocks of it are kept by stone-workers in nearly every large and medium- sized city and in many smaller places. You should, therefore, have no difficulty in obtaining it. If, for any reason, it is not readily available in your locality, or if it seems difficult for you to obtain the desired stone, regardless of whether your require- ments be large or small, kindly write to the Indiana Limestone Quarrymen’s Association, P. O. BOX 400, BEDFORD, INDIANA, who will assist you and endeavor to see that your requirements are properly taken care of. This association is always glad to cooperate in other ways with intending builders, and will answer any questions and give advice as to the practicability of Indiana Limestone for any particular purpose and furnish specifications and information regarding its proper and economical use. 40 Seal of the University of Indiana carved in Indiana Limestone for the exterior of the "Old College Building" in 1855, which wa9 later removed after a fire to its present position in the ornamental hous- ing over the so-called Rose Well on the University campus. The lettering and delicate carving still sharp and clear and the stone in perfect condition with the marks of the stone cutter's tool plainly visible on the surrounding surface, after sixty-five years of exposure to the weather, a proof of the durability and permanence of Indiana Limestone. t Volume 27 — Series "B" 4th Edition, September 1922 ' % 3 £e Nation's Building Stone