St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-22

SNcHa anu ctCu WHICH, lucy uO dpUcdI
at the bottom of the card on the per-
spective view they are often incor-
rect. The perspective was to be drawn
an the scale of quarter of an inch
to the foot. But this drawing. pre-
senting. as 1t does, the best view of the
building as whole, was the object of
all the artistic skill the designer could
contribute or purchase. No "pent-up
Utica of specifications MAS allowed to
obStruct the still, small voice of Art.
The perSpectives therefore vary ia size
from a moderate, chimney-corner pic
tufe to great and gorgeous brOadside,
at the loot of which you turn instinct
lively to read "Twin City Jockey Club"
Most of them are brush drawings, a
few in simple lines.
List of Drawings, With the Name
OF the Architects.
The list OF drawings is as follows:
l. Charles Henry, Akron. o. Ii
cubic contents, 100000. are correctly
computed, this is probably too large to
be available.
L. Lay LOus Sot N. L.
3. w. n. Bowman. indianapolis, Ind.
4. Corbin IL Wheaton, Putnam, Conn.
This building. with spires, reminding
one of French chateau, is scarcely
impressive enough for legislative pur,
poses.
5. Vernon Redding, Akron, o.
6. E. E. Nickson CLARK u Crosby,
consulting architects), Boston. Mass.
A simple, elegant design. The noble
dome Is strong reminder of that of the
Administration building. The two
lions at the main entrance have also a
worlds fair touch.
z. Laist Il Pinkham. San Francisco.
s. Warren b. Dunnell, Minneapolis.
9. A. La Croix, Brooklyn. \. Y. All
Rhode Islanders remember this archi.
tect'S skill.
IL. j. r. Griske, Ceredo, w. Va.
Apparently too large.
II. Wander, Brent & Ross, New
York.
IL. j.. A. Schwerenfurth, Boston. A
beautiful wash drawing of a striking
edlfice. much Ornamented.
Ii. Overinire Il Orth, Minneapolis.
An excellent wash drawing in brown.
IA. j. Stafford White. Chicago.
10. Granger & Watterson, Cleve-
land, o. Something OF all inferior.
sch0ol-llke structure.
IL. Brown, German 81 Ward, Du-
luth.
II. j. L. Wiss. st. Louis.
Is. w. Snowman Watts, Morris, Pa.
another study of worlds fair dOmes"
might be the remark of any one not re-
f1ecting that much of the fair work
was merely reproductive. In this age
little opportunity is allowed for original
architecture.
10. Yarnail & Goforth, Philadelphia.
AS mentioned before, the resemblance
of this building to IA Belgian town hall
will scarcely permit its acceptance.
These foreign city halls, too, have
neither blue curtains nor cigar stand.
20. Ii. c. Koch IL Co., Milwaukee.
By the designer OF the city hall in the
Beer City. A very large perspective OF
very large building. The cubic con-
tents, if correctly shown as 9.000,00C
as that of the competing buildings. 1t
is scarcely probable that the appropria-
ton will admit of the selection of sc
large structure.
81 George r. Mann, ST. Louis. This
plan is from the designer of many OF
the most prominent buildings in his
city. An impressive and elaborate
building. wherein statuary and other
features will recall ''tbe fair" to many.
%. w. E. Greenwalt, New York.
Noticeable for the apparent length
Possesses an attractive, classic simple
ity. and shows much space divided into
numerous rooms.
%. c. l.. Haub. st. Louis. The
natural purpose of the dome is distorted
by its use for offices. However neces
sary pure atmosphere may be fol
government officials. this innovation
does not recommend itself.
"a. William futile, New York.
25. EdbrOok and Mareau. Denver A
most attractive and simple design. The
esplanade is pleasing feature. The
dome, however, appears too small.
%. Chester j. Warren, Chicago
Once more an esplanade. The roof here
seems to lhjure the effect.
81. Thom, Wilson IL ScharsmIth
Minneapolis.
rs. Mcdonald Bros, Louisville. Ky
go. W. Ii. Dennis. Minneapolis.
30. Charles ID. Austin, Boston. Some
thing of the Greek temple style. The
dome, however. sets rather too heavii,
upon the roof.
81. Pardee, Richardson & Hess, Min
ueapolis. Would seem to be lacking il
the inpreSSiyeneSS essential to capito
building.
81. Gum & Curtiss. Kansas City
This design was much admired. TIT
authors had one of the best plans at thu
competition for the Washington stat,
capitol building.
SO. Wendell d Humphreys, Denver
81. H. KretZ Il Co., st. Paul.
80. Also by Messrs. KretZ IL Co. lht
window effects ally this building to al
Italian palace.
81. W. NJ. Kenyon, Minneapolis.
handsome building in Il quiet, Greel
style. MIR. Kenyon had the honor Of
taking the second prize at Olympia TO
the Washington building.
81. A. Ii. Haas Il Co., st. Paul. Thi
design presents the very original feat.
ure of a tower 800 feet high. 1t il
doubtful if the sedate agricultural leg
islatOrS would take kindly to such loft,
aspirations.
IS. N. c. Miller. New York. Thu
drawing was made for the architect b,
E. Eldon Deane, well known waite
color artist. 1t presente an origina
appearance, showing Roman dom,
surmOunted by an eagle.
&c. X. German Hubby, Buffalo, n
Y. Look out for the angel.
rather flattened appearance. The IN
PRODUCTION of Aneri can-Indian tigure
is to be commended as an appropriate
sculpture.
Al. William Cove, Denver. An art
istic wash-drawing in brown of a.hand
some structure. Smaller views of thu
interior will interest the visitor. espe
cially as no interior views are shown
elsewhere. gsgEsaN
AZ. Lyman Farwell, st. Paul. Small
light and elegant. Perhaps not large
enough or solid enough in the eyes O
some critics.
43. Mccarthy & Janisch. St.Louis.
A. Radcliffe & Willoughby, Duluth
45. Ernest Fiagg, New York. B,
the successful competitor for the
Washington state capitol building, 10
Gated at Olympia. A splendid, strikin,
edifice, but exhibiting rather too nucl
ornament and extent for our modes
ambition.
46. G. de Gersdorff, Stockbridge
Mass. Original and striking. Suggests
the well-known palais de justice a
BRUSSELS.