may have saved himself a few dollars, perhaps even a hundred, but how about the resale value of the two houses? There he has lost many times the amount of his first savings. This is the practical side of good architecture and its direct benefit to the pocketbook.

While we are arming ourselves with information on the value of good design, let us examine two illustrations of brick houses built from the same plan, furnished by the Architects' Small House Service Bureau. The interiors of these houses are practically identical. The walls may have even the same kind of brick in them. Yet any one given a choice would unhesitatingly select the beautiful, light-colored house in Figure 5 in preference to the dark, unattractive example in Figure 4.

First, in the house in Figure 4 dark-colored mortar of the same color as the brick has been used for the joints, giving a painted, inartistic effect.

The white trim and the white down spouts against the somber background of the walls offer a contrast much too striking. The impression is one of jarring discord.

The entrance, largely because of this same color contrast, is unsuited to the house.

A few simple changes toward the pleasing design in Figure 5 would have materially improved the dark house and undoubtedly have added to its value. If the roof line had been lowered slightly. and if only two entrance steps were needed instead of five; if blinds had been added to the windows in the upper story and at the ends of the house; if light-colored mortar had been used for the brickwork (note the entrance steps, as an example), a vast improvement in appearance would have resulted.

The exterior in Figure 4 would still be less attractive than the perfected design in Figure 5 where every detail of entrance, window size, and ornamentation has been carefully thought out, but nevertheless, the changes suggested would have given a fairly pleasing effect. Figure 4 as shown is a vivid example of the loss in value that may occur from tampering with the design of a trained architect.

In Figures 6 and 7 a different point is illustrated. The same plan was used for each house, but the designer intended the house to be built with a wood exterior, as shown in Figure 7. Here we see the danger of building a house with a material different from the one for which it was especially designed. In Figure 6 a few changes have been made in the slope of the roof, inclosure of the porch, and height of chimney, none of which has improved the appearance. A smooth stucco over the walls would have avoided the impression of fish scales, and it was scarcely necessary to select those particular awnings the contrast is too startling.

The fundamental error, however, lies in the use of a material different from that originally intended. It is not the use of stucco but its abuse that is wrong here. Houses with stucco exteriors may be just as attractive as those of wood or brick. As an example, note the delicate beauty of the stuccoed house shown in Figure 8.

These examples, it is hoped, will give you a better idea of how to judge the design of a house. They emphasize the fact that simplicity and charm usually go hand in hand. Remember that appearance, although it has little to do with structural integrity, will often