The Sun.
London, England, 1868-09-30 00:00:00

THE COST OF CHURCH BUILDING.

The following letters have been addressed
to a contemporary :
SIR,—For some time past reports—which,
however, in no particular case have appeared
with proof—have been too easily credited,
that the cost of my churches is inordinately
expensive. These reports have culminated
in a letter I received this morning from a
valued client who, in the most friendly manner,
has impressed them upon me. I can scarcely
say they are prejudicial to me in my profes-
sion, as I have few clients who would not tes-
tify to the contrary ; but, as they are generally
made by those who know nothing of me and
my works, and exemplify some of the difficul-
ties under which an architect labours in his
profession, I ask the favour of your inserting
My reply to thc letter I received, as an answer
to such charges in general.—l am, sir, your
obedient servant,

E. WELBY PUGIN.

Ramsgate,Sept. 24, 1868.

REV. AND DEAR Siß,—With your permission,
I will take some little trouble to place matters
before you in their right light. On receiving,
your original instructions respecting the con-
ventual church, you may remember that I sug-
gested a plan which I considered was sufficient
for your requirements. This, however, did
not exactly meet your views, and you proposed
enlargements, which brought the dimensions
to a building 140 ft. long by 41ft. wide. This,
with a chapel for the laity, 24ft. long by 22ft.,
sacristies, cloisters, leading to them, and a
small tower for three bells, you required for
a sum of £2,000 ! Now, how was this possible?
On cubing the work the price was less than
11,d. a foot, which is insufficient, even to cover
the cost of a common cottage. This was enough
to damp one's energies at starting, for you told
me that you expected " a gem," and what sort
of a gem could have been produced for the
money named—or, rather, let me ask what
sort of a conventual church at all of the size
required? Why the sum would not have paid
for the bare materials. It was, moreover, re-
presented to me as a sine qua non, that a pro-
per conventual style and spirit should be
thoroughly preserved. To do this and keep
the work within a moderate cost was a diffi-
culty of no little magnitude, and involved a
considerable amount of thought, time, and
trouble. However, I applied myself to the
work, not without the consciousness that the
means provided and the end aimed at were
sufficient to take the wind out of any man's
sails, and discourage him in his task. I took
upon myself to reduce the dimensions of the
community church to a little more than those
I originally suggested, which, however, were
still 132 ft. by 36ft., but increased the chapel
for the laity to 48ft. by 38ft., so that the area
of the buildings remained much the same ; but
so far from running into extravagance, or
" studying beauty more than usefulness," I
have, according to my invariable practice,
studiously avoided every feature and detail,
ornamental or otherwise, which was not abso-
lutely necessary, and in the minutest respect
consistent with the instructions I have re-
ceived, presuming that a conventual chapel,
in accordance with the rule and manifesting
the spirit of a religious order is required, and
not a barn.
I can safely say that not a feature, not a
moulding, not an ornament, not even a line,
is introduced for the sake of effect, or to the
prejudice of actual " usefulness." Why, this
is my constant cry, in public and in private,
that architects receive too much money for
their works, not too little, and employ it in
fancies and caprices of tastes, and in the
application of unnecessary prettiness and use-
less features, which ruin simplicity, destroy
form, propagate a love of over-ornamentation,
and entail extravagance and expense. Yet
clients are always demanding these, and select
designs, not for beauty of form, perfection of
proportions, simplicity of outline, and suitable-
ness of feature, but from a shallow desire of
seeing something flashy and " sensational."
Thus it is that clients are really the sole source
of the very complaints charged upon the
architect, that he runs them into expense
from a preference of the ornamental to the
useful.

I must, however, give you a practical refu-
tation of the " report" you allege to have heard,
that I " run people up to extravagance." I
think, when men make a charge of this sort,
they should prove it by examples ; but the pre-
sent case, like many others, is an exemplifica-
tion of the old proverb, " Give a dog a bad
name, &c."
Let Inc ask you, did you hear of one single
illustration of this charge ? So far as I know,
my works will bear the most favourable com-
parison, as regards cost, with' those of any
other architects. I fearlesslyproduce the dimen-
sions and prices of some of my churches. Can
bimilar buildings, in any direction, be named