Читать книгу Convenient Houses, With Fifty Plans for the Housekeeper - Louis H. Gibson - Страница 6

Table of Contents

THE HOUSEKEEPER AND THE ARCHITECT.—FLOOR-PLANS AS RELATED TO GOOD HOUSEKEEPING.—LABOR-SAVING DEVICES.—ECONOMY AND GOOD CONSTRUCTION.—COMPACT HOUSES NOT NECESSARILY CROWDED.—WOOD-WORK THAT IS READILY CLEANED.

There is a definite relation between the work of the housekeeper and that of the architect. This is the text of this book. It is a part of the business of the architect to do what he can to make housekeeping easy. He can do a great deal. He should understand the principles and practice of good housekeeping. This knowledge is something which cannot be derived from the architectural schools or offices; it must come from a home. The public press of the country has had a great deal to say about the artistic qualities of domestic architecture, a great deal to say about house decoration, and, altogether, has furnished much valuable matter. Little, however, has been said as to the relation of architecture to good housekeeping. The artistic element should not be neglected. There must also be considered the question of convenient arrangement, economy and ease, for the housekeeper.

Washing dishes is disagreeable work, but the architect can do his part toward making it easier. If we take a conglomerate mass of china, knives, forks, and spoons, pots, pans, and kettles, and bring them together on one small kitchen table, which has a dish-pan on one end and a wooden water-bucket at the back, with a scarcity of everything to facilitate the progress of the work, we have a condition quite different from that wherein there is a roomy sink with a table on each side of it, and plenty of hot and cold water above. An architect may plan a kitchen so that all of these conveniences are possible. He may plan it so they are impossible.

The floor-plan of a house has a definite relation to house keeping requirements, which is not fully appreciated. The difference between a good floor-plan and a poor one may make the difference of three or four tons of coal in the heating of a house during the winter. It may influence the keeping of a servant, the wages to be paid, or may control the necessity for one or more than one. It makes more difference to a man who lives in a house that costs two thousand dollars or three thousand dollars, as to whether he burns seven or ten tons of coal in warming it, than it does to the man who lives in a ten-thousand-dollar or twelve-thousand-dollar house as to whether he burns fourteen or twenty tons. The cost of fuel is of more importance to a man of moderate means than to one of wealth. Then in the matter of service: it is difficult to keep a good servant in a bad kitchen, or in a badly planned house where there is a vast amount of sweeping and other work to be done every day. Those who plan factories and mills arrange them with reference to the saving of labor. The idea in saving labor is to save money.

One can build a better house for a given sum of money at this time than ever before. The real reason for this is to be found outside the fact that material and labor are cheaper now than they have been in the past. It is because of the thought that is put into the planning and arranging of dwellings. It is the thought that saves the money. It adds external and internal attractiveness, convenience, labor-saving devices, and arrangements. Thought helps to make housekeeping easier.

Economical housekeeping can be most readily carried on in a compact house. To say that a house is compact does not necessarily imply that it is crowded, or that any of the conditions of comfort are neglected. If we avoid waste space, such as is frequently assigned to large halls and passages, we merely take away something that is not needed.

It frequently happens that a man and his wife go through life with the hope of building a better house "some day." They are economical; they live carefully; they live in a small house; they are crowded. At last, by dint of hard work and careful management, enough money is accumulated to build the new home. This is the great event which has been thought about for so many years.

The idea in building this house is invariably to get something as different from the old house as possible. It was square; the new building must be irregular. It had no front hall; the new house must have a large one. There were no grates in any of the rooms; in the new house there must be one in each. In the old building the rooms were very small; in the new house they must be very large. There was no porch before; now there must be one running across the front and along one side of the house. Altogether, the idea of the old house and that of the new are in direct opposition to each other. In one instance they were crowded; in the other they have plenty of room. There can be no doubt about the abundance of room.

The building is finished; they move into it. Almost the first person to leave it is the servant whom they had in the old house. She sees the amount of work which she will have to do. It was easy enough to sweep the old house, with its small, compact plan. Housekeeping was relatively a small matter; but with the habits of economy, which rendered the new home possible, they will not employ additional help. The work which is left over by the servant falls to the mistress. Strange as it may appear under such circumstances, it takes the mistress a long time to find the cause of the trouble. It is the house. It was planned with an entire disregard for the work which was to be done. It had not been thought of. The idea was merely to get something which was different from the disagreeable features of the old home. They thought that everything would be easier and pleasanter and more agreeable in every way. The only trouble with the old home was that they were too much crowded. In the new they are not, but have an impossible amount of work to do every day. The difference between what they wish to do and what is done, is represented by fretfulness in addition to the natural weariness at the end of the day.

What has this to do with architecture and economical house-building? Simply this. The house which is economically planned is economical as to money, carpets, sweeping, and strength. The architect may do a great deal for housekeepers by keeping this thought in mind.

To recur to the idea of economical house-building in a direct sense, it may be borne in mind that economy and good construction go hand in hand; that none of the conditions of permanency are sacrificed for the sake of cheapness. Of two houses which cost the same, one may be far more convenient and roomy by an avoidance of waste space and unnecessary material. Evidently one flue-stack will cost less than four. Therefore, if a house can be constructed which has only one flue-stack, it will cost less than one which has four; but the demands of the housekeeper, and those who live in the house, are that the one stack afford the conveniences of four. People do not like compromises in house-building, especially when they are building a home. The compromises come easier when one is planning property for rental. Evidently a house in which one-fifth of the floor space is given up to halls is more expensive than one which contains a smaller proportion of such space. According as one is able to diminish the amount of passage room, and yet meet all of the conditions of good and economical house-keeping, he can reduce the cost of the house as to its building, its furnishing, and the amount of labor required in caring for it. Thus economy in construction, and convenience and ease in general housekeeping movements, go hand in hand. Parallel illustrations might be carried forward, so as to include each detail of the house.

The architect may do a great deal for the housekeeper by making his mouldings and interior wood-work so that they will not catch dust, and can be readily cleaned. Some of our friends, who have studied the artistic qualities of house-building to the exclusion of all other considerations, will say that a regard for housekeeping requirements, in the matter of interior decorations and construction, is placing too great a limit upon their work. They will say that beauty and general artistic qualities are not always consonant with the means which will make easy housekeeping—that they are limited by such considerations. This need not be so; it is simply a question of ingenuity and thoughtfulness. One may be careless of utility, and make very beautiful things. Another may be thoughtful and careful as to housekeeping requirements, and design something quite as beautiful and attractive as the former.

In the above statements will be found the guiding principles which affect all of the work of this book.