Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-12-11

II he had had under consideration only
the strictly architectural necessities of
the design The architects say:
we feel very sure that it would be
better to reproduce the present design
in marble, as nearly az possible as ii
now stands, than 10 carry out Mr.. Wal
ters plans of 1860 in their entirely
Any one who has given any study &c
the development or evolution OF the Cap
ltol VIII feel the pertinenCy of the archi-
tects' comment: 1T seems remarkable
when considering tbs history of this
building. that 50 beautiful and harmo-
NOUS design should have resulted from
the successive additions made 10 the
original building: the result of which is
certainly a monument to the skill of Mr.
Walter. The dome had to be designed in
proportion to the enlarged building, and
yet Mr.: Walter found himself compelled
to place this larger dome upon the ma
sonry foundations and walls of the small
er dome. Owing to the fact that the
foundations were built on most unfavora-
BILE soil. lie very naturally heStated to
add upon these walls any unnecessary
masonry weight or 10 GiSturb in any way
the existing masonry where it could he
used and adapted to the new conditions.
He felt very strongly. however, as We
do. the defect that on the east front the
dome does not appear to he supported
In fact, 1t Overhangs the wall of the
building. and seems to rest partly on the
portco. He was right in wishing to have
this defect corrected, and also in wish
ing to add another column on either
side OF the central motive on the east
front of the building. thus increasing
the width of the piedmont and making
the central motive with it's pediment
predominant over the two wings with
their pedimentS' -
4
1t is possible that this may seem some
what Technical hut it
the architects regarding this portion Of
the work. They tell also, with more clear
ness perhaps than a layman could why
II Is not desirable to bring the east front
forward as was recommended by Mr..
Walter.
I'm our Judgment, one Of the most i'm
pressve views of the Capitol is obtained
when one sees the entire east front and
the dome together, which is only possible
while standing fairly close to the build
ing and to the east of either the Senate
OF House wings. Now, if the central build
ing were brought too far forward it
would mask the dome and destroy this
very picturesque and Vet imposing view
of the Capitol, and there would be no
point from where the entire height Of
the dome could be seen in relation to the
rest of the building, which is now posi-
bic OH the east front. We also believe
that if this central building We're carried
far forward toward the east the archi-
tectural effect of the entire east front
would be injured. even when considered
without regard to the dome. In a monu-
mental scheme of this character three
parts or architectural motives are much
simpler. and a broader and better compo-
sition, than five parts. The extreme pro-
hli ip,r
completely destroy the present compost
ton OF three units with its breadth and
simplicity. and would not only produce a
division with five membership center,
the two wings and the intervening spaces
but it would make these members prac-
tically equal in size and architectural
value Another important reason for not
making this great projection is that it
would destroy the court-lke effect of the
east front where the two wings project