The Site of the House.

If the house is detached, walk around the lot and see where the property lines run. You may need a survey. Examine the fence. Does the gate swing properly? See if the posts are solidly placed. If of wood, is there evidence of decay at the ground line or at joints? If of metal, look for rust. Is a coat of paint required?

Is the property graded so that surface water will not run into the cellar windows or the basement? Does the lot next door drain away from you? It is obviously better to have surface water flowing away from your house than to have it running toward the cellar; but, incidentally, you will not want water from your yard draining into your neighbor's cellar. There may be a masonry wall support

FIGURE 1.-An attractive fence enhances the appearance of the house and lot

ing a bank or terrace. It should have It should have "weep" holes at intervals, to let the ground water drain through the wall instead of backing up behind it. Examine the wall for cracks and bulges that may mean an early repair bill. If trees or shrubs are present, give a thought to their shade possibilities, and to their general appearance in relation to the house. Think also of the back yard as to play space for children and as to room for clotheslines.

Is the lawn well planted and of healthy appearance?

If the house is on a terrace, give some attention to the entrance steps. Are they dangerously steep? A handrail may be needed as a safety precaution.

While you have been looking for the potential trouble makers around the yard, you have probably been giving a certain amount of attention to the house itself.

Architecture and Appearance.

For your own satisfaction you want your house to look right to you, and as a matter of pride you want it to make a favorable impression on others. For this, good design is necessary; but, you ask, "What is good design?" In the first place, it aims at simplicity and honesty of expression. Ostentation, especially in the small house, has no place. Good architecture is also good taste; your neighbors and the public are likely to judge your taste by the house you live in. Finally, good architecture is always sound economy, and the criterion of good architecture is its fitness.

All design features should have a utility basis. They are included to furnish a convenience, to add structural value, or to balance the general scheme of design. They occur not by chance, but rather as the result of mature architectural consideration.

Materials should be used consistently and coordinated properly. Where is the logic, for instance, in covering the upper part of a side wall with shingles and the lower part with siding? Skilled architects often use on the upper portion of a house a wall-covering material different from that used on the lower section, but they do it with a definite purpose, either to reduce the apparent height or to attain an effect of solidity-never simply for variety. Attempts at imitating one material with another are usually unsuccessful and often lead to absurdities.

It is impossible here to discuss at any length the elements of good design, although we know that a trained architect, in developing a plan and design, considers automatically such points as the proper balance of masses and details, emphasis and subordination, harmony of the component parts, and correct proportion.

The employment of an architect is not always a panacea for the evils of house design and construction. In most instances, however, a house designed by a skilled architect and built by a reliable contractor will be satisfactory. If an architect was employed, it is well to know whether or not he supervised the construction; and if not, how closely the architect's plans were followed. If possible, talk with the building inspector, the plumbing inspector, and the electrical inspector. They know the story of the building.

One word of warning! Altering a first-class architectural design, even if done by a first-class builder, may result in a second or third rate job. It may be just as substantial, just as enduring, but something in the character of the house will have been lost. The components of good architecture are often intangible. It sometimes takes an expert to detect the flaws in a design, even though a layman may be conscious that something is wrong.

Good Architecture Gone Wrong.

Let us try, however, to see the reason why a few changes in composition and detail may spoil the architectural effect and thus detract from the dollar value of the house. At the same time study the welldesigned homes and try to get the "feel" of good architecture. It must not have too many distracting features. Small houses especially can not carry much variety. One little home should not be an exhibit of all the designer's ideas.

In the following illustrations notice how good designs have been marred or ruined by inexpert tampering, committed frequently in the

name of economy. From these examples you can see how details, which may seem relatively unimportant, affect the pleasing character of the design. Study Figures 2 and 3.

Each of these houses was built from the same original set of plans prepared by the Architects' Small House Service Bureau, sponsored by the American Institute of Architects. In one case, no changes were made and the attractiveness of the finished house tells its own tale. In the other case, some one meddled. Perhaps a few dollars were saved in the first cost, or perhaps the changes were made with the intention of improving the design. The fact that the position of the entrance end of the porch has been reversed has no bearing.

In Figure 2 the foundation wall was raised and five steps are needed to reach the first floor level. In Figure 3 where only four steps are needed, the effect is better; the house does not seem so high.

Now look at the wood siding. In Figure 2 there are 45 courses compared to only 26 in Figure 3. The wider siding gives the house in Figure 3 an apparently greater breadth, while the narrow siding makes the other house appear too high. For small homes an impression of breadth rather than of height is almost always more pleasing. The narrower windows in Figure 2, as well as the omission of blinds, serve to accentuate further the height at the expense of the apparent breadth. Both houses would be improved in appearance by dividing the lower window lights the same as the upper ones.

As to the down spouts, one is round, the other square. In Figure 2 the down spout is placed at the side of the house, probably to avoid the appearance of this vertical line on the front wall; and yet it will be seen in Figure 3 that this vertical line can be very satisfactory. The down-spout discharge in Figure 2 is high above the ground where the water is sure to wash out a hole and find its way along the basement wall.

Look at the corners of the house where the siding is joined. The mitered corner in Figure 3 may cost a little more than the corner boards in Figure 2, but surely the improved effect is worth while.

Compare the character of the entrance porches. That in Figure 2 is much heavier, and it is also larger. The size and projection of the cornice are greater. Costs should be about the same, but there is a certain quality of desirable lightness and delicacy to the porch in Figure 3 which is not present in the other. So with the side porches. It is doubtful if the railing over the porch in Figure 2 is needed.

The cornice in Figure 3 with its box-type gutter costs more than the hanging gutter shown in Figure 2, but it agrees better with the character and spirit of the design, and would possibly increase the resale value of the house far more than the added cost.

Finally, we have the detail almost too small for comment, but important in its relation to the whole-the chimney stack. That in Figure 2 is about 10 inches higher than is needed, and as a result the chimney is as noticeable as a sore thumb.

Before condemning the house in Figure 2, remember that each change mentioned probably was made after careful thought and with a definite object-either to save money or to improve the design. But even honest intentions could not overcome the obvious lack of specialized training in design, and what is the result? The owner