Architecture in Transition: From Art to Practice, 1885-1906 9780773561380

Citation preview

t Architecture in Transition. From Art to Practice, 1885-1906

This page intentionally left blank

Architecture in Transition: From Art to Practice, 1885—1906 KELLY CROSSMAN

McGill-Queen's University Press Kingston and Montreal

McGill-Queen's University Press 1987 ISBN 0-7735-0604-7 Legal deposit third quarter 1987 Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec Printed in Canada This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Crossman, Kelly, 1953— Architecture in transition Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 0-7735-0604-7 1. Architecture — Canada - History - 19th century. I. Title. NA744.C76 1987 720'-971 C87-094585-8

To My Parents

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xi Introduction PART ONE

3

PROFESSIONALISM

1 Developments 1885-90 9 2 Organization

28

3 Statutory Registration

36

4 Architectural Education PART TWO

51

NEW IDEAS

5 Steel, Iron, and Glass in the 1890s 67 6 The Eighteen Club Reaction and BeauxArts Ideas in Education 85 PART THREE

NATIONALISM

7 The National Idea 109 8 Percy Nobbs and a National Theory 122 9 Towards a National Architecture: The Ottawa and Saskatchewan Competitions 136

viii Contents

Notes 153 Bibliography 177 Picture Credits 188 Index 189 The illustrations appear following pages 4, 68, and 100.

Acknowledgments

This book could not have been written without the help of the Ontario Arts Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I am also indebted to a great many people across the country, in particular staff at the Public Archives of Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, the Saskatchewan Archives Board, the Archives nationales du Quebec, the Public Archives of Canada, the City of Toronto Archives, the McCord Museum, and the Metropolitan Toronto Central Library; also to 1'Ordre des architectes du Quebec and the Ontario Association of Architects for giving me access to their records. The following individuals gave me their time and the benefit of their own work: K. Aubrey, Jim Burant, Neil Bingham, Dorothy Bray, Giles Bugailiskis, Christina Cameron, Margaret Carter, Bill Cooper, Michael Crossman, Angela Davis, Nellie van Delight, Bill Dendy, Neil Einarson, Malcolm S. Higgs, Charles Hill, Robert Hill, Geoff Hunt, Victoria Keller, Issac Lerner, Robert Lemire, Beth Johnson, Dana Johnson, Beverley LeBlanc, Ricki Ostrov, Edward Mills, Carolyn Neal, Stephen Otto, Rosalind Pepall, Douglas Richardson, and Susan Wagg. I should also like to thank the staff at McGill-Queen's University Press, Philip Cercone, Joan McGilvray, Dorothy Beaven, and David Fate Norton, whose support and patience was unfailing. Similarly, this book would never have come to print without the help of editor Judy Williams. Last and perhaps most of all I am grateful to John Bland for his kindness and for the knowledge which he generously shared.

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations

AABN ANQ ANQM CAB CCR DPW JCAH JRAIC JRIBA MTCL OA OAA PAC PQAA RAIC RIBA RCA SAB

American Architect and Building News Archives nationales du Quebec Archives nationales du Quebec a Montreal Canadian Architect and Builder Canadian Contact Record and Engineering News Department of Public Works Journal of Canadian Art History Journal of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects Metropolitan Toronto Central Library Archives of Ontario Ontario Association of Architects Public Archives of Canada Province of Quebec Association of Architects Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Royal Institute of British Architects Royal Canadian Academy Saskatchewan Archives Board

This page intentionally left blank

Architecture in Transition

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

During the last half of the nineteenth century, Canadian architecture followed the changing currents of architectural taste in France, Great Britain, and the United States as a matter of course. This was a reflection of personal, cultural, and commercial ties, but it also reflected a willingness on the part of many architects, and a desire on the part of many clients, to imitate fashionable styles whether they were suited to Canada or not. By the end of the century things had begun to change. Architects remained open to and dependent on foreign ideas, but the view was now widely held that Canadian architecture should be rooted in the soil of its own country. If not unique in form and structure, it should at least be adapted to local conditions, climate, materials, and way of life. This change of attitude was perhaps the most significant development in Canadian architecture during the 188os and 18gos, but it was not the only one. Between 1885 and the early years of this century, the structure of professional practice was transformed and architects began to assimilate the new styles and building technologies which were to make possible the architecture of the twentieth century. In 1885 the architect remained a rather solitary Figure; there was virtually no architectural press and no focus of architectural life. Twenty-five years later, all this had changed. There were now three journals devoted specifically to architecture - the Canadian Architect and Builder, Construction, and Canadian Contract Record, four if one includes the short-lived Royal Architect - while local magazines such as the Dominion, published in Winnipeg, gave architecture frequent coverage. The architect was now a professional, probably a member of a provincial architectural association and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, and a man with equal claim to the world of business, science, and art. While architectural education had been

4 Introduction informal and haphazard, by 1910 it was regulated and increasingly centred in the universities. In 1885 iron was a structural material only recently introduced into the practice of the ordinary architect; by 1910 the use not only of iron but of steel and reinforced concrete was commonplace. The possibilities and demands of these materials had begun to change the way architects organized their offices and approached the design process. Finally, the twenty years after 1885 had been marked by a widening of influences and horizons. The grip of the picturesque, of Ruskin, and of nineteenth-century rationalism had given way to new ideas; to the Arts and Crafts, with its emphasis on materials and the social role of the architect, to the Beaux-Arts with its powerful technique, and to a belief in national expression. It was in the hope of a better understanding of these events that this book was written. Its tactic is a simple one: to mark the currents in architectural thought in Canada through a review of architectural writing. Its structure is correspondingly direct. Chapters 2 to 8 each deal with an aspect of architectural debate. Chapters i and 9 attempt to put some of these concerns into context through the examination of several important competitions, and the nine chapters as a whole fall into three groups which correspond to the main themes which preoccupied architects of the day, namely professionalism, nationalism, and the significance of new technologies and ideas. The chapters are linked by an underlying theme characteristic of architecture during the period, not just in Canada but in all industrial and industrializing countries: the transformation of architecture from a skill rooted in the artistic traditions of western Europe to a profession dependent on the techniques of science and the managerial theories of modern business. Architecture straddles the fault line which divides art and science in our culture and the antagonisms of these rival forces, expressed in a tension between what one might call the art and the practice of architecture formed the ground upon which the events discussed here took place. A word should be said about sources. Although as wide a range of materials has been consulted as possible, this study relies heavily on the pages of the Canadian Architect and Builder and the records of the Ontario Association of Architects and the Province of Quebec Association of Architects. This is unavoidable since the CAB was the only architectural journal published in the country until after the turn of the century, and the architectural societies were the focus of architectural life. It means that, during the 18908 especially, we hear the voices of a comparatively small number of men. It also means that until the turn of the century, when architects outside of central Canada began to join in what was an emerging national debate, we

i Babb, Cook, and Willard, New York Life Insurance Company Building, Montreal

2 Richard Waite, Canada Life Company Building, Montreal, 1914

3 Bruce Price, tower for Windsor Station (top stage not completed)

4 Richard Wake, c. 1890

5 Frank Darling

6 Darling and Curry, new parliament buildings for the province of Ontario. South elevation c. 1881 (project)

7 Darling and Curry, new parliament buildings for the province of Ontario. West elevation c. 1881 (project)

8 Richard Waite, Western Life Assurance Company Building, c. 1880

q Richard Waite, Standard Life Assurance Association Building, 1887

10 Richard Waite, Ontario Legislative Building, c. 1890

11 E.J. Lennox, Toronto Municipal and County Buildings, 1889. Watercolour and ink on paper, executed by William Armstrong.

12 Architectural Guild of Toronto, August 1888. Left to right (rear) R.J. Edwards, William R. Gregg, John Gemmell, HJ. Webster; (centre) Edmund Burke, W.A. Langton, Henry Langley, H.B. Gordon; (front) W.G. Storm, S.G. Curry, D.B. Dick, James Smith

13 James and James, Toronto Board of Trade, c. 1890

14 Shepley, Rutan, and Coolidge, Montreal Board of Trade

15 J.C. Dumaresq, McPherson and Freeman's "People's Store," c. 1897

16 Edward Elliot, Nova Scotia Furnishing Company Building, c. 1900

17 Bannatyne Street, Winnipeg, in 1900. The McClary Manufacturing Company Building is in the foreground. The design is attributed to J.H.G. Russell.

18 Burke and Langley, Army and Navy Store

ig E.J. Lennox, Freehold Loan Company Building, c. 1890

2O Edmund Burke, Robert Simpson Store, 1894

21 Edmund Burke, Robert Simpson Store, 1894. Plan of ground floor with two bays of previously existing structure

22 Burke and Horwood, Robert Simpson Store

5 Introduction have little knowledge of how architects in Atlantic Canada and the West were affected by events in their own part of the country or by those in Ontario and Quebec. In those instances where architects did act independently, for instance in the formation of the British Columbia Institute of Architects in 1893, only the barest evidence survives, making it difficult to asess their motives and the reasons for their apparent lack of success. To a considerable degree the uncertainties which result from this dependence on a few primary sources can be offset by checking facts and interpretations of events in government records, newspaper reports, company accounts, and so on, and this has been done whenever possible. But perhaps the best evidence that the picture which emerges from the CAB and the proceedings of the associations is an accurate one is the light it throws on architecture itself. For instance, when the West begins to play a key role in the country's architectural life in the early igoos, the terms of reference, the issues raised, and indeed many of the personalities involved are precisely those which we see emerging in Ontario and Quebec in the iSgos. This is exemplified in the circumstances surrounding, for example, new legislative buildings in Saskatchewan and Alberta. To take another example, if we look through the eyes of architects themselves it becomes clear that the popularity of the Richardsonian Romanesque in the i88os was based not just on the inventiveness of its characteristic massing and ornament but also on a widespread admiration for American technical and commercial ingenuity. Concurrent with this was a deepening sense of disappointment in Canada's own achievements, and, in architectural terms, a weakening of public confidence in the abilities of the Canadian profession. As this last example suggests, the i88os and iSgos were difficult years for Canadian architects. The written records of architectural life tell us that in the late i88os Canadian architects felt themselves suddenly threatened by an overwhelming preference for American architects and American architecture. This was the herald for almost two decades of change and reform which began in Ontario and Quebec and whose effects gradually spread across the country. After the turn of the century the mood of architects changed, and, buoyed by a period of unparalleled prosperity, they turned with renewed self-confidence to the problems of design. Architects themselves knew that during the i88os and iSgos they had been preoccupied by the need to reform architectural practice. We know this by virtue of what they have left behind. But now with hindsight we can see clearly that during these years Canadian architects had grappled with problems whose long-term implications they could not possibly have

6

Introduction

seen, namely the role of the architect in an industrialized society, the need to accommodate and integrate applied science, and the need to express their country's personality in architectural form. These, indeed, were to be the problems not just of their own but of our century.

PART

ONE

Professionalism

This page intentionally left blank

C HAFTER

ONE

Developments 1885—1890

At the beginning of the i88os, architecture in Canada was little different from what it had been a decade earlier. There had been changes in fashion, but these had had little effect on the way buildings were constructed, on the materials used, or on the architects who used them. In contrast, in the United States the 18708 had been a decade of innovation and change. American experiments in spatial oganization, in the use of iron and steel, and in the manipulation of historical styles such as the Romanesque had already begun to transform American architecture.1 Since the patterns of American life were so similar to those in Canada, and since the centres of Canadian business were but an overnight train journey from those of the United States, it was inevitable that ideas emanating from New York, Boston, and Chicago would find their way northward. 2 Their effect in Canada, too, was to change the way architects practised architecture. But more than this, they set in motion a chain of events which, quite unexpectedly, pushed Canadian architects towards professionalism and so into the modern world. In the minds of Canadian architects, the introduction of new American fashions and techniques in the 18805 was characterized by two things: by the speed with which it captured the imagination of the public and by the fact that it led to a fashion for American architects. There is some truth in this point of view. If one considers two obvious manifestations of American influence in the i88os - the Romanesque Revival and construction of tall office buildings of iron and masonry - then it can be said that these new ideas enjoyed what was, even by modern standards, an overnight success. As late as 1885 no major building had yet been constructed in Canada in imitation of what is sometimes called the Richardsonian Romanesque. By 1890 the style dominated the scene. The first tall office building in the country

10 Professionalism

constructed of iron and masonry was arguably the eight-storey New York Life Assurance Company Building of 1888 in Montreal. Two years later buildings of this type were becoming commonplace (Figure i).3 It is also true that many of the most important buildings constructed between 1886 and 1890 were the work of American designers. In some instances, like the New York Life building, this is easily understood; an American company had opened an office in Canada and had hired a New York designer for a Canadian branch, just as it would if that branch had been, for instance, in Kansas City.4 But in other cases, Canadian businessmen seemed to go out of their way to hire Americans. To take two conspicuous examples, the Torontobased Canada Life Company repeatedly hired the American architect Richard Waite (1848-1911) to design its new office buildings, first in Hamilton (1882), then Toronto (1889), and later in Montreal in 1895 (figure 2). In 1886, the New York architect Bruce Price was invited north to design Windsor Station, the Montreal terminus of the CPR, He was soon the favourite architect of the railway and its ebullient director William Van Home (figure g).5 While American influence on Canadian architecture became noticeably stronger in the mid-i88os, it is also the case that Canadians had been influenced by American architectural ideas to a greater or lesser degree for much of their history. Furthermore, there are many examples of foreign architects coming to Canada to design buildings well before the i88os.h So the question arises: why did the practice of hiring American architects and imitating American design provoke an unprecendented reaction on the part of Canadian architects after 1885? And there can be no doubt that it did. In an effort to check the trade in American design, Canadian architects were able, for the first time in their history, to find common ground and form lasting associations. They called for competitions closed to American competitors, for the imposition of tax on foreign blueprints, and for the introduction of laws which would barr unlicensed Americans from practising in the country without first registering with local societies. Coming from a profession which had heretofore been unable even to form a professional society on a social basis, these measures comprise a sort of revolution. And even if it could be shown that there was never a real danger that architecture in Canada would come to be dominated by American architects, the reaction of Canadian architects to its possibility was real, and marks the beginning of a new chapter in the history of architectural practice in the country. One of the reasons why the practice of hiring American architects caused the reaction it did in the late i88os is that it came to be

ii

Developments 1885-90

associated with another problem: that of architectural competitions. During the i88os the management of competitions was an issue of concern to architects on both sides of the border. On the one hand competitions were an increasingly popular means of selecting a designer, on the other the lack of a policing authority had led to abuses of the competition system. Sometimes an architect might win a competition only to see a competitor's design actually constructed. In other cases an architect might win even though he had openly ignored the competition rules, for instance by entering a proposal more expensive to construct than the amount allowed in the program. Apart from this, between 1885 and 1890 a number of important clients used the competition system as a way of exercising their own preference for American architects. In certain cases they discriminated in favour of American entries by offering to defray their costs whether they were successful or not. In other cases there seemed reason to think an American firm had been chosen over Canadian competitors out of an open prejudice for American designers. Since important competitions were highly publicized events, this sort of bias could not go unnoticed. Its effect was to bring into focus not only the issue of competitions but also the growing preference of businessmen in Montreal and Toronto for American architects, and, by extension, the problems facing Canadian architecture as a whole. The first indication of the controversies which lay ahead came in the administration and outcome of a competition held in 1880 for the new legislative building of Ontario. At that time the provincial legislature continued to meet in a building which had been constructed in 1830 and which, despite numerous alterations was hopelessly overcrowded. During the 18yos the chief architect for the province, Kivas Tully, had repeatedly recommended its replacement. The old building, he said, had in its time functioned as a court house, a university, an asylum, and a barracks. It was now a fire hazard and the sooner it was abandoned the better.7 The problem was money, complicated by the difficulty of convincing the House that the new building, paid for by the entire province, would not, as the Opposition charged, consist chiefly of an ornament to the city of Toronto.8 Despite this, early in 1880 the Government decided to go ahead with the project. Kivas Tully was directed to prepare a report which was presented to the minister of public works on the 12th of February. He proposed that the new legislative building be constructed in Queen's Park, of stone in the Gothic style, at an estimated cost of half a million dollars.9 After considering the report, the Government decided to hold an

12 Professionalism

open competition. The site was a magnificent one; moreover, local pride demanded that the new building equal the splendid Palais legislatif then taking shape in Quebec City (figure 41). The competition was announced, but when the plans of the thirteen entries were reviewed, none was found entirely suitable. As a compromise, two firms, Darling and Curry and Gordon and Helliwell, both of Toronto, were asked to modify their plans, taking into account the report of the competition jury. By the spring of 1882 these plans were ready, and in a further attempt to select a winning design the Government asked for tenders on each of the two proposals. However, when the bids were opened, the lowest tender proved to be almost $50,000 above the appropriation recommended by Kivas Tully. Since the Government had assured the House that construction would not begin if the cost was higher than half a million dollars, C.F. Fraser, the commissioner of works, had no choice but to shelve the project until the next session.10 While this was a set-back, the Government remained committed to proceeding on the basis of one of the two final designs.11 Although the Government had yet to make a choice, subsequent events suggest that the design by Darling and Curry had emerged the favourite. The man behind the design was certainly Frank Darling (1850—1923), then thirty-five years old and destined to play a crucial role in the development of Canadian architecture (figure 5). 12 Born at Scarborough, Ontario, the son of the Reverend W.S. Darling, the Tractarian rector of Holy Trinity Church, Darling was educated at Upper Canada College and Trinity College, Toronto. He articled with the Toronto architect Henry Langley before leaving for London in 1870. There he spent three years, first in the office of Sir Arthur Blomfield and then with George Edmund Street.13 On his return to Toronto, Darling designed a small church for the parish of St Matthias where his brother Charles was rector. Other commissions followed, including in 1874 a church for the parish of St Thomas, work at Bishop's College, Lennoxville with Henry MacDougall, and in 1877 Convocation Hall at his alma mater, Trinity College. In 1881-2, now in partnership with S.G. Curry, Darling designed the Toronto Home for Incurables.14 Since the plan for Darling's legislative building design does not seem to have survived, it is difficult to know how he responded to the competition program except in the most superficial way. This is especially unfortunate, since Darling's design was criticized for the awkwardness of its plan.15 Nonetheless, surviving elevations give a good indication of his intentions (figures 6 and 7). Not surprisingly his design is strongly influenced by English work of the 186os and

13

Developments 1885—90

18705, especially his mentor G.E. Street's Law Courts, in London. The motifs are Gothic, French, English, and Italian, with pyramid roofs, an arched and crocketed portal, turrets, heraldry, and what appear to be carved or moulded medallions. Despite this, there is relatively little ornament, perhaps out of economy, and the effect of the design rests almost entirely on the disposition of elements, that is the variety and rhythm of window openings, the restless movement of the wall surface, and the picturesque massing with its towers and high, broken roofline. In 1883 the Government fought an election during which the cost of the new legislative buildings emerged as an issue. Despite this, the Government defended its scheme, and, having been returned, resolved to carry it through. This could not be done without a further appropriation from the House, so in March 1885, C.F. Eraser proposed a bill enlarging the amount from $500,000 to $750,000. In defence of this proposal the Hon. Edward Clarke, MPP and mayor of Toronto, described the old buildings as the "dirtiest, dingiest, and meanest buildings in the Dominion."16 This had the desired effect, and the bill received its third reading 23 March 1885.'7 It was now almost five years since the competition had been announced and Eraser was anxious that it be brought to a conclusion. As things stood, the Government had yet to decide on one of the two plans. Moreover, neither Darling and Curry nor Gordon and Helliwell had been paid their premium as promised under the rules of the competition. In view of this, Eraser decided to have the original jury review the two plans yet again. He would follow whatever recommendation they made and construction could begin in the coming spring. The jury of 1880 had consisted of three men appointed by the Government: the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, a building contractor turned politician; W. George Storm (1826—92), a well-known Toronto architect; and Richard A. Waite, an English-born architect practising in Buffalo (figure 4). Although satisfactory in 1880, the composition of the jury now posed certain problems; indeed, Eraser quickly came to the conclusion that of the three only Waite could now be called upon to review the original plans. Since Mackenzie was not an architect and had played only a supervisory role, he could be discounted. The opinion of Storm was as valuable as ever, but now that the names of the competitors were known, he, knowing both firms, could be accused of prejudice in his decision.' 8 Waite, however, continued to work in Buffalo, and remained, in the view of Eraser, an outsider and an impartial judge. Consequently there seemed little

14

Professionalism

choice but to write Waite, asking him to review the plans once again and make a final recommendation.' 9 Although Eraser's decision to leave the final decision in Waite's hands was innocent, and, considering Waite had sat on the original jury, reasonable enough, it was to prove a mistake. Time and time again, Fraser was to be asked why he had relied on Waite's judgment alone. A more fundamental question is why Waite had been asked to thejury of 1880. To this there is no clear answer, or if ever there was it has been lost. Still, Waite was by 1880 an architect of recognized standing in Buffalo. Since beginning a practice there in the early 18705 he had completed several important commissions notably the Buffalo German Insurance Company Building in 1875— a large-scale cast-iron structure in which Waite himself rented an office - and Pierce's Palace Hotel of 1877.*° Waite was not an original architect, but he was an enterprising one. After his appointment to the competition jury in 1880, he secured a series of important commissions in Canada, all for office buildings, a building type he continued to explore in Buffalo. There in 1882 he designed a five-storey building for the Commercial. Advertiser, a local newspaper. This was destroyed by fire within months of its completion, but Waite was quickly hired to design a second in which he employed wrought-iron girders, cast-iron columns, wrought-iron rolled beams, and cast-iron arches with concrete fillings, all as protection against fire.21 He was, moreover, able to exploit his familiarity with construction of office buildings of this type in Canada. Between 1880 and 1885 he had already designed two buildings in Toronto, one for the Mail Newspaper Company (1880—81) and another for Western Life Assurance (1880), as well as a third in Hamilton for Canada life (c. 1883) (figure 8)." When Fraser wrote asking for a final recommendation on the legislative building plans, Waite immediately agreed, adding that he hoped to have the job done in a week. Much to Fraser's annoyance he did not produce his report until the 27th of November. During the spring, summer, and fall of 1885 Fraser grew increasingly impatient — threatening Waite with dismissal on several occasions — but allowed Waite more time as he supplied one alibi after another: illness, overwork, business in Montreal; a host of reasons.113 When the report finally arrived, it contained dispiriting news. According to statements later made by Fraser in the House, Waite had recommended that new plans be commissioned since those he had seen "demonstrated such grave defects in heating, lighting, and ventilation that it would be inadvisable to proceed with building on the basis of either."24 Faced with this, Fraser had two alternatives: he could hold

15 Developments 1885-90

another competition or he could appoint an architect. Loath to delay any longer - it was now six years since Kivas Tully had prepared his report - Fraser decided to appoint Richard Waite himself architect of the new legislature. On 8 January 1886, five weeks after submission of his report, Waite received his contract and was hired.25 In effect, a member of the jury had won the competition. During the months of delay, neither Darling and Curry nor Gordon and Helliwell were notified of the decision to review their plans, nor did Fraser subsequently inform them of Wake's appointment. In consequence, and much to their embarrassment, they were to learn the news only as it began to spread by word of mouth. By the beginning of February rumour had it that Waite was preparing drawings for the new legislative buildings. Worse, it was repeated, accurately as they later learned, that this followed a report criticizing the two original plans. Understandably alarmed, Frank Darling wrote Fraser, repeating what he had heard and pointing out the difficulty of his own situation. "It is difficult to believe these rumours have any foundation in fact" he wrote Fraser, as "we have most certainly been led to believe from the first that in the event of the buildings being erected at all either one or the other of the two designs on which tenders were received three years ago would be adapted." aH Despite or perhaps because of the directness of his inquiry, Darling received no reply. Two days later on 8 February he wrote Fraser again. Again silence, and silence until finally on 23 March, Fraser, under mounting pressure, rose in the legislature to make a statement regarding the proposed new buildings. After reviewing the course of events since the inception of the competition in 1880, he told the house of Wake's report and of his subsequent decision to hire Wake as architect, based on his work in Buffalo and his role on the jury. Following years of debate, and the failure of a well-publicized competition, there was, he said, little else he could do. 27 The reaction of the Opposition and of Canadian architects to Fraser's statement was predictable. How, they asked, could Fraser justify the abrogation of a moral agreement with architects who had won an open competition, had waited for more than five years without payment, and now saw their rightful commission awarded to a member of the competition jury? "I cannot imagine a more unpatriotic act by any government than that daily developing in Queen's Park" wrote the Toronto architect M.B. Aylsworth. "Canadians in competition hampered by most unreasonable conditions as to cost, unremunerated after repeated attempts at the impossible, criticized and contemptously thrown out at the bidding of a foreign competitor possessed of no world-wide fame but unlimited 'gall',

i6 Professionalism

posing after years of intrigue as a disinterested expert, then at once receiving the commission to design and erect as he pleased at any cost."28 Within the Ontario legislature, members of the Opposition charged that the Government had not only behaved dishonourably towards the Canadian competitors, but "had made it appear there was not in the Province an architect or firm of architects competent to design plans for the erection of these buildings."29 Under continued pressure from the Opposition the controversy over Eraser's decision to hire Richard Waite dragged on almost undiminished through 1887. In 1888 the Government was forced to publish its correspondence with Darling and Curry and Gordon and Helliwell. Given Fraser's failure to notify the Canadian competitors of his decision and his inept handling of their repeated inquiries, this proved especially damaging. It demonstrated that, quite apart from the ethics of Fraser's decision, the government had treated the original competitors with an indifference that was scarcely credible. It also served to bring the affair once again into the political limelight, broadening its impact and leading the Royal Canadian Academy, for instance, to express its regret at "the harsh and unfair treatment which in their opinion has been accorded to Messrs. Darling and Curry" as well as "its entire confidence in the professional ability of those gentlemen."30 By 1888 not only the Ontario government found itself mired in a bog from which there seemed no escape; Frank Darling himself allowed that he was "sick and tired of the whole miserable business; disgruntled and disheartened at the treatment he had received."31 Even in an age marked by frequent and acrimonious controversy in architectural competitions, the outcome of the Queen's Park project was particularly bitter and long-lasting in its effect. No doubt political expediency played an important part in this. There had been considerable opposition to construction of a new legislative building even before the scandal broke, but the maltreatment of Canadian competitors, the hint of a secret deal between Waite and Fraser, and the rising cost of construction all provided the Opposition with political capital which they made the most of. But it was also true, quite simply, that Darling, Curry, Gordon, and Helliwell had been badly treated, whatever the grounds for Fraser's decision might have been. Inside the House it was claimed that their designs had been badly conceived; outside, that neither one of the two proposed buildings would have stood up if an attempt had been made to erect it. In the face of this sort of innuendo, none of the architects, and this the correspondence clearly showed, had a chance to defend themselves or their work. Moreover, as Darling pointed out, even if they had, the

iy Developments 1885-90 chance would not have been a fair one; while Wait.e was given a free hand to produce a design as he liked, the original competitors were not allowed to do "the best we could, but only the best we would for the money."32 Within the larger context of architectural life as a whole, the facts of the Queen's Park affair emerged through 1887 and 1888 at the very moment when a fashion for Romanesque and American commercial architecture began to influence public taste. In the midst of this, the issues at stake in the debate at Queen's Park seemed to Canadian architects an unhappy yet telling reflection of what was happening in Canadian architecture as a whole: namely a growing preference for American designs and designers. It is this which gives and must have given the affair an edge it would otherwise not have had. Fraser claimed, and there seems no reason not to take his word at face value, that he had hired Waite only after years of delay and following a report he had no reason and no expertise to reject. But in the minds of Canadian architects and their supporters the affair had a deeper meaning. An important public commission had been given an inconsequential American architect, Canadians had been badly treated by their own government, and among the population at large, the reputation of the Canadian architectural profession had been damaged. The nature of this reaction betrays a mood of defensiveness and a sensitivity towards American architects and American architecture which seems to have taken root in the late i88os and was to take more than a decade to dispel. The feeling that Canadian architects were somehow being overwhelmed by the power of American architecture emerges so clearly from the writings of Canadian architects that it cannot be dismissed as passing discontent. For several years past "the very best buildings have beem entrusted to foreigners," wrote M.B. Aylsworth in 1888.S!i Two years later, when James Ross announced his decision to hire Bruce Price as architect for a Peel Street mansion, an anonymous Montreal architect summed up the contemporary scene by observing: "when Canadians have any money to spend they always avoid local men and prefer to employ alien architects."34 In a larger sense perhaps, the failing confidence of Canadian architecture was a reflection of the self-doubt afflicting Canadian society as a whole, a feeling which found political expression in moves towards free trade and annexation with the United States. In terms of architecture itself, however, Canadian architects had no doubt that the root of their difficulty lay in an ever-increasing admiration for the new American styles and manner of building. Looking back on the late i88os, a Montreal architect reflected that

18 Professionalism American architecture commenced to get a foothold here with the erection of the Standard Building on St. James Street, which was built from the design of an American architect. Whether people were prejudiced against the architecture done by local architects is an open question, but it is nevertheless true that since the erection of that building many works of importance have been entrusted to American architects, as exemplified in the New York Life building in Place d'Armes, the Y.M.C.A. building on Dominion Square and the Montreal Board of Trade ... which seems to have the effect of forcing our architects to study the architecture of our neighbours in order to meet the popular demand and craze of the day for Americanism.35

The claim made for the importance of the Standard Life building (1886) in setting public taste in Montreal is interesting on several counts. The first is that the basis of its popular success was not its plan, its mode of construction, or its height, all factors commonly associated with American commercial building in the i88os, but its colour. Alone among the banks and offices of St James Street, the Standard Life building was constructed of red sandstone. It was this, exploited in rich sculptural effects - paired pilasters, capitals, carved spandrels, curving arches, and two world-beset Atlases — which dazzled a Montreal accustomed to the sombre grey of the local building stone (figure g).36 An American journalist visiting the city in 1887 observed that the building might be considered good anywhere, but that it "here attains unapproachable pre-eminence from the fact that it appears to be the only building in the city which is built of red sandstone."37 The second, rather surprising point to be made about the Standard Life building is that it was the work of none other than Richard Waite. As we have seen, he had designed several office buildings in Hamilton and Toronto before this, while after 1886 he was, if anything, even more successful in winning Canadian commissions. These included two important buildings in Toronto in 1889, one for the Bank of Commerce, the other for Canada Life, as well as a second for Canada Life on St James Street, Montreal in 1895 (figure 2). With this we come closer to understanding the impact of the Ontario legislative competition. Waite's success throws light both on the reaction of Canadian architects and on Fraser's decision to appoint him architect of the new government buildings. The heart of the matter is that, quite apart from his role as juror in the 1880 competition, Waite had by 1885 established a successful Canadian practice of his own. As the Standard Life building demonstrates, the key to his success was his ability and willingness to introduce American innovations in commercial building to Canada. During the i88os and early 18905 Waite

ig Developments 1885-90

played an important role in introducing new building types (multistorey office buildings), new building techniques (masonry combined with iron and steel framing), and new architectural fashions (coloured stone and the Romanesque Revival). In short, Waite was the very epitome of the spreading American influence which Canadian architects saw around them. For Fraser to have argued that this man in particular was an innocent bystander on the Canadian scene must have seemed scarcely credible. On the other hand, the fact that Waite had been able to win important commissions from leading businessmen in both Toronto and Montreal must have seemed good evidence to Fraser that here was a man who could at the very least produce a design serviceable to the needs of the province. And in another way, perhaps Waite had given Fraser sound advice. By 1885, as the rising tide of the Richardsonian Romanesque reached Canada, it could well have been argued, and certainly this would not have gone unnoticed by Waite himself, that the High Victorian Gothic of Frank Darling's design was no longer fashionable. In the end Romanesque is what Fraser got, as incidentally did William Van Home from Bruce Price, and the City of Toronto from EJ. Lennox, all in the late i88os (figures 3, 10, and 11). To Canadian architects the sight of an American architect, based in Buffalo and possessed of a talent no greater than their own, winning a good number of the most important commissions going must have been galling indeed. But that he should have been given a project for a provincial legislative building, won in competition by two highly respected firms, was too much. There was little Canadian architects could do to prevent Waite from gaining private commissions, but they could act to ensure that in the future competitions would be held according to established conventions, and that whoever won a competition won the right to carry the project through. The opportunity to put these principles into practice was not long in coming. In February 1888 the Toronto Board ol Trade, focus of commercial life in the city, and including many leading businessmen in its membership, announced plans to hold a competition for the design of a new office building on Front Street. In 1884 the Board of Trade had amalgamated with the Toronto Corn Exchange and now it proposed to build new administrative offices and an exchange.38 The terms of the competition were to prove controversial; indeed, in the words of Toronto architect S.H. Townsend, they betrayed "a feeling among a certain class of the community that Canada could not produce architects."39 As the Board of Trade admitted, in order that they might be assured of "having plans from architects of established reputation and experience in the erection of such building" they

2o Professionalism

invited Richard Waite and the New York architect George B. Post to compete, for which they would each be given four hundred dollars whether they placed in the competition or not.4" But the Board of Trade was, nonetheless, anxious to win the goodwill of local architects. As a gesture of good faith they offered to invite a Canadian architect to compete on the same terms as the two Americans. Furthermore they asked the Architectural Guild of Toronto to appoint an architect from among their number to represent the Canadian profession (figure 12). The guild, which had been established only months earlier, in October 1887, agreed to support the competition if the board, for its part, would invite not one but two Canadian architects. They had no objection, they told the Board of Trade, to competing on equal terms with American architects, but they could not countenance a proposal which saw the Canadian profession placed at a clear disadvantage to architects from the United States. If the Board of Trade was unable to find the extra four hundred dollars needed to pay a second Canadian competitor, then the members of the guild would be "perfectly willing to enter the competition against these two paid Americans for the honour of the thing, and allow the Board to do as they think fit about the balance of $400.00."41 It was this arrangement which was finally agreed upon. The Board of Trade donated four hundred dollars to the Architectural Guild, while the two firms of Darling and Curry and Langley and Burke were selected to represent Canadian architects. During the negotiations with the Board of Trade the Architectural Guild made a second demand, one which demonstrates that, if they resented a second-class status vis-a-vis American architects, they were certainly riot anti-American in feeling. In 1886 the Kansas City Board of Trade had held what was widely considered to be an exemplary competition. In that case the competition had been held according to a code for competitions drafted by the American architect William Robert Ware and adopted by the Western Association of Architects in the United States. In Kansas City three architectural firms had been invited to compete, Ware had been the assessor, and the Chicago architects Burnham and Root the winners. In their negotiations with the Toronto Board of Trade the Guild now proposed that the Toronto competition be based on the Kansas City rules, and that they invite Ware, professor of architecture at the School of Mines, Columbia College, to act as assessor.42 The Board of Trade complied, the rules of the competition were announced in June of 1888, and by the closing date of i October, twenty plans had been entered. Eight were by Canadian architects.4* However, despite efforts to find common ground in the organization

21

Developments 1885—90

of the Board of Trade competition, the feeling remained among Toronto architects that the problem of competitions was yet far from resolved. "It certainly is time that concerted action should be taken in the matter of architectural competitions by architects of standing," wrote the Canadian correspondent of the American Architect, adding, "It must be concerted and it must be general ... So far, general competitions have proved for the greater part unsatisfactory, and those who have had much to do with them know very well that with the best conducted there is always more than a chance that the sealed-envelope plan will not be rigidly adhered to to the end."44 Given the outcome of the Board of Trade competition, these words were to seem curiously prophetic, but equally interesting are the correspondent's remarks concerning the Board of Trade competition itself. They are evidence of support for the idea that Canadian architectural competitions should in principle be closed to American competitors. "It still remains to be seen what will be the result of the competition for the Board of Trade building in Toronto," the article ran, but "the feeling expressed by the daily press is very strong against the appointment of an American architect. President Cleveland's desire for 'Retaliation' has awakened in the breasts of Canadians in general a desire to show that 'two can play at that game.' The Board of Trade made a great mistake in not limiting the competition to architects in Canada; but the intention at the onset was that the competition should be an entirely fair one and it is to be hoped it will be to the end."45 And so it was meant to be, but the competition was to end badly nonetheless. By the third of November, two weeks before this article appeared in print, Ware had filed his report to the Board of Trade. The result had been a toss-up. Unwilling to make a final recommendation, Ware offered the Board of Trade a number of alternatives. The best plan had a poor facade, the best facade an awkward plan, while a third entry was reasonable all round but exemplary neither in plan nor elevation. In Ware's view the best course would be to combine the best plan with the best elevation. If that proved impossible, he suggested the board adopt the first proposal and direct the architects to review their elevations. Finally, he added a proviso that his report should be considered a recommendation alone, and that the board should feel free to do as it thought best.46 Having received Ware's report, the Board of Trade opened the sealed envelopes containing the identities of the winning architects. The result was surprising. First pri/e, given to the design with the best plan, was awarded to the firm of James and James, English-born architects practising in Kansas City and New York and heretofore

22

Professionalism

unknown in Toronto. Darling and Curry placed second, on the strength of their elevations, with Gordon and Helliwell third. If nothing else, this proved that Darling, Curry, Gordon, and Helliwell were the equal of Richard Waite, who had failed to place at all. During the winter of 1888-9 the Board of Trade followed Ware's recommendation to the letter. An attempt was made to bring Darling and Curry and James and James together, giving rise to reports that Darling and Curry's design "hung in the balance with that of James and James."47 But the attempt failed and the board directed James and James to prepare new drawings, which they did, whereupon their design was accepted.48 Even though the competition had been won by architects based in the United States, Canadian architects could take solace in the fact that they had been able to convince the Board of Trade to organize the competition on a fair, equitable basis. But in June of 1890 even this accomplishment came under question. A report in the American Architect suggested that the Board of Trade had decided in favour of James and James simply because they were American architects.49 Since Ware had left the final decision in the hands of the board, this allegation was difficult either to credit or disprove but it coloured the outcome of the affair. It also added weight to the argument of those critical of the competition system, particularly of the increasingly prevalent practice of inviting American architects to compete on special terms. For the Board of Trade worse was to come when the new building collapsed while still under construction. Inspectors brought in to investigate the failure pinned the blame directly on inadequacies in the architect's design, particularly their use of materials and knowledge of structure. This served only to confirm the view that Canadian architects were being passed over out of a sheer prejudice for American architects with no special claim on skill or expertise. In the end James and James were fired and the building was completed under the supervision of a local architect after all, J. Francis Brown (figure i3).5° In Montreal architects had as yet been spared the humiliations suffered by architects in Toronto, but they too were soon to find themselves faced with a case of open discrimination. Nonetheless, as late as 1889, events seemed to be moving in their favour. In the spring of that year the Sun Life Assurance Company announced its intention to hold an open lcompetition for a new head office on rue Notre-Dame. Under pressure from the city's architects it agreed to limit entries to architects practising in Canada. This was an important and reasonable distinction; it allowed architects such as James and James who were now practising in Canada to enter but disqualified

23

Developments 1885—90

those like Richard Waite who were based only in the United States. The competition was uneventful. First prize was awarded to Montreal architect Robert Findlay, second to W.T. Thomas, third to W. McKlea Walbank, and fourth to James and James. 5 ' However, the Sun Life competition had set a precedent. When, in the autumn of 1890, the Montreal Board of Trade made known its intention to hold an architectural competition, the Canadian Architect and Builder (CAB) suggested it follow Sun Life's example. The Montreal Board of Trade, the journal said, "had an opportunity of showing a patriotic spirit by opening their competition for their new building to Canadian architects only, following the example set by the Sun Life Insurance Co."5a The Board of Trade had other ideas. Like the Toronto Board of Trade it wanted an office building of the first class, and in order to ensure this it was determined not only to open the competition to Americans but to invite leading American architects to compete under special conditions. But this time, with the experience of the Toronto competitions behind them, Canadian architects were determined to forestall any repetition of the events which had caused them so much embarassment. In August of 1890, less than two months after the appearance of the article in the AABN alleging open discrimination against Canadians on the part of the Toronto Board of Trade, an article appeared in the CAB which suggested that the Montreal Board of Trade had already decided they would be unable to find a Canadian of fit qualifications to design their new headquarters. "The Board of Trade of the City of Montreal" the journal reported, "having acquired a site acceptable to all, have now under consideration the advisability of having their plans prepared. The president and secretary have recently made a tour through the States, examining the various Boards of Trade buildings, and have returned to the city fully convinced that no Canadian architect will be found fit to erect their building."53 The journalist went on to say: "I suppose the Board of Trade would hardly consider it fashionable to employ purely local architects while other large corporations import theirs from the United States."54 During their tour through the United States, the president and secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade had approached six American architects requesting that they submit proposals for which they would each receive three hundred dollars towards their expenses. At the same time they asked the New York architect Richard Morris Hunt to judge the competition. However, by the time the competition was formally announced, the board had decided to open the

24

Professionalism

competition to Canadians, but only under terms that were clearly discriminatory. While the selected American architects would each receive their three hundred dollars, all other architects would be expected to compete without payment.55 The feelings of Canadian architects were summed up in the CAB: "It is rather rough on Canadian architects," it said, "to see the president and secretary of an influential body scouring American towns and interviewing American architects regarding plans for a comparatively insignificant building. Surely the Dominion of Canada - if not the City of Montreal - contains architects well qualified to erect a building equal if not superior to any produced by American architects."56 In response to the discriminatory policy of the Board of Trade, Canadian architects began to act in concert in order to pressure the board to change the competition rules. Following the announcement of the details of the Board of Trade competition, a group of leading Montreal architects met in late August to decide on a course of action. Ten months before, architects in Ontario had formed the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) and now at this meeting the architects of Montreal decided the time had come to follow their example. As we shall see, there were numerous factors behind the formation of architectural societies in Ontario and Quebec, but there is no doubt that the resentment which architects felt over the high-handed manner of the Board of Trade united architects in both Montreal and Toronto to a degree never seen before. The Province of Quebec Association of Architects (PQAA) was formally established on the tenth of October. One of the first acts of the association was to approach the Board of Trade with a list of grievances and proposals. They suggested that six Canadian architects should be invited to submit designs, that a Canadian should be appointed to act as jury with Mr Hunt, and finally that the board should provide a guarantee that no design would be accepted which was estimated at more than 10 per cent of the amount stipulated in the competition program.57 The Board of Trade proved to be noticeably unreceptive to the architects' suggestions. The chairman of the building committee told the PQAA that there was no necessity for anyone to assist Professor Hunt and no one would be appointed.58 He also told the architects, a little tactlessly perhaps, that "the six American architects were elected because they know more about such a building as was proposed than any Canadian architect."59 Eventually the Board of Trade did agree to invite six Canadian architects, but when it became clear that they would go no further, the PQAA in a

25 Developments 1885-90

show of force advised all its members to refrain from entering the competition.60 The determination of Montreal architects to oppose open discrimination against Canadian architects on the part of the Montreal Board of Trade was watched and supported by architects in Ontario. Throughout the summer and autumn of 1890 the council of the new Ontario Association of Architects urged the Board of Trade to agree to the proposals made by their Quebec fellows. Similarly, the OAA communicated with the Quebec architects, advising them on the formation of their own provincial society and encouraging them in their struggle. Finally, once the Board of Trade made clear its refusal to accede to the demands of the Quebec architects, the OAA resolved to join with the PQAA and boycott the competition.6' In a letter to the Montreal Board of Trade, the secretary of the OAA outlined the reasons for their decision: ist. That the Board has selected six architects resident in the United States and agreed to pay them $300.00 each to send in competitive designs and has not seen fit to select six Canadian architects in like manner, but has decided to award $300.00 each to the authors of six Canadian designs placed highest in order of merit by the expert. Under such an invidious distinction the most capable architects will not compete for the paltry sum of $300.00 and the slight possibility of obtaining the commission to erect the building. If your board had selected six Canadian architects of the highest standing, the competition would have been one between six representative architects resident in the United States, and six, resident in Canada, and would have been likely to meet with a hearty response from Canadians, but under the conditions advertised the most capable architects in Canada will not compete, and the competition will really be between six firms of architects in the United States — some of them of the highest standing — and such men in Canada as are prepared to compete for the $300.00, knowing that the best men in the profession are not competing. and. That the amount appropriated is utterly inadequate for the erection of the building, and that any design which could be carried out for any sum near the amount raised would be absolutely sure of rejection.62

Although the boycott of the Montreal Board of Trade competition by the leading architects of Quebec and Ontario did not put an end to the issues which prompted it, it was an accomplishment in every other way. True to their word, most architects belonging to either the PQAA or the OAA did not enter the competition. Moreover, when Hunt awarded first prize to the Boston firm of Shepley, Rutan, and Coolidge, those Canadians who had entered and lost accused the

26

Professionalism

Board of Trade of precisely that duplicity which the council of the PQAA had warned against. The competition, they charged, had been biased against Canadians, and all the estimates of tender for the winning design far exceeded the appropriation given in the competition regulations (figure i4).6s On a deeper level, the show of strength and unity which marked the response of architects in Ontario and Quebec to the arrogance of the Board of Trade signalled the beginning ol a new era in the history of the architectural profession in Canada. This concerted action was the first test of the fledgling associations, and it proved that they and the professional idea which they represented were concepts whose time had come. The struggle over fair competitions had brought an end to the isolation of the mid-i88os. If 1885 was marked by the rising star of Richard Waite heralding a new wave of American influence, the year 1890 offered the hope of a profession organized to meet the challenge. So it was to the PQAA and the OAA that architects now turned their energies. But it is worth remembering that, as in the case of architectural competitions, architectural life in the country as a whole was strongly affected by the need to achieve a modus vivendi with the United States which left room for the development of a true national expression. This overriding consideration was a powerful force propelling Canadian architects forward in the years ahead. After 1890 the tension between the needs of the Canadian profession and the natural influence of American architecture was to have its concrete expression in matters as prosaic as a tariff on foreign blueprints and as far-reaching as an awakening desire for a Canadian vocabulary of forms. But should anyone doubt that the problems of Canadian architecture during those years were intimately bound up with those of the country as a whole, or that architects thought this to be so, one need only remember these words written by a young J.C.B. Horwood (1864—1938) in 1893: How often we see in our daily papers the assertion that still more intercourse with the United States — some even going so far as to say complete subjugation to them — is the panacea for all our ills; and some businessmen have been very much disposed of late to place a premium on American architects by engaging their services when any work of importance is under consideration. What wonder then is it, that if some of our fellow countrymen exhibit such an unfortunate bias of mind in this direction, that [sic] many of our important building should express the same. We need to be weaned from all such habits of thought, and to awake to a consciousness of our position as a nation, and our value to, as well as our dependence upon, the older countries of the world. 1 am fully convinced that

27

Developments 1885—90

never till that is accomplished within us and it has become a habit of our mind to think thus broadly, can we have work which will possess a distinctively national mode of expression, and which shall thereby be of such a character that other peoples will study it with profit as they have studied American architecture. 64

C H A P T E R TWO

Organization

One of the effects of the controversies of the i88os was to make Canadian architects aware of the need for greater communication among themselves. During the negotiations with the Montreal Board of Trade this awareness had led to united action in an effort to discredit what was perceived to be an unjust competition. By 1890 the same spirit of co-operation had given rise first to informal groups of architects and then to professional associations. The idea of an organization of architects was not new to Canada in the i88os even though there was in 1885 neither a formal nor an informal society of architects in existence anywhere in the country. As early as 1834 W.W. Baldwin urged architects in Toronto to form an architectural society for improvement of the style, stability, salubrity, and accommodation of the city's building.1 The first architectural society actually to be formed was an association of architects, land surveyors, and engineers established in Toronto in 1859. The officers of the society included William Thomas, George Brown, William Hay, and Charles Baillairge, all leading members of the profession. Besides the establishment of a tariff of charges, the society proposed to collect and exhibit works of art, models, and drawings and to meet at regular times for discussion of matters architectural. But despite promising beginnings the association collapsed in the early iSGos. 2 This first attempt was followed by the establishment of a short-lived architectural association in Montreal in 1865 and another in Toronto in 1876. At that time a group of architects met in the King Street rooms of the Society of Arts, again establishing a tariff, setting by-laws, and electing an executive board. But again the society failed and the architects soon disbanded.3 Why did these early associations not survive? According to the architects themselves, there were several reasons, small numbers and

29 Organization

a lack of interest among them. The most important factor, according to W. George Storm, a man involved in early attempts at organization and a key figure in the formation of the OAA, was professional rivalry. "Petty professional jealousies" and "want of energy and interest" had caused the failure of past efforts at organization, he told his fellow architects in 1889. This lack of co-operation among architects was encouraged, he said, by the "modern system of competition and the rivalries of private practice [which] bring into undue prominence individual interest, until the members of the profession may be described as a number of fortuitous atoms."4 Storm, who had recently been involved in a dispute over a competition for new buildings at Victoria College, was no doubt speaking from personal experience, but there were many others who agreed with him.5 David Brown, a well-known Montreal architect, told the PQAA in 1890 that he had long seen the need for a society of architects but had thought it would never be formed "because, as I have said, jealousy is a strong feeling amongst us all."6 A.T. Taylor (1850—1937), another Montreal architect, though recently arrived from Britain, described the Canadian architectural profession in the i88os as "stars shining each in his own sphere," adding his voice to "those who have said they hoped all jealousies and ill-will would disappear."7 In short, Canadian architects during the i88os seem to have practised in relative isolation. Certainly the formation of architectural associations in Ontario and Quebec in 1889-90 offered architects the pleasant prospect of co-operation and sociability of a kind unseen heretofore. A.C. Hutchison (1838-1922), RCA and long-time Montreal architect, told his fellows at the first convention of the PQAA that he had practised in the city for twenty-five years and that this was the first time he had met with other architects on a social basis. "I hope from year to year that we will meet in this social capacity and form friendships and make acquaintances among our members," he said, "some of whom we have hardly known to speak to before."8 But if this was true of 1889, it was certainly true of 1876, and Canadian architects had failed to establish an enduring society then. The fact is, quite apart from the often-repeated and undoubtedly sincere desire of Canadian architects to meet regularly on a social, informal basis, the competitions of the late i88os had given the issue of organization and mutual co-operation a special urgency. Canadian architects saw themselves losing the confidence of their most important patrons. Unless they found a way to overcome their differences, raise standards, and end cutthroat competition, they would be overwhelmed by foreign, specifically American, architects.

30

Professionalism

In February of 1888, scarcely a year after the revelations of the Queen's Park competition, W. George Storm developed precisely this argument in an article published in the Canadian Architect and Builder. "Our profession is not held in the highest esteem by the outside public," he wrote. This, he said, "is the fault of the members themselves who exhibit such jealousy of one another that it causes all this indifference to them." Canadian architects, he argued, were faced with the need to restore the profession in the eyes of the public. The best hope of doing this was through organization, "not only in order that the dignity of the profession be maintained, but also that by means of the united action which could then be secured, Canadian architects might protect their rights."9 What Storm failed to mention in his article was that an informal association of architects had already been established in Toronto. During the summer of 1887, Frank Darling's partner, S.G. Curry (1854-1942), had visited Storm in connection with the Ontario legislature competition. This was a natural thing to do; Curry was a leading protagonist in the affair and Storm had been a member of the original jury. It is not known what advice Storm gave Curry, but during the meeting Storm produced a letter he had received from the Toronto builders' association which suggested that the architects of the city might be able to help in the settlement of a current strike in the building trades. Both Storm and Curry agreed that this might well be possible, but in the absence of an architectural society, who could act for the architects? Storm and Curry decided to organize a small architectural club which could deal with matters such as these when they arose from time to time. On the third of October 1887, Storm, Curry, and a handful of other architects, including Frank Darling, D.B. Dick (1846—1925), and Edmund Burke (1851 — 1919), met in Storm's office at 28 Toronto Street. Together they agreed to form the Architectural Guild of Toronto (figure 12).'" The Architectural Guild was intended to be little more than a dining club at which architects could meet and discuss topics of mutual interest, but in practice it soon emerged as the focus of architectural life in the city. Less than two years after its formation, the guild was a real influence working to improve building standards and conditions of architectural practice in Toronto. Three separate committees had been formed, one advising city officials on a civic building code, another helping in the preparation of a plumbing by-law, and a third preparing a report on architectural fees.1' Despite this, the guild had no power to deal with those issues of greatest concern to architects: the regulation of architectural practice and the vogue for architectural competitions, many of which, as we have seen,

31 Organization were badly managed and prejudicial to Canadians. As W. George Storm argued, if Canadian architects hoped to improve their public image they would first have to raise standards of practice. If they wanted to restrict the practice of American architects in Canada they would need legal powers to do so. While the Architectural Guild had accomplished a great deal, nothing short of a province-wide association with the sort of powers enjoyed by societies of medicine or law would be sufficient. The surprising fact is that, after years of failed effort, once the move for a provincial association of architects began, organization and legal incorporation were accomplished very quickly. There are two reasons why this was so. The first was the establishment in 1888 of a Canadian architectural journal which gave men like Storm a forum from which they could reach architects throughout the province. Similarily, architects in one part of the country were now easily informed of developments in another. The second was chance. By coincidence both the government of Ontario and the architects of the province found themselves in need of a formal association of architects at the same time. Working together they each, in turn, provided an incentive for the rapid and successful organization of the province's architects. The role played by the Canadian Architect and Builder in the rise of architectural associations in Canada was not as direct as that of the Ontario government, but it was important nonetheless. In the i88os some American architectural journals, particularly the American Architect and Building News, had begun to cover architectural developments in Canada on a regular basis. During the controversy over the Ontario legislative buildings competition, the Canadian correspondent gave a good account of the order of events, the reaction of local architects, and so on. Canadian architects themselves wrote to the AABN expressing their points of view. Despite this, neither the AABN nor any other American journal would have considered itself in any way Canadian, nor did any of them offer space for contributions by Canadian architects on subjects unique to Canada. It was to fill this need that C.H. Mortimer launched the CAB in January of 1888. A journalist by profession, Mortimer had worked in the office of the Toronto Evening News before taking control of a trade journal, the Dominion Mechanical and Milling News, in 1885. In 1888 he began the publication of the CAB, and this was followed by a series of magazines and journals including Canadian Engineering and Contract Record, Canadian Lumberman, and Home and Youth. In addition, Mortimer, under the guise of the CAB press, published the proceedings of the OAA from 1901 onwards. '"

32

Professionalism

According to Mortimer, the magazine had been founded because of what he saw to be "the rapid improvement of methods and materials of construction, in decorative art, and in sanitary appliances, which has marked the history of the last ten years in Canada."'3 The CAB contained a wide range of information on the Canadian architectural scene, including technical information, illustrations of new work, articles, letters, and, after their formation, the proceedings of the country's architectural societies. Surprisingly, given his background, Mortimer intended to play an active role in the architectural life of the country. It was his expectation, he wrote, that the CAB would "prove a useful addition to the technical literature of the country and assist in bringing about many needed reforms.'"4 He was also willing to give men like George Storm whatever help he could. Shortly after the CAB appeared it became clear that Mortimer and the CAB supported those who argued for the professionalization of Canadian architecture; that is for its establishment on a par with land surveyors, medicine, and the law. The first issue of the CAB included two articles dealing with the role of the architect as a professional in society; one titled "the Architect," written by James Young, and the other, "The Position, Standing and Status of an Architect," written by Storm. Both of these articles developed the arguments for professional status which Storm, Edmund Burke, Frank Darling, and others were to repeat in their struggle for the organization of architects and for statutory registration. In the months and years that followed, the CAB resolutely supported the ideals of organization, professionalism, registration, and formalized architectural education, all of which Mortimer saw as necessary for the development and growth of architecture in the country. Despite the efforts of Mortimer and the men of the Architectural Guild, it is unlikely that the formal organization of architects in Ontario and Quebec would have come about so quickly without the support of George Ross, the Ontario minister of education. Born in 1841, Ross had worked for fifteen years as a teacher and inspector of schools before entering politics. In 1883 he was offered and accepted the post of minister of education in the provincial government. Based on his personal experience, Ross seized the opportunity to reform the provincial school system. His aim was to make it the best in the world. ' 5 As minister of education, Ross was responsible for the School of Practical Science, a technical school affiliated with the University of Toronto, During the winter of 1885-6 Ross toured a number of technical schools in the United States in order to compare facilities for the study of the applied sciences in Ontario with those in the statesjust

33 Organization

south of the international border. Ross soon found that, in comparison to schools such as Cornell, education in the applied sciences in Ontario was limited in scope and lacking in equipment.' 6 The Government faced a choice: it could improve facilities in the province or see its best students leave for the United States. Ross decided the best course would be to reorganize the existing School of Practical Science. He proposed that links between the school and the University of Toronto be strengthened, that new laboratories be built, and that new courses be introduced, including one in the teaching of architectural science.17 The idea of a course in architecture at the School of Practical Science was included in the minister's report for i888.'8 To gain support for the idea, Ross turned to leading manufacturers, financiers, and industrialists such as Hart Massey, and discussed with them his ideas for better standards of training. 19 At the same time he approached the Architectural Guild for help in establishing a course and examinations in architecture. It was this which was to lead directly to the formation of the Ontario Association of Architects and, indirectly, to the Province of Quebec Association of Architects. The meeting which first brought Ross and the Architectural Guild together was held in Toronto on the 8 November 1888. Ross was direct in his approach, setting forth what the Government hoped to achieve and what the province's architects might expect iri return. The Government, he said, was intent on establishing a course in architecture at the School of Practical Science. Nonetheless, while the Government could fund the course, it would be a success only if it was recognized by architects themselves. Consequently, it was his hope that architects in the province would work with the school, helping to set the course and administering examinations. The problem, however, was that apart from the Architectural Guild, a body whose membership was in any case drawn exclusively from Toronto, there was no group of architects who could be called upon to act for the architects of Ontario. Clearly, any reform in architectural education at the School of Practical Science was dependent upon the formation of some sort of province-wide association ofarchitects. If the architects of the guild would organize such a society, Ross suggested, then he would introduce a bill into the legislature giving the new society legal status and rights under the law.*" To men such as George Storm, who had been pressing for just such an organization, Ross's offer could not have come at a more opportune moment. As Toronto architect R.W. Gambier-Bousfield (1860—1920) reported to the RIBA, the Architectural Guild took the matter up without delay. A committee of the guild was immediately

34 Professionalism formed to work towards the proposed association. On St Valentine's Day 1889 the committee reported to the guild that a constitution had been prepared and all that remained was to call a meeting of the province's architects. The architects of the province were subsequently canvassed and met at the Queen's Hotel, Toronto, on 21 March to form a society of architects.21 It was at this meeting that the OAA can be said to have had its beginning. The meeting was open to all bona fide architects; that is to all men "who have received the training and practice necessary to qualify them to perform satisfactorily the duties of an architect."22 In total, sixty-three architects met to consider the draft constitution and vote on its recommendations. Both it and the principle of formal organization were upheld, a temporary council was elected, and provision was made for the first annual convention of the OAA to be held in Toronto on 20 and 21 November 1889. Following the convention, a bill to incorporate the new association was brought before the Ontario legislature. True to his word, George Ross supported the bill, which received third reading on 31 March 1890 and Royal assent seven days later.23 The passage of the Ontario Architects' Act was followed within the space of a year by similar legislation in Quebec. There can be little doubt that in Quebec, where architects shared the desire for reform expressed by architects in Ontario, the formation of the OAA and the feeling of common purpose awakened by resentment over the actions of the Montreal Board of Trade were the main factors leading to the formation of the PQAA. It must also be said that co-operation among architects was in the air. In February 1889, a local Institute of Architects held its first meeting in Ottawa with Thomas Fuller (1865—1951) as president.a4 By the summer of 1890 another group, the Quebec Association of Architects, was established in Quebec City, and this group soon joined with architects in Montreal to form the PQAA. As early as January 1890, the CAB reported that, in the wake of the formation of the OAA, "steps were being taken to form Architectural Associations for the cities of Montreal and Quebec."25 Despite this, no consensus was reached between the two groups until August, when, following the announcement of the details of the Montreal Board of Trade competition, a group of leading architects met in Montreal to decide on a course of action. The architects also resolved at that time to work towards a provincial association along the lines of the OAA. 26 A committee of organization was formed and on 11 September the architects met again in Montreal to receive its report. The committee had prepared a draft constitution, together with by-laws, which were accepted in principle. The Montreal architects then approached the

35 Organization

Quebec Association of Architects in order to set a date for a general meeting open to all architects of the province, at which time a provincial association might be established. On 10 October 1890, the combined architects of Montreal and Quebec met, adopted the report of the Montreal organizational committee, and formally established the PQAA.27 That the new architectural associations filled a very real need was demonstrated by the eagerness with which architects joined the associations, and by the fact that the united architects lost little time in making use of the power at their disposal. Within days of its formation, the PQAA approached the Montreal Board of Trade to press their case. In both Ontario and Quebec, the associations soon began to sponsor regular meetings, lectures, and the like and to concern themselves with a range of issues from the need for a set schedule of charges to the demands of architectural education. By this time, however, the energy and spirit of the new associations were no longer founded on that vague ideal of professional fraternity which had been the mark of the first attempts at organization. The associations now drew their inspiration from an ideal at once greater and less noble: that of architectural professionalism. By the first convention of the OAA in November 1889, it was already evident from the draft constitution that the full implications of the sort of relationship envisaged by George Ross had begun to dawn on the great mass of membership. The architects of Ontario were now to work hand in hand with the Government to set and maintain standards. In a way foreseen by a few architects such as W. George Storm and David Brown, and yet far beyond the considerations of so contemporary a group as the Architectural Guild, the majority of architects in Ontario and Quebec were to consider and then accept as inevitable the principle not just of association but of professionalism in the broadest sense. It was this professional idea, that the practice of architecture might and should be controlled through a professional society with rights of registration and examination, which lay behind the legislation brought on behalf of the OAA and PQAA. But as the architects were to discover, while the professional idea might have seemed self-evident in principle, in practice it was a matter complicated and contentious. When the architects attempted to carry out, through a system of statutory registration, what they thought to be the natural consequence of their organizational achievement, they found themselves up against a wall of public opposition so intractable that within the space of a few years the OAA in particular was on the verge of collapse.

CHAPTER

THREE

Statutory Registration

George Ross supported the formation of the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) because he needed a province-wide association which would set and maintain standards of architectural education in the province. Both Ross and the Architectural Guild agreed that once the OAA was incorporated, the association would be required by law to set examinations, appoint examiners, and "make all necessary rules, regulations and by-laws respecting the admission and registration of students."1 The Ontario architects themselves hoped that organization would bring something more. They wanted to raise architectural standards and so counter the popularity of American architects. In exchange for their assuming the burden of architectural education, they wanted the Government to establish architecture as a profession with status and rights equal to those enjoyed by medicine and the law. They also wanted the Government to give architects the right to control standards of practice, and, above all, to restrict entry to the profession in Ontario to members of the OAA. During the fall of 1889 the newly organized association prepared a draft Act of Incorporation which was then given to the Government. This formed the basis of the Ontario Architects' Act, which was passed in 1890 and incorporated the association as a formal society with legal powers. In preparing the draft the OAA introduced three sections which would give the association control of the practice of architecture in the province. The first of these stated that no person "shall be entitled to take or use the name or title architect, either alone or in combination with any other word or words, or any name, title or description, implying that he is registered under this Act, unless he be so registered."2 The second provided that henceforth all building inspectors appointed by a public body, including city authorities, local boards, and boards of works, must be registered with the OAA. The

37 Statutory Registration third gave registered architects sole right to obtain or recover fees for professional services in a court of law.3 The second and third of these clauses were intended to resolve issues of great concern to architects at the time. During the i88os, poorly trained, inconsistent building inspectors commonly turned a blind eye to faulty construction or the abuse of building regulations. When buildings subsequently failed, with loss of life and property, the architectural profession as a whole was blamed. Architects felt this to be a prime cause of their poor public standing. In their view the introduction of properly trained, conscientious building inspectors would quickly lead to building of a higher standard and so to an architectural profession better regarded by the general public.4 The second measure addressed another source of grievance namely the standing of architects before the courts. In the absence of a recognized society of architects, courts had hitherto refused to grant architects the rights of professional status. This meant in practice that if an architect was called to give evidence in court on the basis of his architectural knowledge he would be compensated for his time only at the tradesman's rate of one dollar a day. In contrast a land surveyor who could claim membership in a professional society was paid at five times this rate.5 With the passage of the act, architects would be recognized by the courts as qualified professionals. The most important clause affecting the practice of architecture in the province was the first, that upon passage of the act only those registered with the OAA could practise as architects. It was also the measure which would, if passed, have the greatest effect in resolving the problems which architects faced: a poor public standing, unregulated competitions, and the unrestricted practice in Canada of American architects. It was, indeed, nothing less than a resolution imposing statutory registration; that is to say, the setting up by Act of Parliament of a register of practitioners to whom would be restricted the right of architectural practice.6 This idea of statutory registration was bound to be controversial. In 1889 anyone could be an architect, be he a carpenter, a mason, or a man on the street who had built his own house. If the proposed act were passed, the right to practise architecture would be given in only two ways: through the examinations of the OAA, or through evidence of previous professional training. Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects, for instance, would be allowed immediate entry. Architects who could claim a period of study or apprenticeship supported the idea, but others without any formal training feared the loss of their livelihood. In order to circumvent the opposition which men such as these would inevitably bring to bear on the registration

38 Professionalism

clause, a sub-clause provided that all men practising architecture in Ontario when the bill came into effect would be allowed to join the OAA, irrespective of their previous training. Only after a six-month period of grace had elapsed would architects have to meet the standards established in the OAA examinations. This last proposal was an important compromise. The men of the Architectural Guild negotiating with George Ross wanted a registration clause to keep untrained men from practising architecture. As they often pointed out, it was the unskilled practitioners who were responsible for lowering standards of practice and damaging public confidence in the architectural profession. Under the terms of the proposed act, these men would now be admitted into the new professional association so that the hoped-for rise in architectural standards would only come about gradually, as trained men slowly replaced the architects of an earlier generation. But the Architectural Guild was willing to accept this, since the registration clause would nonetheless offer considerable benefits. Eventually the public would be able to distinguish unqualified builders from qualified architects and graduates of the School of Practical Science. Without a registration bill, the course of the School of Practical Science could offer little material benefit for young architects. The registration bill also provided architects with a means to lift the profession out of its depressed and disorganized state. It alone would give architects true professional status, close Canadian practice to American architects living in the United States, and bring about a rise in architectural standards, however gradual. In the words of R. Gambier-Bousfield, the Toronto architect, the goal of the OAA was not just better education and increased public safety, but also the passage of "legislation by which means the whole tone of the profession should be raised out of the wretched condition it now occupies."7 The decision of the OAA to press for statutory registration was to have an enormous effect on the subsequent history of the architectural profession in Canada. It would not be too much to say that its effects dominated the profession until well after the turn of the century. Not least was its immediate effect in other provinces. First in Quebec, and then in British Columbia, architects introduced registration bills before the provincial legislature. In all three provinces, architects v the mechanism of registration as a means by which the rise in architectural standards which the public demanded could be achieved. During the 1890$ the need for higher standards and the fear of American competition had pushed Canadian architects inexorably towards professionalism. During the next decade many Canadian architects came to see the concepts of professionalism and

39 Statutory Registration

registration as interchangeable. Having taken the idea of registration to heart they proved reluctant to abandon it, even though immediate efforts to secure registration failed. In Canada the move for architectural professionalism developed very quickly into a struggle for legal rights and statutory registration. In England professionalism developed much more slowly, though the pattern of action and reaction found there is so similar to what we have seen in Canada that it is worth reprinting an account of it here: Professionalism developed in England during the nineteenth century as a means of affording the professional man security of employment in a free market economy dominated by the principles of laissez-faire and caveat emptor. Its development in any given profession followed a fairly general pattern: the foundation of a voluntary association, excluding unqualified or other persons liable to lower public prestige; the development of an explicit code of conduct; the growth of a system of tests and examinations; the extension of control over the relevant educational institutions; the widening of interests, first to national, and then to international activities within the field; a movement towards statutory registration.8

Though the idea of professionalism gained support among Canadian architects in response to local events, the similarity between what was happening in Canada and what was happening in England reminds us that the experience of Canadian architects during the i88os was part of a movement towards professionalism throughout the English-speaking world. Not only in Canada and Great Britain but also in the United States and Australia architects faced problems of competition, education, and a poor public standing. In each of these countries there was agitation for organization, professionalism, and the introduction of statutory registration.9 The ideas and movements found in these countries had a direct influence on the ideas and actions of architects in Canada, so that the Canadian profession which emerged in the 18908 was the product of international as well as local and national influences. Just as Canadian architects imitated American planning and design to demonstrate their own native abilities, Canadian architects looked abroad to find remedies to their own difficulties. The immediate model for the Ontario registration bill lay in England; this at least is the impression given by surviving records. In the autumn of 1889 W. A. Langton (1854-1973), secretary of the OAA, wrote Hugh Romieu Gough, president of the Society of Architects in London, asking for information on English registration bills. Unlike the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), which was a voluntary

40

Professionalism

body, albeit with restricted membership, the Society of Architects had adopted the principle of statutory registration. Founded in 1884 as an alternative to the RIBA, the Society of Architects, led by Gough, spearheaded a campaign to have a registration bill passed in the Commons in 1886. The bill was defeated, but the society supported successive attempts in 1889,1890, and 1892, which led to a celebrated break among British architects over the issue in i8gi. 10 Since the debate over statutory registration in England was at its height in the late i88os, Canadian architects would have been well aware of the issues involved in statutory registration as well as British efforts to secure its introduction. The Society of Architects had already drafted a registration bill, which would have been particularly helpful to the OAA. In response to Langton's request, Gough offered advice and sent copies of the proposed legislation - help which was warmly acknowledged by the OAA and later reciprocated." Even though the Society of Architects had failed to secure statutory registration in England, the general feeling among Ontario architects in the winter of 1889—90 was that, with the support of George Ross, the Architects' Act would be brought before the House as proposed and quickly passed. To their surprise, this proved not to be so. The act was introduced to the House by George Ross on 5 March 1890, but when on second reading it was referred to committee it encountered strong and unexpected criticism. Under pressure, Ross agreed to some far-reaching amendments. Only then was the bill passed, receiving Royal assent on 7 April i8go.12 The main criticism faced by the bill in committee was that its effect would be to create a closed corporation, establishing a monopoly over architectural services in the province. At a time when there was a growing distrust of industrial and commercial combines the majority of the legislature proved to be unenthusiastic about a bill which seemed to create yet another protected interest. In their view the most attractive feature of the proposed legislation, apart from the provisions for architectural education, was that it offered the public a means of distinguishing between qualified and unqualified architects, and so allowed a greater degree of public safety. They cared little about the long-term hopes of the architectural profession. In its original form, the act restricted the title "architect" to registered members of the OAA. Hoping to strike a balance between the effect the bill would have in reassuring the public and the dangers of creating a professional monopoly, the House altered the bill to read "registered architect" rather than simply "architect." The effect of this was that anyone could still practise architecture as before, but only members of the OAA could be termed "registered" architects. In this way the

41 Statutory Registration

public would be able to distinguish between qualified and unqualified architects without suffering the restrictions which statutory registration would bring about.13 The Committee of the House made several other changes. Registered architects who acted for the courts were awarded the right to professional fees but those sections granting them exclusive rights to give evidence in court or to professional posts such as building inspectors were withdrawn from the bill.14 Besides this, the terms of student study were made more flexible and the last clause of the bill, giving the council of the OAA the power to remove an architect from the registrar, was struck from the act in its entirety. In the words of a speaker for the opposition, "it was unfair to trust this power into the hands of the Association of Architects."15 Taking all the changes into account, the architects' bill had suffered rather badly. As a Canadian journalist noted in an article published in the AABN, "practically this last clause, and the one restricting the use of the word 'architect,' formed the backbone of the bill as prepared by the Association. The one the Government obliterates, and the other it renders objectionable and almost useless by the interpolation of the word 'registered.'16 In the opinion of the reporter, the amendments to the bill called into question its very usefulness to the public and the profession. Speaking of the government, he wrote, "They declare their purpose to be that of protecting the public, and then make no attempt to hinder those who do them injury, for who among the public is going to look out for the word 'registered' on an architect's name-board. No, they all will see 'architect' as heretofore, and will be bitten in consequence."17 Not only in the United States but also in Britain and Australia this early attempt at statutory registration was followed with interest. In general the reaction of architects in Australia to the Ontario Architects' Act echoed that of the AABN. In the view of the Australian Builder, some of the changes to the bill had been for the better, notably that which had made the terms of student study more flexible. Nonetheless, on balance it thought the concessions made by the architects had been too great: "If a Registration Bill is to be anything at all, it should be a reality and not a farce," it said, and "It seems to us by their rejection of these clauses the Ontario Parliament have stultified and rendered almost nugatory an act that in many respect is admirable."18 The reaction of the RIBA, which had watched the progress of the OAA with interest, was, if anything, even more critical. The institute had been kept informed of developments in Canada through the correspondence of R.W. Gambier-Bousfield. In June 1890 it pub-

42 Professionalism

lished the Ontario Architects' Act in its entirety, together with notes by Gambier-Bousfield and a separate leader. Commenting on the act, the Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects said that to its mind those passages relating to the constitution and appointment of the council and those "which lay down definite rules respecting the qualifications of students desirous to register, are undoubtedly valuable and important, because they open a way for the Association to permanently influence the welfare of young men starting in life as architects within the Province of Ontario."19 But the journal, responding to the hope expressed by the Ontario legislature and by its Canadian correspondent, Gambier-Bousfield, that the bill would at least enable the public to distinguish between the qualified and unqualified practitioner, had this to say: But does it? And will an architect who carries to Ontario the Certificate of Fellow or Associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects be distinguished by the inhabitants of that Province as "unqualified" if he fails to register under the Ontario Architects' Act? Such a consummation is hardly to be wished, and the Council of the Ontario Association will probably not be long in finding it out. In one particular, however, they will be regarded by the architectural profession with curiousity: they are "the first by whom the new is tried". For though, during three centuries, the world has known that there are always architects and architects, a British Legislative Assembly has now decided that, within at least the confines of the Province of Ontario there shall be architects and "Registered Architects".20

Despite these comments and others like them, the mood of the OAA itself was one of cautious optimism. Compared to the complete lack of success of the registration lobby in the United States and Great Britain, theirs had been only a partial defeat. The feeling was widespread that, with hard work and a little luck, an amendment to the bill could soon be introduced which would bring about full registration.21 In the meantime there was room for genuine selfcongratulation: the profession was now legally recognized and the groundwork had been laid for a post-secondary course in architecture. It could not be denied, however, that the amendments to the Architects' Act had fundamentally altered the character of the association. For the time being, and however the Ontario legislators might try to disguise the fact, the principle of compulsory registration had been rejected in favour of voluntary association. The failure of the OAA registration bill was also important in that it set the scene for similar developments across the country. In the wake of the Ontario

43 Statutory Registration

Architects' Act, registration bills were defeated in Quebec and British Columbia. In Quebec especially, the progress of the Ontario architects was followed step by step. The Act of Incorporation of the Province of Quebec Association of Architects submitted to the Quebec legislature was virtually identical to that submitted to the Ontario legislature by the OAA, including the provision establishing compulsory registration. Unfortunately for the Quebec architects, the members of the Quebec assembly had also followed the progress of the Ontario Architects' Act. In the words of one Quebec architect, they insisted on following as well "the bad example of the Ontario Legislature by mutilating the Act by giving powers to 'registered architects,' rather than to 'architects.'"22 The situation in British Columbia was somewhat different. In June of 1891 a group of architects met in Victoria with the intention of forming an architectural association. They seem to have modelled themselves on the OAA and PQAA, for a month earlier, in May 1891, the secretary of the OAA had received a letter from some architects on the west coast requesting him to send a copy of the by-laws and Act of Incorporation of the association "to assist in the formation of a similar association in British Columbia."23 By the spring of 1892 the British Columbia architects had drafted a bill and submitted it to the legislature, only to have it defeated on third reading. The speaker ruled that, even though it had been entered as a private member's bill, it was in character a public bill and would have to be reintroduced as such. To circumvent this, the architects then registered as a society under the Literary Societies Act. On 24 June 1892, The British Columbia Institute of Architects was born.24 Since any form of architectural registration would have to be established by a separate act of the legislature, the new institute could be nothing more than a voluntary association. The intention of the architects themselves, was, like that of architects in Quebec and Ontario, to introduce statutory registration at a later date. Just over half a year later, in February 1893, the British Columbia Institute of Architects introduced another act to the legislature which would have required all architects to register with the institute by law. This was defeated in the House on second reading. By the occasion of their third annual convention in December of the same year, the British Columbia architects were considering yet another attempt at an architect's registration bill. After reviewing the issue, the architects of the province decided to abandon their efforts at introducing a provincial registration bill. Instead they agreed to approach the architectural societies of Quebec and Ontario and work towards a

44

Professionalism

national system of registration. They soon found, however, that in both Ontario and Quebec architects were preoccupied with local efforts at registration and there was little interest in the idea of a national system. The British Columbia Institute of Architects gradually disbanded and the architects on the west coast remained unorganized until after the turn of the century. 25 The formation of the institute demonstrates, nonetheless, that despite their small numbers and distance from the East, architects in British Columbia had by the early iSgos developed an incipient community interested in and well aware of developments in architecture elsewhere in the country. The immediate effect of the Architects' Acts in both Ontario and Quebec, amendments notwithstanding, was the formal registration and entry into professional societies of the great majority of architects then practising in those provinces. By November 1890, 140 architects had registered with the OAA. By July of 1891 this number had risen to 154. The same pattern could be seen in Quebec where the number of registered architects had climbed from 40 in May of 1891 to 70 by the following September.26 Besides this, and no less important, was the response of architectural students. During the first year in Ontario, 35 students wrote one of the three examinations allowing them entry to the professional registers.27 The base upon which this early success stood was the expectation that membership in the associations would be widely recognized by the public and that those who opted out of membership would soon find themselves isolated and unemployed; in other words, that the practical effect of the new acts would be something close to full statutory registration. It soon became clear, however, that this was not to be. Whatever the profession felt about distinctions between registered and non-registered architects, the Canadian public was prepared to ignore the distinction entirely. By the end of 1891 the euphoria surrounding organization began to look somewhat premature. The first cracks in professional solidarity appeared not long thereafter. In the spring of 1892, a number of students refused to take the OAA examinations, "stating that they could not see that they would be placed in any better position as architects by taking the examination."28 This early reaction of the students was but a portent of things to come; it soon became apparent that membership in the PQAA and OAA, however congenial, was of little more need to the average architect than examinations to the student. Unqualified men continued to practise architecture without any distinction made by the great majority of ordinary people. The result of this was that by the

45 Statutory Registration

mid-18905 the OAA in particular was severely weakened. As membership and interest declined, the OAA found itself less a representative body for the province's architects than a Toronto-based architectural club. As W.A. Langton, secretary of the OAA, was to write several years later, the effect of the registration amendment "was to kill the movement as conceived - as a universal movement towards the advancement of architecture — and to leave the Association with a struggle before it to attain even the partial effectiveness of a voluntary society. It proved to be impossible to elevate an arbitrary title over the accepted title; or in other words to degrade the title Architect by law without there being any other reason for its degradation."29 The success of the Architects' Act was further compromised by the resolution which admitted all practising architects into the association during the first six months after incorporation. Conceived as a device to avoid opposition to the registration bill, it meant that, for the first ten or fifteen years, both trained and untrained architects would be members of the association. After this period, the OAA and PQAA would be largely composed of men who had passed the provincial examinations. If registration had been introduced this mixture of trained and untrained men would have mattered little. Without registration it rendered any distinction between architects who belonged to the association and those who did not meaningless until such time as the association was composed entirely of men who had qualified after 1890. The distinction, such as it was, between members and non-members of the associations was further complicated by the fact that even dedicated supporters of the new associations were reluctant to use the title "registered architect." As Langton bitterly remarked, the "Act for all practical purposes, in its first years, was merely a law licensing practicing architects to call themselves Registered Architects."30 Unlike the RIBA, for instance, which although a voluntary association had a select, qualified membership, the OAA and the PQAA could offer the public no guarantees of training or expertise. Members of the OAA and PQAA continued to support the aims of the associations, regulating competitions, testing materials, drafting building and fire codes, setting examinations, and so on, but all this was done by a small and dedicated number. For the profession as a whole any material motive to support the associations was gone. The failure of the Ontario Architects' Act confirmed the opinion of those who, like George Storm, had from the beginning called for compulsory registration. Like him, Many architects concluded that only registration could bring about the changes in the profession for which they had organized. The effect of this was to bring registration to the forefront of the architects' goals. During the 18905 especially,

46

Professionalism

the energies of the associations were given over to the propagation of the registration idea and to securing an amendment to the Architects' Acts which would bring statutory registration about. Although the records of the OAA give the best account of a prolonged debate over registration, it was no less a goal for architects in Quebec. While architects in Ontario began to press for an amendment to their act almost immediately, the policy of Quebec architects was one of greater patience, and, in the end, greater success. By 1898 the Quebec architects alone had succeeded in securing statutory registration; the architects of Ontario were unable to achieve a similar status until 1931-31 As in Ontario, the initial interest generated by the formation of the Architects' Association in Quebec soon gave way to a general apathy on the part of rank and file architects towards the general affairs of the council. In November 1892, for instance, a special meeting of the association was held to propose ways to encourage attendance at PQAA meetings. It was agreed that in the future dinners might be held once a month, to be followed by a discussion of papers, lectures, and so on. To counter the disaffection felt by many architects towards the new association, the council of the PQAA worked to raise the prestige and authority of the PQAA in a variety of ways, for instance through civic work, the promotion of art exhibitions, and the establishment of classes for students preparing for the association examinations.32 As a reporter noted in the AABN, the plan of the PQAA "has been to make itself, through perhaps a long course of years, recognized by the public as a public-spirited body, having at heart the interests of art, and taking an active part in all movements for the furthering of art in the two chief cities of the Province, Montreal and Quebec."33 Consequently, by September 1897, when the association at its annual convention decided to petition the government for a registration amendment to the Architects' Act, it had firmly established itself at the forefront of the profession with a number of accomplishments to its credit, including the establishment of a chair in architecture at McGill University.34 One of the first acts of a special committee appointed by the PQAA at large to forward the registration amendment was to write the OAA for "a file of documents and other details concerning their attempt to have the word 'registered' struck off from their act."35 Similarly, they wrote their lawyer, M.R. Dandurend, seeking his opinion on whether their petition stood a reasonable chance of success. He replied confidently, and as it happened accurately, that he had every reason to believe the association could "obtain the eradication of the word 'registered' in such a manner as to monopolise the title architect."36

47 Statutory Registration

During the months that followed an amendment was drafted and introduced to the House in Quebec City. At Dandurend's advice the bill was altered so that architectural students who had already served four years' apprenticeship in an office might be able to join the register without sitting the qualifying examination. By this means, all serious opposition to the amendment was side-stepped. The act was subsequently passed, receiving Royal assent on 15 January, 1898.37 With the passage of the amendment bill the Quebec architects became the first in the English-speaking world to achieve full statutory registration. As we have already suggested, the policy of the Ontario architects in the face of government opposition to statutory registration was considerably more aggressive than that of the PQAA, who had chosen to build up the reputation of the association before petitioning the government for greater powers. In February 1892, less than two years after the incorporation of the OAA, S.G. Curry rose at the annual convention of the association to move that the council request the Ontario government to alter their act. Since virtually every architect in the province was a member of the OAA and since every member would be entitled to practise under a revised act, he argued that the time had come for the word "registered" to be removed from the Architects' Act and members of the association be given the privilege of using the title "Architect."38 Behind his proposal was the feeling that, given the history of the OAA, with its formation and incorporation at the request of George Ross, statutory registration, though denied at first, was the inevitable result of that path of mutual co-operation which had been followed by architects and the Government since 1888. As Curry went on to say, "having now got in such a shape that they can give the education that the Department asked for, and having put it within the range of all who wish to come into the association ... the Council should now be given very full power to obtain the full privileges that the association should now possess."39 The case for registration was put even more strongly by A.H. Gregg (1868—1945), who argued that "It should be a matter of paramount importance with the Association to push this through, for until that word 'registered' is struck out we will have accomplished practically nothing."40 By the following year, as it became apparent that the educational program of the OAA was failing to attract those students for which it was designed, Curry, now president of the OAA, made it clear that to his mind the root of the problem lay in the inadequacy of the act under which they were working. "The trouble lies," he said, "in the fact that we are expected to do educational work without the power to

48

Professionalism

do it effectively. The Association is working under an act of the Provincial Legislature which to all intents and purposes gives us neither benefits nor privileges, while it imposes on us the duty of educating the future members of the profession, that the public may be benefitted in the future."41 Already, by 1893, some architects within the association were suggesting that the OAA would do well simply to abandon its educational program. But, as Curry noted, and this is evidence of a growing awareness that the architects would have to justify statutory registration, "the strongest argument which I can urge in favour of the Association carrying on this work of education, is that it is about the only way in which we, as members of the profession can show that we have, not only our own interests, but those of the public at large."42 However, criticism of the principle of statutory registration was beginning to be heard not only from the public but from architects as well. At the OAA convention in February 1892, an Ottawa architect rose to speak "in the interests of those architects who had remained outside the Association." The public was already well protected if it cared to be, he said, and the OAA ought not to press for increased powers. "The system of men styling themselves architect was in existence long before the formation of the Association," he went on to say, and "nothing should be done to injure them."43 While he agreed that it might be well for every man wanting to practise to be required to pass an examination and to have a certain degree of competency, ultimately, "if a man wanted to engage the services of someone who was not a registered architect, it was a matter for the client and not the Association."44 It was in the midst of this growing crisis that the council of the OAA decided to approach the provincial government in the hope of winning support for a registration bill. As the council reported to the OAA convention in February 1893, however, they had found the members of the legislature so opposed to the idea that it was worse than useless to press it at that time.4-5 Under these circumstances and given that registration bills were then under consideration in both British Columbia and New York State - both of which failed - the council decided to postpone their attempt at amending the Architects' Act. They were, nonetheless, unwilling to give up completely, and a few months later the council again approached the government, which this time agreed to support the proposal in principle, so long as it was introduced by way of a private member's bill. Under these conditions a registration bill was brought before the House, only to receive so rough a hearing in committee that the council decided to withdraw the bill rather than see it defeated.46

49 Statutory Registration

The fact of the matter was that the Ontario architects had run headlong into the powerful reaction against monopolies, corporations, and trusts which was then so marked a feature of political life in the province. During the same session of 1893, not only the architects, but undertakers, druggists, and milkmen had all pressed for regulation and restriction. As the premier told the OAA delegation, "the temper of the House at that time was such that any proposal which seemed to point in the direction of increasing the number of close corporations would certainly be voted down."47 While the architects might well have a legitimate claim, the House was little inclined to make a distinction for them alone. As the three architects on the OAA registration committee, S.H. Townsend, Frank Darling, and D.B. Dick, reported: "There is no doubt that the principal difficulty in the way of obtaining the desired amendment is the feeling prevailing amongst a large number of the members of the Legislative Assembly that the Association is of the nature of a Trades Union."48 Faced with this, and convinced of the justice of their cause, the OAA set forth on a campaign designed to win the support of both the public and the legislature. To this end the OAA began a policy of lobbying the members of the legislature. In January 1896, Frank Darling, then president of the OAA told the members of the association, "Whenever you can get a hold of a member of the legislature, see that you do not neglect the opportunity, but seize the chance, and explain to him as clearly and definitely as you can what it is we are asking for, remove his apprehensions, which you will find are many, and do all in your power to make him understand the matter properly.49 The OAA also printed a series of statements and pamphlets outlining their aims and the reasons why they thought their position just. For instance, in June of 1894 an open letter was printed and sent to all candidates then campaigning in the provincial election. The letter made clear the intention of the OAA to press their case once again. Most of the argument was not new and it repeated yet again the main points of the architects' position: the Ontario Architects' Act had failed, students had no incentive to sit the OAA examinations, Canadian architects were failing to receive the training necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the public.50 Despite these efforts and the support of many members of the legislature as well as newspapers such as the Toronto World and the Toronto Mail, the association failed in 1896 and then again in 1897 in their attempt to secure statutory registration. These successive defeats left the OAA severely weakened and demoralized, especially in view of the fact that by 1898 the architects of Quebec had won so easily what they, in Ontario, had fought so long and hard to secure. As it

50

Professionalism

happened, the registration issue was yet far from dead, even though after 1898 the OAA, like the architects of British Columbia before them, decided to abandon their efforts to secure an amendment to their act. In Quebec it was soon clear that registration was not the panacea it had seemed to be. In Ontario the registration issue was within two years to dominate the profession yet again, although now the debate was to take on a new character. As new ideas came sweeping in from the United States and from across the Atlantic, registration became the focus of debate not just over the regulation of architectural practice, but its very nature as well.

CHAPTER

FOUR

Architectural Education

The role of George Ross in the formation of the OAA guaranteed that one of the prime responsibilities of the association would be the reform of architectural education. Indeed, in the light of the changes made to the Architects' Act, some architects were of the opinion that it was the only responsibility left them. In Quebec, where architects lacked the incentive provided by Ross, the PQAA was nevertheless willing to take on the burden of architectural education just as architects had done in Ontario. The reason is that by 1890 Canadian architects themselves had come to recognize that the lack of systematic training in architecture was a major cause of the problems they faced. Unless Canadian architects could offer students the sort of training available in Europe and the United States, more and more would leave Canada. Unless architects themselves were trained in the new science of construction, more and more Canadians would look to the United States in search of capable designers. The root of the problem lay not so much in the methods of the past as in their application. The basis of the existing system was the age-old tradition of apprenticeship - the training of architectural students through the practical experience of work in an office. Ideally, this system, and especially its counterpart of pupillage, whereby young men paid a premium to the architect at the commencement of the period of training, could give the prospective architect a solid grounding in surveying, measuring, costing, superintendence, and draftsmanship. In practice, the training of architects in Canada during the i88os was disorganized, sporadic, and inconsistent. Many successful architects took on young men to train as draftsmen and architects, but the standard of training as well as the conditions of work varied from one office to the next. Sometimes the student would be paid a stipend during his years of training; in other cases, and

52

Professionalism

especially if he had no previous experience, he would be expected to work without payment, his board and lodging paid for by his family. 1 The best training was often found in large offices or in the office of the Department of Public Works in Ottawa. 2 But even here, if one can judge by surviving accounts of life in the office of George Storm, the course of instruction was highly informal. Students were generally left to pick up as much as they could in the way of professional skills amid the day-to-day activities of architectural practice.3 According to the Montreal architect A.C. Hutchison, most Canadian architects were, by necessity, self-made men. In an address to the PQAA given in 1891 he said that in his opinion "the study of architecture in many of our offices has been somewhat of a farce ... I do not think that there is an office in the Province of Quebec where there has been a systematic teaching of architecture."4 A year earlier, again speaking before the PQAA, he had been even more candid: "It is true that young men may enter the office of an architect and spend a few years there, and pick up a knowledge of architecture as far as the means at his command will enable him to do so, but as to any systematic teaching it has been completely ignored — in fact there are no means of providing it.5 Another critic of the existing system of unregulated pupillage was John Ireland, principal of the Hamilton Art School. "The era of the articled pupil is no longer existent," he declared in 1896, "and the meanness of the proprietors of almost numberless offices has brought about this state of affairs. I ask, is it just to a young man after he has attended public school, collegiate and perhaps university, to enter an office as a pupil, when in reality he is an office drudge?" 6 But if the age of the articled pupil was over, the difficulty lay in knowing what to establish in its place. The earliest efforts at reform were designed not to supplant training in an office, but to supplement it through the institution of courses which might give young men basic skills in drafting, freehand drawing, and the like. It was with this in mind that the government of Quebec introduced courses in architecture to the curriculum at the Ecoles des Arts et Metiers schools which had been established throughout the province during the 18705 to improve the quality of Canadian design. By 1894 the Montreal school offered courses in architectural and freehand drawing, as well as lithography, mechanical drawing, modelling, wood-carving, stair-building, and building construction.7 Nonetheless, each student entering the course was required to appear before the professor accompanied by a letter of recommendation from his employer. When a particular class was oversubscribed, preference

53 Architectural Education

was given to those "whose occupations require a knowledge of the study sought."8 Similar courses and evening classes were offered in Ontario at the schools of art and design. These were established throughout the province from 1876 onwards, following years of agitation. The Board of Arts and Manufactures for Upper Canada recommended the establishment of a school of design in the province as early as iS^S. 9 By 1896 the Hamilton Art School, whose pupils included the young John Lyle (1872-1945) offered instruction in architectural perspective and architectural design.10 Besides this, occasional courses in architectural subjects could be found here and there; at the Mechanics' Institutes, in Montreal at the Mont St Louis Institute, which offered a course in design, and at the Montreal Presbyterian College, where first A.C. Hutchison and then A.T. Taylor lectured in ecclesiastical architecture." A more permanent contribution to architectural education was the introduction in 1875 of a course in design to the curriculum at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. With the exception of this course at the Ecole Polytechnique, which was, in any case, incidental to the main purpose of the school instruction in the applied sciences — none of these measures met the need for architectural education at a professional level. It was in an effort to make some headway in this direction that the Architectural Draughtsmen's Club was formed in Toronto in 1886. The first meeting of the Club was held in the office of Laiigley and Burke on 2 3 December. At the meeting, a group of architects, students, and draftsmen agreed to meet on a regular basis for mutual professional improvement and for the purpose "of uniting in fellowship the architectural draftsmen and students of the city." 12 Within a few months time the draftsmen's club had affiliated with the Canadian Institute, changing its name from the Architectural Draughtsmen's Association of Toronto to the Architectural Section of the Canadian Institute.' 3 Now meeting in the rooms of the Canadian Institute, the club became a centre of architectural life. With the help of architects such as Edmund Burke and George Storm, both of whom would be active in the formation of the Architectural Guild, instruction was offered in practical subjects such as the detailing of columns, wood floors, arched foundations, carpentry, and plumbing. The meetings also included a series of lectures. During the first year these included a paper on "the Uses and Abuses of the Romanesque," indicative certainly of that style's contemporary vogue, and another on "The Best Style for Canada."14 While the draftsmen's club was an undoubted success, followed by other student clubs in Toronto during the 188os and 18gos, it was not

54

Professionalism

a long-term solution to the problem of architectural education in the country. In an age marked by an increasingly sophisticated public and the development of new techniques of construction, the standard of training available in Canada no longer offered young men the skills and experience they needed to compete with architects from the United States. As A.C. Hutchison told the PQAA in 1890, "I have often advised young men who wished to obtain a knowledge of architecture to go to the United States and obtain an education there." The alternative was to be ill — prepared for an uncertain future. By 1890 more and more architectural students were taking Hutchison's advice, leaving the country to study abroad, or alternatively to gain experience by working in a foreign office, usually in Boston, New York, or Chicago, or, if the passage could be found, in London. The immediate impact of this architectural exodus was a shortage of skilled draftsmen. As the students and draftsmen pointed out, even apart from the lack of educational opportunities there was little incentive for them to stay. Canadian draftsmen were so poorly paid that they could afford neither to study nor to travel but were forced to spend their free hours taking odd jobs to make ends meet.16 In the view of J.C.B. Horwood, a young Newfoundland-born architect who had articled with the Toronto firm of Langley and Burke before leaving for New York, the departure of Canadians was symptomatic of the state of Canadian architecture in general. Students left because they could not obtain a proper training, but that was only one side of the coin. The inexperience of Canadian architects in the design of ornamental work was, he said, as important a cause of the low standard of architecture in the country as lack of money. "When we neglect our education in this respect," he observed, we "consequently too often pass the matter over by concluding that it is altogether because we have not the money to spend upon it.'"7 For Horwood and others like him, the standard of architecture in the country would not be improved until better provision was made for architectural education. In an address made to the OAA as president in 1895, Edmund Burke called for better education to raise the standard of practice, discredit architectural charlatans, and end unprofessional conduct of various kinds. He argued that educational standards and the status of the profession were inseparably linked: The coming Canadian architect needs a better education for another and more sordid reason, but a very present one nevertheless, and one which we have very severely felt in this country of late years, namely - the competition of foreign architects. Some of our most expensive buildings have been erected from the design of aliens. The apology for this is the alleged want of

55 Architectural Education experience and ability on the part of the native architect. We do not admit for one moment the validity of this contention, the fine buildings erected by local men attesting to the contrary; but that that, is, to a considerable extent, the condition of affairs is a well known fact. This contention is not advanced with regard to the employment of other professions in Canada, because they have aimed at and attained a high standard of professional education. The lesson for us is evident.' 8

Although Burke was speaking five years after the formation of the OAA, the need for better facilities and standards was recognized by Canadian architects at the time of organization. As the Montreal architect A.F. Dunlop (1842-1923) noted at the first convention of the PQAA, the improvement of architectural education was a leading consideration behind professional organization. "We are formed into this Association," he said, "for the advancement of architecture, for the better serving of our clients, and for the better education of our students; also for the establishment of schools and classes of architecture, and for the purpose of making every architect of the future a competent one, whom the public may employ with confidence.'"9 For Dunlop, and in this he was representative of the organized architects in general, the problem of architectural education was a twofold one. On the one hand there was the need for better educational facilities, on the other the need for a mechanism which could guarantee higher standards of practice. Unless all young architects were better trained, the profession as a whole would still be unable to claim a universal level of competence. The tactic adopted to ensure this improvement was a set of progressive examinations which each student would have to complete to gain entry to the professional associations. In both Quebec and Ontario, architects were given the right, through the respective architects' acts, to set and administer examinations. Elsewhere in the country, students would continue to train in offices, but if they wished to join the OAA or PQAA they would have to write the association exams or otherwise establish their competence. After the passage of the registration amendment in Quebec in 1898 all architects wanting to practise in Quebec were required to meet the standard of the PQAA exams. In adopting a set of progressive examinations to test the students and control professional standards, Canadian architects had followed the principles and forms of the RIBA. Under pressure from provinicial architectural societies in Great Britain, the RIBA had introduced a compulsory examination for those seeking election as associates of the institute in 1882. In 1890 this was replaced by a system of three progressive examinations.20 In Canada, as in Britain, a series of three

56

Professionalism

separate examinations was established.21 These consisted of a preliminary entrance examination for those wanting to register as students, an intermediate, and then a final examination giving entry to the association. Under the respective acts of the OAA and PQAA, a board of examiners was appointed by the council of each of the associations, and the examinations were required to be held on a regular basis. An impression of the sort of questions faced by the students during the 18905 can be gained from a pamphlet printed in 1898 to advise students preparing for the OAA examinations. According to the guide, the fee for each examination was ten dollars and each candidate was required to submit his name to the registrar at least a month in advance of the examination day. The preliminary examination consisted of questions on trigonometry, algebra, technical terms, and the history of architecture to the close of the Roman period. Besides this, the candidate was expected to submit a set of drawings on the Roman orders. A second set of drawings, this time on Romanesque, Gothic, and modern architecture, was required for the intermediate examination along with a knowledge of statics, strength of materials, structural ironwork, and the history of architecture from Roman to modern times. The final examination was simply an extension of the intermediate one, including, once again, history of architecture, strength of materials, steel, and iron construction, a knowledge of the building trades, heating and ventilation, sanitary science, architectural jurisprudence, foundations, design, and perspective drawing. Finally, students were expected to be able to draw the characteristic mouldings, features, and ornaments of any style.22 The institution of examinations provided a way of measuring the competence of architects entering the profession, but there still remained the need for better facilities wherein architectural students could gain the skills necessary to pass. Both George Ross and the Ontario architects expected that the School of Practical Science would prepare students for examinations in technical subjects - mathematics, statics, structures, and so on. Indeed, this was the basis of the Department of Education's request for a grant to establish the architecture course. As Ross pointed out, it was not his intention that the new course should turn out qualified architects, but simply that it should give students an opportunity to obtain a systematic training in the physical and mathematical sciences upon which architecture was increasingly based. In addition students would still be expected to study design through work in an architect's office.23 Under the terms of the Ontario Architects' Act, students were encouraged to attend the School of Practical Science course. Normally students had to be registered with an architect for five years before taking the final OAA

57 Architectural Education examination, but for graduates this was reduced to three years, one of which could be served during the school vacation/4 Behind this emphasis on formal training in science lay the feeling that it was in the maintenance of a high standard of competence in the mechanics of architectural construction that Canadian architects had the best chance of improving the public standing of the profession. "You will never make an artist of a man" said Frank Darling in 1896. You can teach him, however, to put up buildings that will not fall down. You can teach him the science of construction, the property and strength of materials, their proper application and use, the principles and theory of sanitary science, of plumbing, heating, ventilation, and many other kindred matters, and you can so direct his reading and his study that when he is able finally to pass his examinations successfully and attains the right to assume the title of "Architect" and commence the practice of his profession the public may feel justified in considering that they will be safe in entrusting the expenditure of their money into his hands. 25

The emphasis on scientific training at the School of Practical Science was also a result of economies. Though Ross managed to get a grant for his new course in architecture, he recommended that "in the selection of the demonstrator in the laboratory and lecturer in architecture an endeavour should be made to obtain teachers who would relieve the Professor of Engineering of a portion of his present work as well as attend to the new work for which they would be specially appointed."26 As a result, the lecturer appointed in charge of the architecture course was C.H.C. Wright, himself a graduate in engineering from the School of Practical Science. Although Wright lectured on subjects such as the history of architecture, principles of decoration, and architectural drawing, his appointment meant that, for some time to come, the course in architecture at the School of Practical Science would remain primarily a scientific one.27 The establishment of a course in architecture affiliated with a university was also the aim of architects in Quebec during the early 18908. As early as 1888 Charles Baillairge (1826-1906) had called for a Canadian school of arts on the grounds that "it is time that we should have men educated here in full view of the difficulties of our climate, and whose minds could mature schemes proportionate to the scale of our vast inter-oceanic dominion."28 In a paper read before a group of architects and students in Montreal in 1891, A.C. Hutchison noted that with the institution of compulsory examinations in both Ontario and Quebec "the question of architectural training necessary to qualify for such examinations is of vital importance." At the present

58

Professionalism

time, he sak., "the only means for obtaining such instruction is for a pupil to enter an architect's office, where, during three years pupillage, he is expected to acquire all the instructions and training required to qualify him to pass the final examinations required by the Association." He went on to say that while pupillage might give students a good training in practical work, "it did not really afford the training in many subjects with which he should be familiar."29 A year earlier, at the convention of the PQAA, Hutchison had spoken out on the question of architectural education, saying that the provision of systematic training in architecture should be a priority of the new association: It should be one of the early objects of the Association to establish some means of founding a college or providing other ways of giving young men a systematic training in architecture, and until that is done, our profession will never be what it should be. It is true that we have a College of Technology in Montreal, but I do not think it any part of the subjects taught there. It might be made part of the course and now that our McGill College here has, through the munificence of some of our citizens of Montreal, been so largely endowed in the Science Department, and where there are so many subjects that would be common between architecture and engineering, I hope the time is not far distant when we shall have a Chair of Architecture or lectures on architecture in connection with the Science and Art Departments.30

Hutchison's ideas were well received and gained the support of other architects such as A.F. Dunlop, who commented: "I hope this chair at McGill College which Mr Hutchison has spoken of, and also a French Chair at Laval Institute, will soon become a fact, and that we shall call on the Quebec Government to assist the project."31 During the discussion which followed Hutchison's address, it was even suggested that the establishment of a course in architecture would be accomplished in the very near future. "These projects which have been suggested are all in the bud," said W.E. Doran (1853-1923). "I mean the project of having a chair in architecture in McGill College, and a course of lectures on architecture."32 But it was not until 1896 that a chair in architecture was finally established at McGill University, while a regular course in architecture at the Ecole Polytechnique (College of Technology) was not instituted until after the turn of the century. In the meantime, Hutchison was behind an effort on the part of the PQAA to establish evening classes for students and draftsmen to assist them in their preparation for the association examinations. By December of 1891, Hutchison was lecturing on Roman architecture,

59 Architectural Education

while Dunlop and Edward Maxwell had agreed to take a class in pen-and-ink drawing. These efforts at supplementary instruction do not seem to have been a great success. Repeated attempts to establish evening classes in 1891, 1892, 1893, and 1894 all failed, owing to a lack of interest on the part of both students and architects. In 1893 a report was delivered to the council of the PQAA which noted that just such an attempt made earlier in the year had failed "owing to the difficulty in obtaining teachers and to the lack of interest in the matter by members and students."33 The efforts of the PQAA to establish an architectural course at McGill were finally successful when Sir William Macdonald, one of the University's principal benefactors, agreed in 1896 to grant the university fifty thousand dollars towards the cost of setting up a department of architecture.31 Unlike the course in architecture at the Ontario School of Practical Science, which, as we have seen, was primarily intended to give prospective architects a training in architectural science, the course at McGill aimed to give students a broader introduction to professional design and theory as well as science. Such a course was possible at McGill because there architecture had been established as a department independent of the Faculty of Applied Science. Besides, the wider aims of the course at McGill were a reflection of the interests and skills of the man chosen to head the new department, S. Henbest Capper (1859-1925). The arrival of Professor Capper at McGill is a landmark in the history of architectural thought in Canada, not so much because of his accomplishments in Montreal, significant though they were, but because it marks the establishment in Montreal of a Scottish-based academic tradition which was to dominate the architectural life of the university well into the next century and exert a powerful influence on the development of Canadian architecture. Educated in Edinburgh at the Royal High School, Capper had taken an MA in classics at Edinburgh in 1880 before touring Europe arid enrolling at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts under Pascal. In 1887 he returned to Edinburgh, where he established an architectural practice, producing a number of designs, including, most notably, those for Ramsay Garden, a model university residence for the Edinburgh writer and reformer Patrick Geddes. In 1896, just before taking up the post at McGill, Capper had been appointed an examiner in the Faculty of Arts at Edinburgh University, for the Department of Archaeology and Art History under the direction of Gerald Baldwin Brown.35 With his background in design and the humanistic tradition of the universities, Capper's intention was to bring to the study of architecture at McGill the sort of theoretical inquiry and systematic study

Go

Professionalism

which was the mark of a university education. This perspective was also characteristic of the courses in architecture recently established in the United States, including those at Pennsylvania, Harvard, and Columbia universities, all of which Capper openly admired.36 In a way that differed from the limited and somewhat prosaic approach of C.H.C. Wright in Toronto, Capper argued that the time had come for architecture to take its proper place in the curriculum of the university. "Architecture is at once," he said, "the most artistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the arts."37 In the long term, the principles of architectural study proposed by Capper, and in particular the idea that the rightful place of architectural education was in the university where it might be a combination of scientific inquiry and artistic training, was to be accepted and adopted across the country. In the short term, the course in architecture set up by Capper met with only limited success. There were several reasons for this. First of all, the course at McGill was unsuccessful at attracting French-Canadian students. Even in the absence of an independent architectural program at one of the French-speaking universities, French-Canadian students continued to study at the Ecole Polytechnique, where they received a grounding in architectural science supplemented by work in an office or study abroad. Secondly, even after the passage of the registration bill, there was only a limited incentive for students to take the university course. The McGill degree in architecture was recognized as the equivalent of three out of the four years of training by pupillage, but graduates still had to spend time in an office and sit the PQAA examinations in order to qualify as a professional. Finally — and this was perhaps the most important reason - in Canada at the end of the nineteenth century, very few young men had the means to give themselves over to full-time study for three years. Consequently most architects continued to qualify through work in an office. Taken together, these factors ensured that the architectural course at McGill got off to a veryslow start; when Percy Nobbs replaced Capper as Macdonald Professor of Architecture in 1903, he thought it "highly desirable that something be done to assure the numerical increase of students of this department in order that the splendid equipment already invested in may not remain idle."38 The fate of the architectural course at the School of Practical Science was even more discouraging. As we have seen, when it was established the architectural profession in Ontario hoped and expected that it would soon attract most of the young students in the province. When S.G. Curry commented in 1891 that "The school is now only in its infancy, but it will be an easy matter to make it equal to

6i

Architectural Education

any in America," he seemed not to be exaggerating but merely expressing a sentiment that was widely felt.39 By the mid-iSgos the school had fallen victim to exactly that malady which affected the OAA as a whole: the disinclination of both architects and students to qualify for the association when membership seemed to offer little material benefit. So pronounced was this failure to attract students that by 1898, a year when only one student presented himself for the examinations, the council of the OAA came under strong pressure from the association to abandon its education program altogether. The suggestion was rejected only on the grounds that without this raison d'etre the association would soon cease to exist.40 Given the close connection between the OAA and the architectural course at the School of Practical Science, it was inevitable that the difficulties of the association would soon have their effect on the school. The failure of the Ontario architects to amend their act as the Quebec architects had done meant that from 1898 onwards architecture students would be inclined to enrol at McGill, where the profession enjoyed a situation which, relative to Ontario, was respected and secure. Moreover, the Ontario Architects' Act seemed actively to discourage students from attending the School of Practical Science. Under the terms of the act, students could qualify either by enrolling at the school or by registering with a practising architect. In terms of time spent, a technical education at the school compared very badly to training in an office. Including four years spent at high school, three years at the School of Practical Science, and a further three years' work in an architect's office, a young man would have to study a full ten years before qualifying to write the OAA examinations. Yet a student was just as able to sit the association exams after five years' work in an office, preceded by only a year's formal study to gain the necessary standing in mathematics and French or German. Under these circumstances, and given that many students and architects had, by the mid-18905, come to ignore the requirements of the OAA altogether, it is not surprising that the course in architecture at the school conspicuously failed to attract the students for which it had been established. Despite the hopes of a decade earlier and the commitment to architectural education which had been made by the professional societies in both Ontario and Quebec after organization, it was clear by the end of the 18905 that the problems of education were still far from resolved. The architectural programs of the OAA and PQAA had followed quite closely the success or failure of those organizations. In Quebec, where statutory registration had been achieved, postsecondary education was slowly getting off the ground. In Ontario,

62

Professionalism

where registration had failed, both the OAA and the course at the School of Practical Science were close to collapse. While the situation might have been marginally better in Quebec than in Ontario, nowhere in Canada had architectural education yet taken on the systematic and formal character which the architects of the early 18905 saw as essential to the long-term development of professional practice in the country. The reasons for this were many and the problems not easily overcome. Even so, the virtual failure of the educational program in Ontario led architects there to review those suppositions about architectural education which had been proposed and adopted earlier in the decade. Of these the most important had been the idea that above all it was architectural science which demanded systematic study, while skill in design could well be left to take care of itself in the architectural office. As early as 1895, Edmund Burke noted that this might well not be the case, and that the School of Practical .Science ignored the teaching of design at its peril. Reviewing the progress of the course there, he commented that an expansion of the course was essential. If this was not done, he said, there would be "a danger that the architectural schools in the United States will attract many of our young men, who can afford the additional expense, by reason of the more complete courses of study afforded, including training in design, a most necessary phase of an architectural student's education."4' As Burke went on to say, the growing awareness of the need for artistic education had come about largely as a result of the return to the United States of American architects who had received their training at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. These men were now engaged in the "spread on this continent of that phase of Renaissance architecture which had long been the fashion in Europe and which bore such abundant fruit in the buildings of the great fair at Chicago." The consequence of this, he said, was a new understanding that "The need of our architectural era is therefore without doubt such education in design as will enable us to make architecture as a fine art keep pace with science."48 As events were to prove, Burke's observations were as prophetic as they were perceptive. By 1900 the growing fashion for a revived classicism had begun to spread northward to Canada, demanding a skill and polish not easily produced by architects lacking a formal training in design. At the same time, the ideas of the Beaux-Arts, in particular ideas concerning the nature of design and the nature of architectural education, also found their way to Canada, often by way of Canadian architects returning from study abroad, in France or the United States. At a time when the educational experiments of the

63 Architectural Education

iSgos seemed a failure, these new ideas here found fertile ground as they had in the United States. Their arrival in Canada, coming propitiously at the end of the century, was to have a profound effect not only on architectural education in the country but on virtually every aspect of architectural life.

This page intentionally left blank

PART

TWO

New Ideas

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FIVE

Steel, Iron, and Glass in the 18905

To a considerable degree, the debate over architectural education in Canada after 1885 was a reflection of the growing influence of applied science on architectural design. Beginning in the i88os, the use of steel and iron in building began to increase dramatically, and architects were called upon to demonstrate a skill and expertise in steel construction which less than a generation before had been considered far beyond the concern of the ordinary architect. The Montreal architect A.C. Hutchison commented in 1893: "There is so much steel and iron entering our buildings that an architect requires a knowledge of the quality, strength and resisting power of these materials which thirty years ago would not have been thought of."1 For the most part, the source of these new techniques and ideas concerning the structural use of steel and iron was the United States. Canadian architects had long been familiar with the use of cast and wrought iron, but American experiments in the construction of multi-storeyed office buildings of steel, iron, and masonry revolutionized constructive techniques. Indeed, the skill of American designers in working with steel and iron was an important factor in their growing influence during the 18805. Canadian architects were quick to imitate American examples and introduce the new methods into their own work. By the late 188os architects in both Montreal and Toronto were familiar with the use of iron framing in conjunction with masonry, while Edmund Burke designed a steel frame for the Robert Simpson store in Toronto in 1895. This was reputed to be the first steel-framed building to be constructed outside of the United States.2 To architects, the structural possibilities of new materials like iron, steel, and, later, reinforced concrete proved to be a mixed blessing. New materials gave rise to new forms which seemed to contravene

68

New Ideas

conventions of architectural taste. The result was a searching and difficult re-evaluation of architectural sensibilities and theory. Much of this ground has already been covered in studies dealing with the rise of steel-framed buildings in the United States, but this is not reason to ignore the particular difficulties Canadian architects faced, the manner in which they faced them, or the development of their ideas. Like the problems of architectural competitions, architectural education, organization, and registration, the problem of integrating newtechniques of iron and steel construction into daily practice was a major preoccupation of Canadian architects during the 18903. Canadian architects had to assimilate these new ideas or fall behind their counterparts in the United States. Moreover, they had to adapt quickly and in a way which accommodated their own sensibilites about architecture and its role in the developing national life. One of the best examples of the way steel and iron construction was introduced to Canada, and of how architects, caught between the demands of the client and the implications of these new materials, were forced to search for a new aesthetic and architectonic compromise, is found in the debate which surrounded the use of plate glass in commercial, and particularly shop-front, design. The introduction of cheap plate glass earlier in the century had already begun to revolutionize shop design in North America, In the 18505 and 186os architects began to construct fronts composed almost exclusively of iron and glass behind which shop-owners could display their goods. During the i88os this trend intensified, and it became increasingly common to see the panes of glass extended upwards to the second floor and beyond. In 1894 R.W. Gambier-Bousfield commented that surely "everyone must have observed the increasing number of buildings on Yonge, King, Bay and Front streets, the proprietors of which were trying to expose their wares to view on every floor, making every floor a shop front."3 A particularly elegant example of a shop front with a double-height wall of plate glass is McPherson's People's Store built, not on Toronto's King Street, but on Gottingen Street in Halifax in 1895-6. Here the structural members have been reduced to a minimum, framing wide panes of glass, almost unbroken except for the thin, intersecting mullions. Indeed, the idea of display is so pervasive that the effect of the building with its light, tensile structure is rather like that of a giant marquee (figure 15). Under conditions like these, where clients were demanding that as much of the facade as possible be given over to glass so that goods might be easily and successfully displayed, Gambier-Bousfield noted that architects really had little choice concerning the materials to be

23 A.T. Taylor, Redpath Library

24 G.W. Gouinlock. Temple Building, c. 1896

25 Eden Smith, c. igoo

26 Oak House Staffordshire, c. 1890. Drawn by Eden Smith

27 Eden Smith, Church of St Simon

28 Eden Smith, Church of St Simon after alterations (detail)

29 Eden Smith, Church of St Thomas

30 Eden Smith, Church of St Thomas (interior)

31 Eden Smith, Eden Smith House, c. 1902

32 A.E. Watson, design for an art museum

33 McKim, Mead, and White, Bank of Montreal extension (Craig Street elevation)

34 William S. Maxwell

35 Edward Maxwell, c. 1893

36 Edward Maxwell, London and Lancashire Assurance Company Building

37 W.H. Lynn, preliminary sketch for the St Louis Gate, Quebec

38 W.H. Lynn, sketch for St John Gate, Quebec, 1878

39 W.H. Lynn, proposed citadel, Quebec

40 Palace Gate, Quebec, c. 1870

41 E.-E. Tache, Palais legislatif, Quebec

42 E.-E. Tache and J.B. Derome, Drill Hall, Quebec

43 E.-E. Tach£ and J.B. Derome, Drill Hall, Quebec (eastern pavilion)

44 E.-E. Tache and J.B. Derome, Drill Hall, Quebec (detail)

45 Bruce Price, Chateau Frontenac c. 1908

46 Architect unknown, R. Wilson House, Winnipeg

47 George Reid, All Soul's Church, Onteora, New York, built 1894 (interior view)

48 R. MacKay Fripp, O.G. Evan Thomas House, Vancouver

49 Percy Erskine Nobbs, 1906

50 P.E. Nobbs, McGill University Union

51 P.E. Nobbs, McGill University Union. Plan of second floor

52 P.E. Nobbs, MacDonald Engineering Building, McGill University

53 R. Norman Shaw, Piccadilly Hotel, London

6g Steel, Iron, and Glass in the iSgos

used. "It would seem," he said, that, in these instances, "the only construction admissible was that of iron or steel and glass - the lightest and most economical as regards space."4 In the discussion which followed Gambier-Bousfield's address, which was in fact titled "The Construction of Shop Fronts during the Next Decade," D.B. Dick, the president of the OAA, suggested that architects might consider new means of construction in their handling of the problem, and that the need for great quantities of glass could be solved by employing a steel frame. If one was confronted with the difficulty of constructing a tall building with a good deal of glass on a narrow frontage, he argued that architects might do well to consider the making of the front like a frame, the support on each side carried up and the whole of the inside filled up with light iron and glass. He had seen some instances of the treatment which he thought were quite successful. Architects were very often denounced for not producing a new style, and if a new style was to be introduced he thought this problem was one of the fields in which it could be worked out. A few years ago the system had been adopted of building fronts entirely of iron. There were two objections to that. One was the repetition of the parts necessary to secure cheapness became monotonous, and there was always some difficulty in attaining really artistic effects in such an intractable a material [sic] as cast iron. The other objection was the danger in the event of fire, so he thought the front of the future would be of what might be called the American system, of steel or iron construction with the material encased in terra cotta or other non-combustible material. Instead of regarding it as a disadvantage that merchants at the present time called for plate glass in all their fronts, he thought it quite an advantage because it removed the difficulty of having to provide much light below and less light above.5

This difficulty of having to provide a great deal of light below with less light above had indeed been one of the most intractable problems facing Canadian architects during the second half of the nineteenth century, and one which had never really been solved to their satisfaction. The problem was that, with glass on the ground floor and masonry above, the heavy superstructure was seen to be supported by a wall of glass. The warehouse of the Nova Scotia Furnishing Company of 1894, also in Halifax, is a case in point (figure 16). The wide arches, piers, top arcade, and heavy cornice are all characteristic of a Romanesque-Renaissance-inspired commercial style popular across North America in the iSgos. But originally this sort of configuration derived its power and logic from a heavy, often rusticated base which supported the piers and voids above it. This was

70

New Ideas

obviously true of H.H. Richardson's Marshall Field Wholesale Store, Chicago, of 1885—7, one of the progenitors of the style, but also of conventional interpretations like the McClary Manufacturing Co. building in Winnipeg (1899) (figure 17). To use masonry and glass without this sort of structural integrity produced a solecism of the most obvious kind. But as the Toronto architect William Gregg allowed, it seemed unavoidable and had come to gain a certain acceptance through sheer repetition. "The practice of building thick glass fronts on the ground floor with a heavier building above was so old that it had almost come to be accepted," he said, adding that "of course it could not be accepted as high art."6 In the past, architects in Canada had usually dealt with the problem in one of two ways. If the plate glass was limited to the ground floor, the upper storeys were seen to rest on a simple beam supported by piers, but if the glass continued through to the second floor, the traditional solution had been to employ a series of arches, or even, on occasion, a single great arch, to span the void. A good example of this is Langley and Burke's Army and Navy store of 1887-8 on King Street, Toronto (figure 18). The advantage of using an arch was obvious; by seeming to transfer the loading out to the side piers, the arch went a long way to reducing the aesthetic problems associated with large areas of glass. Clearly then, it was logical that when the height of buildings began to rise in the late 18805, and clients wanted large areas of glass on successive levels, Canadian architects should seek to employ the arch. Indeed, as Edmund Burke commented, "if one attempted to combine modern requirements — that is large amounts of glazing — with the best models of ancient architecture, the arch was the only satisfactory way of treating it."7 While arched forms might be particularly suitable in the design of store-fronts, problems associated with their use in the design and construction of tall buildings led Canadian architects to search for alternate solutions. As Burke pointed out, the problem with the arch, despite its advantages, was that "its haunches obstructed the light on that floor and made it not nearly so valuable"; an observation which led him to conclude that if one desires to follow "ancient" models, the "combining of proper architecture with what was demanded by the requirements of modern trade... seemed ... an almost hopeless task."8 It was, indeed, precisely this reason which led the owners of the Confederation Life Building in Toronto to replace ground-floor arches with open panes of plate glass in 1899, an operation which involved replacement of the original masonry with beams of steel.9 The work was carried out less than ten years after the building's completion, but in that length of time the fashion for large,

71

Steel, Iron, and Glass in the 18905

unobstructed panes of plate glass had become so overwhelming that there seemed little choice. Besides economic considerations, the endless repetition of arched windows also held a danger of stylistic tautology. "Must we forever follow the lines of the Romanesque or be confined by way of variety to the round arch?" asked GambierBousfield in 1899. "Would it not be worthwhile to attempt some departure from these, which are becoming stereotyped forms and in danger of endless repetition?"10 As Gambier-Bousfield pointed out, despite the growing tendency towards higher buildings in Toronto during the early 18905, architects had on the whole tended to overlook what he called the lighter forms of construction, that is iron or steel with glass. While it was becoming common for architects to incorporate some iron into their buildings, they continued to rely on the heavy masonry of the Romanesque without any real incentive, it seems, to change. Indeed, the popularity of the Romanesque style with its emphasis on the arch and the structural integrity of masonry construction seemed to preclude the exploration of any advantages which might be gained through a greater economy of internal space or large areas of unobstructed glass. EJ. Lennox's Freehold Loan building of 1887 is a good example of this tendency (figure 19). On the outside a splendid articulation of compressive loading, with heavy rusticated piers and arches giving way gradually to an arcade of glass and thinning walls, it bore little relationship to its internal frame of iron and steel. Since in Canada the high summer of the Romanesque revival coincided almost exactly with the introduction of iron and steel framing, it was a pattern often repeated, though not to everyone's liking. Both Frank Darling and Edmund Burke, to give two examples, thought it redundant and wasteful. 11 While masonry construction of this sort might continue to be acceptable for most kinds of building, it was clearly unsatisfactory in those instances where light or space was at a premium, especially, as we have seen, in the case of shops, or increasingly, in warehouses, where large open areas of unencumbered space were a great advantage. Here, the answer to the problem of combining space, light, and structural stability seemed to lie in what these architects called iron construction, honestly treated and approached in a businesslike way, without a self-conscious rendering of "ancient" styles.12 "Look at the problem more as a building problem," urged the secretary of the OAA, S.H. Townsend (1857-1940), "more as a practical question of putting up a building, which, while it should not be positively ugly, would at the same time properly fulfill the requirements of the situation."13 Another Toronto architect, W.A. Langton, thought that, in the

72

New Ideas

case of commercial buildings given over to a single purpose where a great deal of light was needed, the question was one of designing not only with the aid of iron, but as "an occasion for designing in iron." In the United States, he said, the problem was being worked out "by the aid of iron, but not as a problem in iron design." Moreover, he went on to say, if the building was to be put to various uses, and in particular if the upper storeys were to be devoted to offices "where very large windows are a discomfort rather than a gain," he thought it probable "that an artistic result would be obtained by continuing up the lines of the slender supports in the lower story and making the wall surface above by material and construction to be obviously only a filling in to reduce the window space."14 This idea, that the internal structure of the tall building might well be expressed by some sort of external articulation, in this case an emphasis on the vertical piers, without recourse to past forms, is of course similar to the ideas then being developed in Chicago, and Langton's remarks reveal a belief in structural theory as well as a practical awareness of developments in the United States. A more open expression of the early recognition by Canadian architects of the undeniable achievements of American architects in the design of tall buildings of iron and steel was made by Edmund Burke, who noted that "from the business standpoint, the Chicago men had solved it as nearly as it was possible to do, having resolved their supports into simple iron stanchions with sufficient masonry to protect the iron from damage in case of fire."15 Burke's remarks are particularly interesting because, only months after the OAA convention where this discussion of iro and glass construction had taken place, he was given the opportunity to put his ideas into practice by the expanding Toronto merchandiser Robert Simpson. Simpson wanted a building that would be full of light with great areas of unobstructed space. In the Toronto of 1894 there is little doubt that Burke was the man for the job.16 Born in Toronto in 1851, he graduated from Upper Canada College and then entered the office of his uncle, Henry Langley (1836-1907). He soon became a partner in Langley, Langley, and Burke, but in 1892 left the firm to take over the business of W. George Storm, who had died in August of that year. Two years later, in 1894, Burke was elected president of the OAA (figure is). 17 What is particularly significant is that by the early 18905 he had developed an engaging interest in the development of modern techniques of construction, in particular the use of iron and steel as integral structural elements in building. During the winter of 1891—2 Burke lectured on building construction to architectural students at the meetings of the Toronto Architectural Sketch Club,

73 Steel, Iron, and Glass in the iSgos

where he was instructor in structures, and set the year-end examination. In his course of lectures was a paper delivered to the students in March of 1892 on "Elements of Building Construction," which dealt with problems of modern construction, including a specific reference to the use of iron and the experiments in foundation techniques which had been carried out in the course of skyscraper construction in Chicago.18 Among his students at the meetings of the Architectural Sketch Club was the young J.C.B. Horwood, who was at that time in the final year of his training with Henry Langley, Burke's old partner. In the following winter of 1892—3 Horwood moved to New York to work in an office, and while there he remained in close contact with Burke, informing him by mail of developments in the United States. One of Horwood's letters to Burke dealt with iron fireproof construction in New York, and from it we can see how closely Burke and Horwood, who was to join Burke as partner in 1894, followed the progress of the American architects. It has survived because Burke subsequently took the letter to a meeting of the OAA where it was read, and it makes interesting reading. Horwood describes the current practice of what he calls iron construction in New York. The letter begins with a note by Horwood that in New York all buildings of a height over eighty-five feet above the pavement measuring "from the ground to the top of the duck roof beam" were required to be fireproof. According to Horwood, except for the loftiest buildings, and here he refers specifically to the New York World Building and the twelve-storey Havemyer Building then under construction, the principal material of support used in fireproof buildings was cast iron. There were, however, three principal ways in which this cast iron, or on occasion steel, was used, but "whatever scheme of construction may be used for a fireproof building" he said, "the interior framing remains practically the same, so that it becomes merely a problem of treating the external wall in its relation to the adjoining floor."19 By this he meant, as he went on to explain, that, beginning with a standard internal framing system common to all fireproof buildings in New York, construction could be carried out in one of three ways. In the first instance, the internal iron could be tied to and directly supported by the masonry walls and piers constructed so as to carry their own weight plus that of the floors, roof, and contents of the building. Alternately, masonry walls could be built which were of sufficient strength to sustain only their own weight with the internal framing and contents of the building "carried by iron supports or columns extending from the foundation to the roof with the columns being somewhat recessed in the walls if

74

New Ideas

necessary." Finally, a self-supporting frame of columns and girders could be built which would then "carry the outer masonry walls as well as the adjoining floor construction."20 In short, the interior frame could be self-supporting, or it could be supported by masonry walls and piers, or it could be tied to an exterior frame with which it would support the entire structure. Of course, it is this last system which we would recognize as the true steel frame, and Horwood commented that this system was usually adopted "where the utmost economy of floor space is desired," adding that "of the three, I think it is the cheapest."81 The introduction of steel and iron into building construction by Canadian architects followed this pattern very closely, and the earliest use of iron was, as we have seen, in conjunction with self-supporting masonry. It is this, in fact, which makes it difficult to say with complete certainty when the first steel-frame building was constructed in the country. But while it has been suggested that one or other of the early office buildings constructed in Montreal or Toronto around the year 1890 was of steel frame — such as the New York Life Assurance building in Montreal (1888) or the Toronto Board of Trade (1889—90) — it seems unlikely that a true steel-frame building was built in Canada before the end of 1894.^ There are several reasons for this. First of all, there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that Canadian architects before about 1893 were entirely familiar with the self-supporting steel cage as a means of construction. Indeed, as we have seen, what evidence we can find suggests that it was only in 1893 and 1894 that the demands of space and light led Canadian architects to investigate the steel frame as a solution to their problems. Secondly, the development of iron and steel construction in the country seems to have proceeded gradually, as it did in the United States, first towards a system of internal framing and then towards a complete cage. As Philip Turner (1876-1943), professor of architecture at McGill, commented in 1927, while the "New York Life Insurance building is of historical interest as being the first high office building to be erected in the city ... the construction is honest and very heavy throughout, and though steel is used in the floors and roof it has no steel frame. The walls 32-40" thick carry the superstructure at each story."23 Other tall buildings constructed in the late i88os in Montreal and Toronto — Robert Findlay's Sun Life Assurance Company building, the Toronto Board of Trade, and the Canadian Bank of Commerce, for instance all seem without exception to have been composite structures with a supporting internal frame and outside bearing walls of masonry (figure 13).

75 Steel, Iron, and Glass in the 18905

The tall office building, as it first appeared in Canada with a height of about seven storeys, did not raise the sort of aesthetic or structural problems associated with large amounts of glass or the need to provide large areas of unobstructed floor space. As we have seen, during the late i88os office buildings continued to be built of heavy Romanesque-like masonry even though they included internal frames of iron or steel. It was only during the iSgos when building heights begun to rise still further that the need for long spans, wind bracing, and structural economy led Canadian architects to turn to the steel cage in the construction of offices.24 The Robert Simpson building, however, was another matter. As envisioned by Simpson, it was to be a true department store of the new type, that is to say with large floor areas capable of housing a range of departments. As the CAB noted, it was this which necessitated the use of steel beams and columns: "The internal columns and beams were of rolled steel and had to be of this material, as the spans were too long for wooden beams. The clear unobstructed space was a sine qua non necessitating as few columns as possible. In the case of buildings erected for office purposes, though of great height, and on the same plan, this condition does not apply to the same extent. But in large stores and warehouses great open space is a necessity."25 Despite this, the Simpson building as first constructed was a composite structure, with a lower frame of steel through two storeys, and upper walls of load-bearing masonry spanned by joists of southern pine. Nonetheless, in his design for the building Burke attempted to put into practice many of those ideas which he had outlined to the OAA earlier in the year. The design of the building is, in fact, an extremely lucid expression of its structural realities. The internal cage, clear on plan, is reflected in elevation by a completely trabeated system; there is not an arch to be found. To effect the difficult transition from steel to masonry, Burke treated each of the bays identically, modulating the primary elements of solid, void, pier, and beam in a progressive rhythm of 1-2-3-4. The effect is a remarkably smooth, articulated transition from the reductive world of steel and glass at street level to a land of bricks and mortar above, with consequent pleasures; a corbel table, engaged columns, capitals and a deep Renaissance cornice (figures 20 and 21). As luck would have it, the Simpson building was only just completed when it was destroyed by fire in March of 1895. Given the publicity which had surrounded its construction, its destruction was something of a scandal. Public reaction to the fire serves to put into perspective some of the misconceptions then held concerning the behaviour of steel and iron in the event of fire. In the immediate

76

New Ideas

aftermath of the blaze there was - amid speculation that electricity had been the cause of this and several other recent fires - a feeling that the destruction of the building challenged claims made concerning the anti-combustible properties of steel-frame construction. There were several reasons for this. The first was that, as a result of the great interest generated by Burke's use of steel framing, there existed an impression among the public and some architects that the building had been constructed according to principles of fireproofing. Secondly, despite a growing interest in and knowledge of methods of fireproofing, there remained considerable ambiguity about the abilities of rival forms of construction to withstand damage by fire. For instance, following the fire, the CAB asked "whether it is wise to encourage the erection of buildings constructed on what is familiarly termed the skeleton plan. Perhaps the answer lies in the adoption of a happy medium where steel and iron will be mainly used, and yet, where, as we understand is the case in New York, masonry work is not discarded to nearly the same extent as in Chicago."26 It was soon established by Edmund Burke, however, that, contrary to what was popularly thought, the Simpson building had not been designed to be fireproof, simply because Robert Simpson had considered it too costly. Under normal conditions, as the CAB said, the plaster of acme cement which had been applied throughout the building would have successfully resisted an ordinary fire in the new building, "but was powerless, of course to resist the intense heat developed in the old adjoining buildings, which were directly connected with the new, without imposition of any wall."27 Nevertheless, the lower two storey of steel framing which had been enclosed in cut stone, brick, and terra cotta, alone of all the building, survived the fire virtually intact. "The protection of these columns and the beams which they carried was so thorough," reported the CAB, "that paper signs which had been pasted on them were intact when the brick work was taken down."28 The true lesson of the Simpson fire, then, was that steel was fireproof only if properly protected, and to construct a building of iron or steel without encasing it in concrete or terra cotta was to run the risk of destruction by fire. Robert Simpson, in any case, learned the lesson, and directed Burke to design a new, larger store to be entirely of steel frame and completely fireproof (figure 22). Describing the fireproofing, the CAB reported: "The outside columns and beams are covered with stone and brickwork, those within are enclosed in concrete. Boxes were erected around the uprights and the concrete poured in, the boxes being removed when it had set. The

77 Steel, Iron, and Glass in the iSgos

beams are covered with slabs of concrete, and the joints will be filled with the adamant plaster put on for finish. This is a new method of fireproofing such a building, introduced into Canada for the first time."29 The controversy surrounding the Simpson fire demonstrates that at least until the mid-iSgos there remained considerable uncertainty about the behaviour of steel and iron under conditions of intense heat and about the best means of fireproofing a building. For instance, in response to the use of concrete as a means of protecting the steel in the new Simpson building, one architect wrote to the CAB insisting that "so far as my experience goes, clay is the only material which will withstand the action of fire."30 Five years earlier, even clay had been suspect. In August of 1890, the CAB noted that, while fireproof tiles had been proven to block the spread of fire, "for some unknown reason people do not attach any great degree of confidence to fireproofing."31 Besides this natural conservatism, another factor acting against the fireproofing of buildings was, and the first Simpson building is an example of this, that many clients were reluctant to pay the extra cost for what Charles Baillairge called "the sake of an eventuality which many never occur."32 This was especially true as long as underwriters refused to recognize the advances that had been made in fireproof construction. That is to say, during the early iSgos insurance for all building continued to be accounted at the same rate regardless of the method of construction. For example, in Toronto in 1895 all buildings over four storeys paid a premium on fire insurance because of the condition of the local fire department.33 Despite all of this, the introduction of fire-resistant materials and means of construction increased steadily throughout the 18905 and into the new century, if only because the loss of life and property from fire demanded that something be done. In 1893 Charles Baillairge noted with satisfaction that "a very free use is now being made of iron joists and concrete floors."34 Two years before, in 1891, A.T. Taylor had turned to steel and terra cotta to fireproof his new Redpath Library at McGill University. "The construction is as nearly fireproof as possible," he wrote, "and the stack room is entirely so. The whole of the main floor is of steel beams and porous terra cotta arching. The other floors and the roof, where not of this material, are of solid oak beams, and flooring on the slow combustion principle. The stairs are of iron and slate" (figure 23).35 Until at least 1895, this sort of composite construction of masonry with protected steel or iron beams and columns was the best-known form of fire-resistant construction among Canadian architects, with

78 New Ideas the sole exception perhaps of heavy mill construction - a special framing technique, which through the employment of certain precautions, such as the cutting down of draughts, gave a reasonable protection against the rapid progress of fire. It was certainly not the case that a fireproof building was thought necessarily to be one of steel frame. Indeed, as we have seen, the CAB thought that the best solution might well be the composite structure, and hinted that the tendency towards more and more iron, prompted by the demand for openness and light, might not be entirely beneficial. "There is just this about it," the journal commented, "that where masonry is employed, the openness and light aimed at especially by owners of large stores has to be sacrificed. And wisely or not, in this intensely practical age, utility more frequently predominates in settling these matters than any other influence."36 Despite reservations about the fire-resistant properties of the steel frame after the fire at the Robert Simpson store - and these were destined to disappear over time in any case — the benefits of space and light made possible by steel construction were too significant to be ignored. The year 1895 was marked by the appearance of a number of steel-frame buildings, including, besides the second store for Robert Simpson, a new building for the Globe Publishing Company, a warehouse for the Mackinnon Company, both by Burke and Horwood, a store and warehouse for Catto and Co. by Burke's old partners Langley and Langley, and a building in Montreal for the Montreal Street Railway.37 Clearly, the steel frame had arrived in Canada. But while the use of protected steel with glass in the construction of shops and warehouses was coming to be understood, there remained for Canadian architects the question of the building form for which the steel frame had been invented: the tall office building, or skyscraper. We have already seen that the first building to be built in Canada which might be legitimately referred to as an example of the tall American office building was the New York Life Insurance Building, constructed in Montreal in 1888. This was followed by a number of buildings of medium height in Montreal and Toronto, until the early iSgos when a slowdown in the economy discouraged the undertaking of most large projects, especially speculative ones like great commercial buildings.38 In consequence, although the idea of the tall building had become familiar, until 1895 the number of multi-storey office buildings in the country remained few, and of these none was of a height greater than eight storeys and none was constructed with a steel frame unsupported by masonry. The result was that unlike the problems associated with the use of

79 Steel, Iron, and Glass in the iSgos

steel or iron and glass in the design of shops and warehouses, the problem of the skyscraper seemed for many Canadian architects during the late i88os and early iSgos somewhat remote. There was a feeling that the skyscraper was the product of conditions peculiar to New York and Chicago. For instance, in the view of S.G. Curry, the steel-framed skyscraper "was the outcome of special requirements in American cities, and could not well be compared with work done in Canada or the old country. The growth of American cities rendered necessary the erection of these enormously high buildings, and as a result this steel construction with curtain walls had been developed in New York and Chicago, especially the latter where despite its great area, the business center was somewhat congested."39 There were other considerations as well. As Curry went on to say, it was a debatable point whether skyscrapers were really the province of architecture at all, or simply the work of engineers. Speaking of skyscrapers, he said, "The architectural appearance of a building, of course, is another question, but that, as a whole, was not considered in this class of building to any great extent; they were required for a certain purpose, and it was incumbent upon the architect to do the best he could under limitations. After all, the buildings were to all intents and purposes, in a sense, the works of engineers rather than architects."40 Not only were tall buildings the work of engineers, but, to many Canadian architects, skyscrapers by their very nature seemed to exploit the powers of iron and steel to the point of travesty, and many architects were unwilling to accept the destruction of aesthetic convention which it demanded. For instance, when A.T. Taylor used steel with terra cotta to fireproof his Redpath Library of 1891, he surrounded the framework with walls of stone in order to preserve the aesthetic and structural logic of traditional masonry construction. The following year, in a speech to the PQAA titled "The Function of Truth in Art," he explained that to his mind the use of iron and steel was giving rise to an architecture of questionable value: I am happy to think that the crusade against shams, largely influenced by the powerful and brilliant writings of John Ruskin, has resulted in the abolition of many of the worst, but they are hard to kill, and too many are still left to us and need rooting out also. It seems to me that a fundamental rule is this: Always let a thing look what it is, and do not make it try to look like something else. Iron and steel are great friends to us, but they have often turned out to be our enemies, by reason of our inability to use them rightly; and I am sorry to say they are responsible for much questionable work; the facility with which we can bridge wide spaces, carry heavy walls over voids, and generally disregard

8o New Ideas the disposing of walls, piers etc. above each other, has led to the violation of some of the elementary principles of construction. We have also to thank the same material for making it possible to construct those enormous lofty buildings in which Chicago has the unenviable notoriety of taking the lead. I cannot but think that these will, before long, come to be looked upon as stupendous blunders; the utter disproportion of scale and mass to their surroundings, the fatal disturbance of harmony and proportion to the environment, to say nothing of the disturbing sense of feeling that what is visible of the slim, lower stone and brick piers, is manifestly and apprently inadequate to support the enormous superstructure without the aid of iron or steel supports behind the piers.4'

The root of the problem for architects was that the skyscraper raised questions of a degree and kind unknown before. Even if one attempted to follow artistic convention and articulate the structure of the steel behind the masonry, as the Montreal architect W.E. Doran pointed out, the skyscraper still seemed a lie: "the eye sees piers of brickwork extending skywards ostensibly to support the building," he wrote, "which we instinctively know could not support its own weight."42 What is more, even for those architects like Doran who were willing to accept the modern architecture of steel and glass, the skyscraper seemed to be the product of a very different and not necessarily better society which was coming into being. In a lecture titled "Truth in Architecture," Doran acknowledged "crystal palaces" and the tall office building to be the only really original architecture of the age, but he wondered if the powers of greed had overwhelmed natural considerations of light and air: "When I speak of crystal palaces I include as such the large retail store," he said, "the skeletons which frame the plate glass that displays the wealth of merchandise. These necessitated metal construction, and the progress seemed fair enough till greed and the desire to make the most of land regardless of the right of neighbours to light and air called into existence the monstrosities of seventeen and twenty stories, now promising to reach out to thirty."43 Although many of these criticisms were reasonable, and indeed had their parallel in the United States, as the decade progressed it became increasingly obvious that, despite its drawbacks, the skyscraper was bound up with the conditions of modern life. As S. Henbest Capper reported to the architects of Montreal on his return from New York in 1897: The problem asking for solution is an eminently modern one. Architecture cannot on pain of proving untrue to her traditions as a living art, refuse to

8i

Steel, Iron, and Glass in the iSgos

entertain it, to grapple with it, and eventually to reach a satisfactory solution. We must, I hold, put definitely aside the criticism so often heard: these tall monstrosities are not architecture at all; they are only engineering, with a stone veneer. They are buildings of our modern city streets; and if these be not architecture, where indeed is modern architecture to find her place? She is bound to find her own solutions for novel problems, however difficult, and to achieve a harmony between the requirements of today and the accepted canons of artistic taste. It is essentially in responding to the needs of modern complex life, in interpreting and meeting them, that the art itself is modern and living.44

In any case, architects had little choice but to come to terms with tall buildings. While the birth of the skyscraper was the result of conditions peculiar to New York and Chicago, they soon began to appear in cities across North America. As early as 1893 the CAB warned that if Canadians architects did not familiarize themselves with the techniques of skyscraper construction they were liable to be passed over in favour of Americans. By 1910 the skyscraper had become a conspicuous feature of Canadians cities, even where, as the Winnipeg architect S. Frank Peters (1847—1926) remarked, "there seemed no necessity - surrounded as they were by boundless prairie for cooping up a mass of hard workers within such a restricted area." And although he might argue: "I cannot help expressing my regret, and I believe that a large number of my fellow architects will join me, in that there is such a tendency among the businessmen of our communities to copy the skyscraper kind of building for office purposes," the fact remained that the tall office building had come to stay.45 Despite the proliferation of tall buildings and the increasing use of steel after 1894, it was some time before fears about the safety of the steel frame were put to rest. Of these the most common was the fear of invisible decay. "In many modern buildings the outer walls help little in the construction and are merely enclosures and could be removed without affecting the stability of the floors and roof," wrote A.T. Taylor in 1892. And in view of this, he said, "I cannot but feel there is a grave danger looming ahead for many of the skeleton framed buildings in wich the iron or steel uprights are built into brickwork for fireproof purposes, and when in time rust and decay will set in without the possibility of detecting or remedying it until it makes itself known by sudden and fatal failure."46 Similar fears of calamity were expressed four years later by W.E. Doran: "The whole framework depends, for retaining its perpendicular upon being tied together in all its parts. The destruction of a few rivets may mean the toppling

82 New Ideas over of the whole mass. It is a construction requiring, as in bridges, care and supervision, and sometimes renewal of parts, which enclosed with brick and cement, it can not have. Liable to corrosion, the damp of water services and waste pipes everywhere will hasten the inevitable work of time; the multitude of wires for electrical purposes adds the danger of electrolysis. Granting such a building may survive its designer, has any man a right to build to-day that which in after years will probably collapse without warning."47 By the late iSgos most of these fears about the potential failure of the steel frame had been put to rest by the accumulation of experimental evidence which showed steel construction to be both safe and durable. For instance, as Edmund Burke demonstrated in a lecture in Toronto in 1898, if properly protected the steel frame could be made impervious to decay caused by damp, even in those cases, such as Chicago, where the building rested on foundations which literally floated in wet sandy soil.48 A problem that proved to be more difficult, and one that Canadian architects when they turned their hand to skyscraper design were forced to consider, was the necessity of finding a new aesthetic convention suitable to the proportions and structural realities of the tall building. The essential problem, as A.T. Taylor pointed out, was that, to a generation of architects imbued with the idea that architecture should, above all things, be truthful, the skyscraper, with its construction necessarily hidden, seemed an impossible dilemma. Unless a new convention could be found, architects were faced with the choice of either cladding the frame with a face of stone which was clearly inadequate to the demands made upon it, or of loading the steel frame with so much masonry for the purpose of truth that it rendered the steel superfluous; an alternative which was only possible in connection with buildings up to medium height in any case.49 The nature of the problem was described by S. Henbest Capper in his notes on "The American Tall Building": A word or two may be here suggested in regard to this construction from the esthetic point of view. Since the Gothic Revival, with its battle-cry of "ornamented construction" and its decry of "constructed ornament", it is natural and inevitable, and surely right, to seize first on genuine construction to be interpreted and expressed in design. Where, then, is there room for this totally concealed construction? Some would, of course deny in toto its right architecturally to exist; metal cased in stone, they claim, is a quite illegitimate method of architectural construction, being a sham of the most flagrant kind.50

83 Steel, Iron, and Glass in the iSgos

As Capper went on to say, by the time of his visit to New York in late 1897, steel construction had become so common that any attempt to discourage its use was doomed to failure: "to deny, however, to iron and steel the position they have conquered in the world, is of course wholly futile." The obvious solution was to deal with the steel frame by modifying traditional theory to take into account its special characteristics, and this Capper did, suggesting that architects "case the metal in some form of plastic material, such as terra cotta: steel construction thus treated is quite capable of honesty above reproach."51 There were others who were more conventional, such as W.E. Doran, who, while allowing that "circumstances may sometimes require the use of transitional or debased styles," added that "for the sake of constructive truth, no one should for the sake of strict adherence to style resort to deception. There is such a thing as conventional truth, and this should never be violated. It makes one shudder to see in an otherwise pleasing building, a long lintel seemingly composed of a number of stones not only hanging in the air, but supporting sometimes an important pier of the superstructure."52 For Doran, a long-term solution to iron and steel construction lay not in the creation of a style or the use of a covering material such as terra cotta, but in the development of a method of treating steel so that it might be used uncovered and "the use of exposed iron or steel would therefore lead to an architecture special to itself, and proportions suitable to such construction."53 This was an idea which enjoyed considerable currency during the 18905, and, though it never led to any experiments in exposed iron construction by Canadian architects, it demonstrated the rationalist basis of critical theory in the country as the nineteenth century drew to a close. While touring France in 1896, W.A. Langton admired just such a frank use of exposed iron. After returning to Canada he commented upon what he had seen and noted, "it seemed to me that one of the evidences of the living character of French architecture is the straightforward way in which they use iron ... I was most impressed with the excellent spirit of the French, by the way they expose iron in roofs and ceilings where it must look well. Sometimes they come out of this well, sometimes the result is crude, but it at any rate appeals to one as a spirited effort."54 During the 18905 this spirit of practical solution combined with the desire to express structural reality was a guiding principle in the design of steel-frame buildings in the country and was recognized by architectural critics. For instance, commenting on Edmund Burke's design for the Simpson building which had been entered in the Royal Canadian Academy exhibition of 1895, a reviewer remarked, "The

84

Professionalism

problem, a packing box full of windows, is an exceedingly difficult one. Mr Burke has succeeded in giving a dignified solution without in the least entrenching upon the first requisite of such a building abundance of light. Indeed the very determination to fulfill the conditions perfectly saved the design."55 In a similar vein, S. Henbest Capper suggested that a forthright consideration of the problems inherent in skyscraper design could well provide a key to their successful resolution: "The requirements of floor space (dictated by financial needs) rigidly limit the supporting and enclosing walls to the least superficial area compatible with safety and stability. Further, the need for maximum of light in the interior equally leads to the reduction of wall thickness and external piers, while it forces the engineer to find a substitute for the ordinary bracing and cross-ties which are incompatible with windows. With these complicated restrictions, the architect has to design his building, fettered and hampered, or on the other hand inspired, it may be - for restriction is ever a fertile cause of happy ingenuity and an occasion for success."56 Under the inspiration of American designers and within the constraints of their own architectural theory, Canadian architects gradually moved from what was an attempt to respond somehow to the conventions of load-bearing masonry - seen for instance in George Gouinlock's 1895 Temple building, which, with its rusticated base, battered corners, and arched doorways, seems to support the seven storeys rising above it — to a purer expression of the structural realities of skyscraper design (figure 24). But this was not to come until after 1900, when the unprecedented growth of banking and commerce led businessmen to commission and architects to design ever higher and ever more numerous skyscrapers across the country. Although the proliferation of tall buildings, like the rapid growth of cities surrounding them, led increasingly to concern about the kind of society coming into being, the debate among Canadian architects about the dangers of steel and glass was over. It had died with the century. Ahead lay the potentialities of a new material - reinforced concrete — and the challenge of giving the skyscraper, that new and brutal "monument to commercial and industrial enterprise," the "grace of outline, symmetry and eloquence of expression" it seemed so clearly to deserve.57

CHAPTER

SIX

The Eighteen Club Reaction and Beaux-Arts Ideas in Education

By the late iSgos in Quebec, the introduction of statutory registration had brought the PQAA credibility and the promise of an assured future. In Ontario, however, the failure of the successive registration bills and disappointment over the educational policy of the OAA had led to a growing disillusionment with the OAA in general. In March of 1898, in the midst of the debate within the OAA over whether the association should continue or abandon its program of architectural examinations, the depth of dissatisfaction on the part of at least some architects was made clear in an open letter written and submitted to the CAB by Arthur Wells, a young Toronto architect. Titled "The Ontario Association of Architects and What It Should Do," the main argument of the letter was that the OAA itself was largely to blame for its own demoralization. In pursuit of statutory registration the OAA had been acting in the interests of the architectural profession rather than out of a consideration for the public good, he wrote; the public at large would gain little by registration, and therefore it was no surprise that the OAA had not succeeded in winning support for its legislative proposals. The only thing to be done was for the OAA and the architects of Ontario to abandon any hope of statutory registration and work for the improvement of architecture in general: The truth is, this whole movement for legislation has been rather petty in its aim and not too farsighted. The proper sphere of action for an architects' society lies along other lines. In the purchase of a library, and in the institution of examinations, the association has done much work to its credit, work that has been of real value to junior members of the profession. What the architects of Ontario need is not legislation to protect them or the public, but the grace to see that they have embraced an art and profession which is

86 New Ideas rich in interest, which has fields for study that are very broad, and in the practice of which, even at this time and place, it is possible to preserve some germs of what really is "Architecture".1

Wells's letter was greeted with strong protestations by the OAA, which pointed in defence to its accomplishments and to the many reasonable arguments made on behalf of architectural registration by members of the profession around the world. But although Wells's arguments were dismissed by the OAA, it soon became apparent that his ideas were representative of those of a good many other young architects in Toronto. Within two years, disagreement over what the proper function of the OAA, and indeed of the architect, should be in society had led to an open break between a group of young Toronto architects and the OAA. The agency of this break was the Architectural Eighteen Club of Toronto, of which Arthur Wells was a member. By their own admission, the members of the Eighteen Club had first come together in January of 1899 with the sole intention of meeting weekly on an informal basis over lunch. 2 It soon became clear, however, that the members of the group, most of whom were young, shared a dissatisfaction with the policies of the OAA as they had developed since the association's formation in 1889. It was this, as well as a common desire to improve the standard of architectural practice in Toronto, which led to the development of the Eighteen Club as an architectural force in its own right. The formal organization of the club came about after the affiliation of the young architects with the Architectural League of America. In June of 1899 the architects of the Eighteen Club had sent one of their number, J.P. Hynes (1868-1953), to Cleveland to attend the formative convention of the league, an organization intended to bring together progressive members of the profession in the United States. It included among its affiliated societies the T Square Club of Philadelphia, the Architectural League of New York, and the Chicago Architectural Club. The OAA had declined an invitation to send a representative, but the Eighteen Club responded enthusiaistically. With Hyne's representation the Eighteen Club was admitted as a full member. To conform with the requirements of membership, the young architects drafted a constitution, took on their name, and formally organized themselves as an architectural society.3 Unlike the OAA, which was from its foundation dedicated to the legal establishment of certain rights and standards for the architectural profession, the Eighteen Club remained for the entire period of its existence primarily a social club. What influence it had on the

87 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas

development of the profession in Canada, and that influence was considerable, was the result of two factors. The first was the gifts and talents of its members; in 1899 the Eighteen Club included among its membership the best of the new generation of architects coming into prominence in Toronto. The second was that, in their words and in their work, the members of the Eighteen Club gave expression to certain ideas and perspectives about architecture which very few members of the profession did not come eventually - at least in part to share, but which had heretofore remained largely unarticulated. The event which, more than any other, brought the Eighteen Club to the forefront of architectural life in the country was an address given to the annual convention of the OAA in January 1900. As the AABN was later to report, given the state of the association, with its dwindling membership and its registration and educational policies in disarray, "It was felt by all the members of the Association present that the crisis in their affairs had arrived and that this convention would practically settle the question of the existence or extinction of the Society."4 In the hope that a consensus might be found for the future development of the association, the OAA had approached the newly formed Eighteen Club, already developing an identity distinct from that of the OAA, and invited it to address the convention, putting forth any ideas or proposals it might have concerning the future of the architectural profession in the province. At the insistence of the OAA, Eden Smith (1858-1949), the attending member of the Eighteen Club, agreed to read a report to the convention. This had been prepared by a committee of the Eighteen Club especially established to formulate the club's position on such matters as the role of the OAA, professional standards, and architectural education, even though, as Smith explained to the convention, the report remained in an unfinished state.5 Although the first intention of the report, ostensibly at least, had been to advise the OAA on the direction which the members of the Eighteen Club thought the association should take, its opening paragraphs were a virtual indictment of the OAA, both in the past and as it then existed. With a voice that echoed the arguments of Arthur Wells two years earlier, the Eighteen Club accused the OAA of a policy designed "for the purpose of doing good to architects rather than Architecture," adding that if instead of "using every effort to make the profession a close corporation, the same energy had been applied towards making the profession better, more results would have been obtained."6 Indeed, as Smith was to point out during the discussion which followed his address, the indifference of the Eighteen Club architects to the OAA "arose from their belief that the Association had identi-

88 New Ideas fied itself more with the effort to close the profession than any other subject."7 In the view of the Eighteen Club, the very structure of the OAA needed to be altered. The charter of the OAA, the report said, had come to be more of a hindrane than a help, as it kept many good architects out of the association. Similarly the educational policy of the OAA had "proved somewhat of a farce and necessarily so" because the examinations had been established "without any means being given to the student of obtaining the necessary education to pass them."8 The report urged that "the energy of the Association be devoted for the present almost entirely to education as it feels that only starting at the fundamental basis can any permanent improvement or success be gained." Finally the Eighteen Club suggested that the OAA would be best to restrict its membership "to the reputable architects of Toronto and the other large cities and towns of Ontario" and that "in lieu of asking for any close legislation at present, the few really earnest and sincere members, who may stay in this smaller association proposed, will agree to take only pupils in their respective offices who will bind themselves to take the course of education laid down by the Association."9 It was in this way, the Eighteen Club suggested, that over time the prestige and authority of the OAA would gradually increase. Eden Smith's speech was nothing less than a direct attack on the fundamental principles underlying the OAA, and for that matter the PQAA as well: province-wide membership and architectural registration. According to the correspondent of the American Architect, the "introduction to the meeting of the representatives of the Eighteen Club ... probably saved the life of the Association."10 But although it may have been true, to use his words, that the report "voiced so well the contentions of all those who have objected to the management of successive councils and the policy they have persistently followed, to the great injury of the Association, that, being made to swallow it, the members of the Council and officers sat up as they had never sat up before," the long-term effect of the Eighteen Club report was not to bring the architects of Ontario together but to point out the differences which divided them. 11 The reason for this is that while Smith's address was fairly well received, even by those members of the OAA cast in an awkward light, it had raised issues and differences which were to prove exceedingly difficult to overcome. For example, in 1906 efforts to amalgamate the two groups broke down over the reluctance of the OAA to give up its rights under the Ontario Architects' Act and the refusal of the Eighteen Club to join with the OAA until it had taken on the character

89 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas

of a voluntary association with no pretence to closure.12 Why this should have been so can only be explained by the fact that, at base, the differences between the architects of the Eighteen Club and the established members of the OAA were founded not on age and experience but on ideology. The nature of these differences, and indeed their meaning for architectural practice, were expressed by no one more vividly than by Eden Smith himself (figure 25). Not only was he by training and inclination the de facto leader of the Eighteen Club, he was the first to explore in architectural terms the new ideology upon which his and his fellow architects' opposition to the OAA was based, namely the idea of craft. Eden Smith was born in Birmingham, England in 1858. He trained first as a water-colourist and then as an architectural draftsman before touring the Continent with his cousin William Eden, later Baronet, painter, and father of Sir Anthony Eden.13 In 1885 Smith came to Canada, first to Manitoba and two years later to Toronto, where he entered the office of architects Strickland (1841-1915) and Symons (1870-1931). After completing his apprenticeship, he wrote the OAA examinations and in 1895 began practice with Eustace Bird (1870-1950), a young Toronto architect recently returned from several years spent in London at Thomas Colcutt's office. ' 4 Four years later Bird left for New York, and Smith took office space with J.P. Hynes, a native Torontonian and fellow founding member of the Eighteen Club. Although he had not come to Canada to work as an architect, Smith's English training meant that he was already an accomplished draftsman when he entered Strickland and Symon's office. Stephen Howard, then a young apprentice, later recalled that he stood in awe of Smith's experience and abilities. ' 5 Another clue to Smith's work in this period is a drawing titled "The Oak House, Staffordshire" executed about 1890 and exhibited in the 1901 exhibition of the Architectural League of America. It is a skilful, sensitive drawing in pen and ink matched in the 1901 exhibition by a second entry, the Grammar School, Kings Norton, Worcestershire (figure 26). Both these drawings give evidence of a special interest in English vernacular building, an interest directly related to one of Smith's first designs, the church of St Simon, Toronto (figure 27). l6 The plan of the church was a simple one, based on English precedent, with a south porch, nave, and square-ended chancel. The different parts of the church are clearly articulated by the roof line, but what is particularly notable is the style, an Old English amalgam of red brick, plaster, ornamental rubble, and half timbers. This was an extremely unusual choice. In 1887 Gothic remained the favoured style of the Anglo-

go

New Ideas

Catholic world, not just in Canada but in the United States and Great Britain as well. So Smith's design was a personal gesture based on his own knowledge and love of the English vernacular. It was, in the words of John Ross Robertson, a structure unique and unusual, "yet, in the beauty of its conception, in the novelty and chasteness of its exterior and interior decoration, and in the value of all its arrangements and appointments it surpasses almost every other church in the city."17 This independence of mind, coupled with a belief in the value of traditional building, set the course of Smith's subsequent career. In 1892, influenced by the English Queen Anne Revival, the movement closest in spirit to his work at St Simon's, he designed an extension to the church. His use of red brick, moulded cornices, pilaster strips, and a variety of classically inspired details is an unequivocal borrowing from Queen Anne work of the 18705 and i88os (figure 28). l8 His main line of development, however, was in a different direction. By 1892 a number of English architects, some, such as Edward Prior and William Lethaby, trained in Shaw's office, had abandoned the picturesque charm of Queen Anne and Old English forms. They sought an architecture more closely rooted in the past and especially in traditional methods of building. For a man of Eden Smith's sensibilities this was a route to follow. In 1889 and 1891 he had designed two small parish churches in Toronto, at St Jude's in Parkdale and St Cyprian's in Seaton Village. Then in 189 2 he was given the chance to build on a larger, though still limited, scale. The first was a new church for the parish of St John the Evangelist, and the second the church of St Thomas, Huron Street.19 St John's has been demolished, but St Thomas' survives not greatly changed since its construction (figures 29 and 30).20 Like St Simon's, the plan and form of St Thomas' derive from English vernacular models. But now the soft, decorative lines of moulded brick and timber have been replaced by a hard-edged, jagged mass of competing solids, byzantine-like in their uncompromising expression of interior space. Gothic forms remain - lancet windows, high gables, pointed buttresses — but they are much simplified and carried out in red brick with rigorous honesty. Inside, the church is extraordinary; a world of light, shadow, brick, and timber, with low arches shielding side aisles, a high beamed roof, and scarcely a moulding to be found. This is architecture of a different sort from the Queen Anne, Romanesque, or even Gothic of conventional Canadian practice in the early 18905. It is Arts and Crafts architecture, and Eden Smith continued to work along these lines for the rest of the decade. By 1900 he had begun to build a flourishing domestic practice. His own house,

gi

The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas

built on Indian Road in 1896, is a good example of his efforts to apply Arts and Crafts ideas to Canadian conditions (figure 31). The interior of the house is a simple U-shaped configuration of rooms about a double-height hall with stair, decorated even today with Arts and Crafts taste; simple squared-oak panelling, and a hand-beaten copper hood over the fireplace. The elevations are a mixed hand. The south is dominated by a half-timbered cross gable protecting the door below, an English motif which can be seen in his 1890 drawing of the Oak House (figure 26). On the west fagade, shingles and a verandah give the house a distinctly North American flavour, but the spare geometry of the chimney, high windows, stone lintels, and plain brick surfaces are characteristic of Smith's personal style. The vigour of Eden Smith's work during the 18905 reflects not just the desire to find new forms from old, but also the ardour of Arts and Crafts thinking. In strict terms the movement began in architecture with the formation of two latter-day guilds in London in the i88os, the Century Guild of Artists in 1882 and the Art Workers' Guild in 1884. That same year, the Century Guild began publication of the Hobby Horse, a magazine devoted to the revival of the arts and crafts. Four years later, in 1888, the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society held its first exhibition. The roots of the movement, however, go back much deeper, to the writings of John Ruskin and William Morris, both of whom hoped to re-establish links between architecture and the sister arts of painting and sculpture, common in the middle ages but since lost.21 This was the first axiom of Arts and Crafts practice. The second was the belief that vernacular building and the simple, honest use of indigenous materials provided modern-day architects with a basis upon which a new architecture could be built. If the revival of interest in the crafts found its expression in creation of the new guilds, this idea gave birth in 1877 to the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, a society founded by William Morris and Philip Webb in protest against the insensitive restoration of ancient buildings, in particular of Tewkesbury Abbey by Sir George Gilbert Scott.22 The society had by the mid-18905 given rise not just to a revival of interest in old building, but a new theory of building itself. In the view of William Lethaby, the most articulate of Webb and Morris's many desciples, "design should entirely hinge around the proper use of materials."23 Of Lethaby, the Builder wrote, "He would sweep away from the drawing board all theory of art-design, proportion, picturesqueness, and pretty drawing styles, and he would identify architecture with reasonable building ... Our study of old buildings should be directed to the matters of building experience which they had to show

92

New Ideas

us, and not to questions of art shapes. Our studies of forms should be based on practical knowledge of materials."24 Eden Smith's own house and church of St Thomas are concrete examples of how these ideas might be used to create new forms suited to Canadian conditions, but Arts and Crafts theory also held a vision concerning the role of the architect. Eden Smith, himself, understood this. "Architecture," he told the Architectural League of America in 1900, had become "the harmonious association of all the crafts," and architects had "formed societies with the intention of mutually advancing their own interest and that of architecture for the good of the community." The commodity of these modern-day societies or guilds was architecture, he said, and, quoting Lethaby, "it is our business as Guilds to improve the quality or raise the standard of it, and instead of grumbling at the community for its want of sympathy 'we must discuss materials and methods and build up a new tradition of beautiful craftsmanship, and become by means of our societies responsible to the community.'"25 The Eighteen Club was infused with the ideas of the Arts and Crafts Movement. William Rae (1867—1957), another younger member, when asked how much mathematical and engineering training he thought an architect should have, replied, "An architect should have as much mathematical and engineering training as will enable him to solve, by means of formulas derived from the experimental research of scientific experts, every problem the erection of a modern building may involve in the safe and economical use of the materials of its construction." Nonetheless, he said, "The architect's work is the harmonious association of all the crafts which harmony can only be considered complete when the possibilities of each craft in relation to the whole are perfectly developed, and to do this a knowledge of the nature and functions of every material is necessary."26 The idea that the basis of architecture was craft and the architect a master craftsman drawing together the various arts of building was antithetical to the idea of professionalism. One looked towards a new unity of the plastic arts, the other towards the formalized world of architectural science. Although the differences between the Eighteen Club and the OAA were never quite so bald as this might suggest, it was on this crucial point that the two groups of architects could not agree. The OAA could not abandon its commitment to professionalism and systematic training in applied science; this was its raison d'etre. For the Eighteen Club professionalism, and especially registration, was the single most important force leading architecture away from its role as an art, and if it was not an art, then architecture would no longer be architecture at all.

93 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas Before we leave this aspect of the break between the Eighteen Club and the OAA, it is worth pointing out that the ground for such a dispute had been laid almost a decade earlier in England, and that this must certainly have strengthened the case of the Eighteen Club, if not the OAA, whose own history and point of view was unique to itself. We have already seen in chapter 3 that during the i88os the Society of British Architects had begun to press for registration, just as architects were hoping to do in Canada. In 1886, 1889, 1890, and 1891 the Society of Architects introduced registration bills into the Commons, all of which failed.27 Although the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) opposed these bills, it was itself playing an important role in formalizing architectural practice by introducing qualifying examinations; a single examination in 1882, and then in 1892 a progressive series of three which in fact formed the basis of the Canadian system under the Ontario and Quebec Architects' Acts. In England, the Arts and Crafts lobby strongly opposed these moves towards professionalism. In 1889 a group consisting of R. Norman Shaw, T.G.Jackson, Edward Prior, and several others petitioned the RIBA to drop the examination system, with little effect. In 1891 the matter was raised again, and Shaw, Prior, and the rest spearheaded a campaign to alter the course of RIBA policy. An open letter was published in the Times: "We believe," they wrote "... that while it is possible to examine students in construction and matters of sanitation, their artistic qualification (which really makes the architect) cannot be brought to the test of examination, and that a diploma of architecture obtained by such means would be a fallacious distinction, equally useless as a guide to the public and misleading as an object for the efforts of the student."28 The letter or memorial was signed by a long list of leading architects, joined by such well-known painters as L. Alma-Tadema, Holman Hunt, and E. Burne-Jones, strange bedfellows indeed, all now recognized collectively as the Memorialists. When the RIBA refused to concede the point, the Memorialists withdrew from the association. In 1892 Norman Shaw and T.G. Jackson co-edited a volume of thirteen essays on the subject. Titled Architecture: A Profession or an Art, it would certainly have been known to the architects of the Eighteen Club and the OAA.29 The rise of the Eighteen Club ended any hope of architectural registration in Ontario for a generation. The disaffected architects did not begin to rejoin the OAA until 1908, while the provincial legislature did not pass a registration bill until 1931. So the province which saw the birth of architectural professionalism in the country was one of the last to see it accomplished.30 The break of the Eighteen Club was also a sign of shifting ground in Canadian architecture.

94

New Ideas

Eden Smith was perhaps the first architect in Canada to embrace Arts and Crafts theory, but there were soon many more working from one end of the country to the other. As we shall see, their work had a profound effect not only on architecture in the country but also on the way architects looked at architecture. On a larger scale, and again the formation of the Eighteen Club was a manifestation of this, the late 18905 and early igoos were marked by the emergence of a new, younger generation of architects, different from those who had fought the battles of the i88os. Some were Canadians trained in local offices, at McGill, the Ecole Polytechnique, or the School of Practical Science, but many were young men returning from study in the United States or Europe, and many, especially as the economy began to expand, were immigrants. Within the Eighteen Club itself the influence of English-inspired Arts and Crafts ideals was rivalled by an interest in and admiration for contemporary developments in American architecture. This is not surprising, since many of its members, including Henry Sproatt (1866-1934), J.P. Hynes, Arthur Wells, and J.C.B. Horwood, had studied in the United States before returning to Canada. In the aftermath of Eden Smith's address to the OAA, the Eighteen Club attempted to introduce American methods of teaching design. Even before this, the affiliation of the Eighteen Club with the Architectural League of America had led to the arrival in January 1901 of the touring exhibit of the league. The exhibition of the league was the most important and perhaps the biggest show of architectural drawings held in Canada up to that time. It was particularly interesting because it brought to public view drawings representing a wide range of American work. Sproatt and Rolph, Eden Smith, Frank Darling, and Burke and Horwood were among the Canadian contributors, while American architects included Wilson Eyre, Cass Gilbert, and Frank Lloyd Wright.31 The opportunity to see recent work by leading American architects must certainly have been a source of pleasure to local architects, but it revealed that Canadian architects had failed to keep pace with changing taste. It is evident that "our own architects have not made a study of rendering," commented the CAB. Moreover, there was little hesitation over where the problem lay: "The foundation of the skill in drawing displayed by the Americans was the training they had received, and in particular their training based on the traditions and techniques of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts." While it was true, the journal commented, that Beaux-Arts rendering was not suitable for all architectural themes, nonetheless "it is from such a training as the students of the University of Pennsylvania are receiving, who in this

95 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas exhibition play like young Raphaels with the classic forms and make such beautiful drawings of their designs, that the best results may be expected ... If the interest in drawing which this exhibition has created does not die away without stimulating some of our younger architects to practice with the pencil and brush it will have done good service in Toronto."32 As the CAB observed, by 1900 the teaching of design at the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, MIT, and other leading architectural schools in the United States was based on the techniques of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris. Beginning with the work of William Robert Ware at MIT in the late i86os, a generation of American educators worked in collaboration with French teachers such as Eugene Letang and Desire Despradelle to adapt Beaux-Arts ideas to the United States. They were convinced that the Beaux-Arts method, a formalized system of progressive development centred on work in an atelier or studio, would raise the standard of architectural education in the country, and of American architecture. By the iSgos the result of these efforts was everywhere to be seen. American architects had become adept at producing highly polished, sophisticated designs, often on a large scale and employing classical forms; a skill which played no small part in a revival of interest in architectural classicism among the public at large.33 A feature of the Beaux-Arts system was the emphasis given on the teaching of design. During the academic year 1900—1, first-year students at the University of Pennsylvania were a given a total of eight hours' instruction a week in engineering, construction, and architectural history, and twenty-four hours in freehand drawing and design. The design studio, modelled on a Paris atelier, was the focus of the students' education. A report in Architectural Record observed that "An interesting characteristic of the design courses was the spirit of the students in the Pennsylvania drafting room. Here the students worked together with the utmost freedom. They criticized each other's work and there was an atmosphere of congenial competition which was, probably, excelled only by the Paris ateliers. The presence of able instructors and brilliant advanced students, combined with the importance placed upon design, established and fostered this tradition."34 Although Edmund Burke had warned the OAA in 1895 that the country faced a crisis in architectural education unless something was done to bring the teaching of design in line with American standards, the association had failed to act. This was undoubtedly a reflection of declining support for the OAA among both architects and students, but to the Eighteen Club it was symptomatic of the failure of the old

96 New Ideas

guard to adapt to changing realities. In their view, an improvement in the teaching of design was the most pressing problem facing architects in the city. And despite his background in the Arts and Crafts, even Eden Smith urged his fellow architects to support the establishment of a local atelier. The teaching of design, he told the OAA, could no longer be left to the haphazard and irregular methods of the office; on the one hand it was inconsistent, as all pupils do not get in equally good offices, while on the other "in a busy office a student cannot and does not get the close personal criticism which he might do under the atelier system." In the past, he said, "the cry has always been that design cannot be taught," but steps could be taken and students encouraged to spend several months each year "in a similar manner to the student at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris — under patrons, these patrons to be here, as in Paris, five or six of the best known and most respected architects of the city." There, as in Paris, students would work on assigned projects which would be criticized by the patron. The great advantage of this system, he argued must be obvious to anyone, for in addition to this there should be a course of lectures and examinations to test the student's theoretical knowledge. Then in the atelier the student has a chance to apply this theoretical knowledge in connection with design under the direct criticism of men who have actually practiced and have been successful, not under mere professors. The promotion and progress of the students could be arranged somewhat similarly to the Paris school, details of which need not be gone into here. Much valuable information could be obtained on this point from Mr. Ernest Flagg, of New York, Mr. Thos. Hastings and several others, who the Committee feel quite sure would be only too willing to assist in this matter. The two architects mentioned above have started ateliers of their own in New York and to the knowledge of the Committee the influence they have had with young men entering them has been really remarkable.35

In reponse to pressure from the Eighteen Club, a joint education committee was appointed to review yet again the problem of architectural education. Eden Smith represented the Eighteen Club, Edmund Burke and A.H. Gregg the OAA, and C.H.C. Wright the School of Practical Science. The report of the committee reflected the lessons of the past decade as well as an attempt to deal with the rival claims of science and art. The study of architecture, it said, was based on three disciplines, the science of architecture, the business or craft of architectural practice, and architectural design. According to the recommendations of the committee, each would be dealt with in turn.

97 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas

Architectural science would still be taught in a formal way under the aegis of the School of Practical Science, while the "craft" of architecture could only be learned in an office. All were agreed that some sort of atelier be set up based on Beaux-Arts principles for instruction in design. The atelier system, Gregg observed, "is one of the most important developments of architectural education. At the present time it is recognized that design is not learned by sitting down with a blank paper before you and a blank brain, and trying to put a building on paper. It is a matter of teaching the student to think and do a thing in the proper way and this studio work is as great a boon to architectural education as the kindergarten is to primary education."36 By the end of 1901 the architects of Ontario were united in their belief that the source of American success in architectural design was the Beaux-Arts system and that this should be introduced to Canada A.F. Wickson (1861 — 1936), president of the OAA, told his fellow architects There is a vitality in the architecture of the present, perhaps we might say the whole world over, and this is noticeable to no small degree in the great country beside us. We should therefore not be lagging in the struggle also to emerge from the foggy atmosphere of past methods of study in our profession ... The French themselves and those who can afford to become French temporarily have a great advantage in the well known school of architecture, though America is advancing with such strides in the study of this art that the incentive to go to France is becoming less each year, the influence of the former having permeated the latter to a great extent, and as Mr. Ernest Flagg says, that although "architects" are still striving for the extraordinarily original, and deprecate the Frenchifying of American architecture, students are working along the correct and sane lines of study fully convinced that the logical reasoning taught by the great French masters is the proper preparation for their work.37

In succeeding years, others echoed these sentiments. Grant Helliwell (1855-1953), president of the OAA in 1902, told the annual convention of the association that architectural progress in the United States "has undoubtedly been more marked and rapid than in any other country in modern times."38 In 1903, W.A. Langton asked, "What is at the bottom of the development of American architecture in the last twenty years?" only to answer "nothing but education."39 "The country is full of architectural colleges," he said; "a course at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts is an ordinary thing now for an aspiring young

98 New Ideas architect. It has come to be recognised in the United States that office practice alone is not enough; that it is necessary to study design theoretically, and to train the mind to powers of creative imagination, by exercising it in consecutive courses of study, designed expressly to develop those powers."40 In practical terms, the introduction of classes on the atelier principle meant the appointment of practising architects willing to meet with students on a regular basis for criticism and instruction. Frank Darling, John Gemmell, W.A. Langton, W.L. Symons, J.C.B. Horwood, and Eden Smith all agreed to take studio classes two nights a week as part of the course leading to entry to the OAA.41 According to the first report of the studio committee delivered in January of 1902, classes had begun based on Beaux-Arts principles. Darling reported: "We gave themes for design presented to the students in various ways and criticised their work with a view to giving them an idea of the fundamental principles of composition." He went on to say, however, that it had soon become apparent that the students were "not sufficiently instructed to make this exercise profitable" and the decision had been made to concentrate on a "systematic study of the principles of design as exemplified in the historical styles," beginning with the Roman orders followed by the Gothic and Renaissance.42 In the interim, the Eighteen Club had decided not to work with the OAA but administer classes on its own. In 1903 a second attempt was made to co-operate, and a compromise was reached. The OAA agreed to establish supplementary classes in mathematics while the Eighteen Club would take charge of design. As had been the case with the OAA studio, the Eighteen Club established classes conducted "on methods similar to those adopted at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, problems in design being given the student and worked out under the supervision of the visiting architects forming the committee."43 Despite these efforts on the part of the Eighteen Club and the OAA, by the end of 1906 the studio classes had collapsed in the face of declining interest on the part of students. In light of this the OAA was forced to conclude, yet again, that little could be done to improve education unless architectural students were required by law to take advanced training. The educational committee of the OAA concluded: the real solution of these difficulties seems to be in the hands of the government. Were the profession of Architecture put on a plane with other professions, students could be required by law to take a proper course of training and the proper place to take it would be in such an institution as the School of Practical Science. At present, the architectural students there are almost a negligible quantity, but if the legislation desired were obtained, the

99 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas numbers would be so increased that the government would be warranted in providing a full architectural staff and the best possible training in design as well as in the more technical branches. The atelier system could be adopted and practicing architects retained as patrons, whose interest in the work would not necessarily be wholly altruistic. But one thing seems clear, that no matter what efforts are made to improve conditions at the School of Science, it is hopeless to expect that a sufficient number of architectural students will attend to warrant the government in providing the professorial staff and the equipment which is needed unless it were made obligatory for all desiring to become architects to take the course.44

More than fifteen years after the formation of the OAA, the problem remained the same: there was no incentive for students and draftsmen to follow the OAA course. But there remained a need for training in design and there remained a belief it should follow Beaux-Arts principles. In 1907 a group of draftsmen and students in Toronto banded together to form a Beaux-Arts Society "to provide a better opportunity for the pursuit of knowledge in the theory and application of laws of building design than is to be obtained in the average office."45 The efforts of the students and draftsmen were supported by the Eighteen Club, who had recently changed their name to the Toronto Society of Architects, and in the autumn of 1908 an atelier was established by the Beaux-Arts Society with the architect John Lyle (1872-1945) as the patron.46 The arrival of John Lyle in Toronto and the formation of the atelier Lyle, as it came to be known, were significant events in the development of Beaux-Arts ideals among Canadian architects. Born in Ireland in 1872, Lyle grew up in Canada, studying at the Hamilton School of Art before leaving the country to study in the United States and at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts.47 After graduating from the Ecole, he returned to New York, and then came to Toronto in 1906 where he quickly emerged as a leading apologist for the Beaux-Arts.48 The affiliation of the Toronto students and draftsmen with the Society of Beaux-Arts architects is interesting because it represents the spread into Canada of the educational wing of the society. Formed in New York in 1893 by a small group of American architects who had recently returned from the Ecole, the Society of Beaux-Arts Architects was devoted to the propagation of the Beaux-Arts system. To further their aims they had launched a program of education based on the Beaux-Arts method in 1894. The principle was remarkably simple. After organizing three ateliers in New York, the society began a regular series of competitions based on the Beaux-Arts program. Any group of students could choose a patron and send their problems

ioo New Ideas

to the society for exhibition and judgment. Upon completion of the course the student was given a certificate of proficiency.49 The society was extremely successful; in 1905, 238 students were registered, and by 1912 a total of 102 ateliers across the country included 994 students.50 The reasons for the society's success are easily understood. As the Montreal architect W.S. Maxwell (18741952) explained in 1908, the Beaux-Arts Society helped precisely those who needed help most: The greatest movement to assist draughtsmen who cannot afford to attend college is that instituted by the Society of Beaux-Arts of America. This society aims to help the man who is not in a position to go through college. In all parts of the United States and I believe some parts of Canada, there are ateliers conducted by practicing architects. Programmes are sent out from headquarters to the different patrons and then given to the men who are studying in their ateliers. The equisse principle is followed and the men study the problems during their spare time and receive criticism from their patrons. In some cases they work part of the day in an office and part in the atelier. The drawings are sent to New York and are exhibited and judged by a jury of architects, mentions and medals being awarded. This society is doing a remarkable work and in many of the regular schools several of their programmes are followed each year. The quality of the work produced is very fine and the belief is held that by this system there will probably be evolved an architecture which will suitably represent the ideals and conditions of this country. The prize designs are published in the magazine named "Architecture" and the competitors who are unable to attend the exhibitions can at least examine those solutions which were deemed most worthy. Any practicing architect of standing may by application start an atelier.5'

The atelier Lyle occupied a set of rooms on the first floor of a brick building at the corner of Yonge Street and Yorkville Avenue in Toronto. Contemporary descriptions suggest that not only the techniques but also the mood of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts were reproduced. "The environment is of the humblest," commented Construction in 1910; "the unkept condition of the room reminds one of the abode of an artist - everything that might tend to give the quarters a utilitarian atmosphere has been studiously avoided. A cabinetmaker occupies one of the lower stories. A Chinese laundry is also located in this old building and the bohemian atmosphere is accentuated by the pungent odour peculiar to Oriental emporiums of this nature."58 The reporter went on to remark that "the atelier or workshop occupies a long room, the draughting room and the smaller adjoining

54 Plan showing site and surroundings of proposed new government buildings, Ottawa, 1906

55 Darling and Pearson, justice and departmental buildings, Ottawa. Front elevation (project)

56 Darling and Pearson, justice and departmental buildings, Ottawa. Elevation to Sussex Street (project)

57 Darling and Pearson, justice and departmental buildings, Ottawa. First floor plan (project). The justice building with its great library is linked by a screen to the departmental building with central court, entrance hall and rows of offices.

58 Parliament Hill, Ottawa, from Majors Hill Park, c. 1866

59 E. and W.S. Maxwell, justice building, Ottawa. Front elevation (project)

60 E. and W.S. Maxwell, justice building, Ottawa. First floor plan (project)

61 E. and W.S. Maxwell, departmental building, Ottawa. Elevation (project)

62

Plan of site for proposed legislative buildings, Regina

63 P.M. Rattenbury, British Columbia Legislative Building

64 A.M. Jeffers (attributed), proposal for Alberta legislative building, 1907

65 A.M. Jeffers, Alberta Legislative Building

66 P.E. Nobbs, design for a town church, RIBA Soane Medallion Competition, 1903

67 E. and W.S. Maxwell, Saskatchewan Legislative Building. Front elevation

68 E. and W.S. Maxwell, Saskatchewan Legislative Building. Ground floor plan

69 Darling and Pearson, Saskatchewan Legislative Building, 1907. Front elevation (project)

yo Darling and Pearson, Saskatchewan Legislative Building, 1907. Ground floor plan (project)

71 Darling and Pearson, Bank of Commerce, Winnipeg, c. 1900

ioi

The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas

room - the library; neither one bears evidence of having imposed any undue responsibilities upon the class for their upkeep; they are unkept and in a state of chaos, as most workshops are." He concluded by saying that "The rooms are full of plaster casts, drawings, sketches and at times much smoke and hilarity. The students are left free to do as much as they please — there being no recognized code or rules of conduct."53 It was under these conditions that Lyle taught the gospel of the Beaux-Arts. The pattern of teaching was familiar; students were first required to make a rough sketch during the space of an evening, a copy of which was kept and filed with the secretary. The student then had a limited time in which to develop his scheme and make his final drawings. The majority of problems were short, "requiring about three weeks' work," and when the final drawings were completed, they were hung together with the original sketch for judgment and comment by Lyle. By 1910 the students at the atelier Lyle had begun to produce the sort of formal, carefully organized schemes typical of Beaux-Arts work around the world, of which a drawing for an art museum by A.E. Watson is an example (figure 32).54 The experience of the Eighteen Club, the OAA, and the atelier Lyle demonstrate that beginning in 1900 Beaux-Arts ideas were introduced to architectural education in Ontario in the hope of improving training in design. Moreover, architects who had themselves been trained at the Ecole, or in the manner of the Ecole, returned to Canada convinced that the spread of the Beaux-Arts techniques would raise the standard of Canadian practice. This was true in Ontario but it was also true in Quebec, the only other province in which architects were organized and numerous enough to deal with the problems of education in a systematic way. Unlike Ontario, where the influence of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts first arrived indirectly, from the United States, architects in Quebec were in direct contact with developments in Paris at least as early as the 18905. The first Canadian to study at the Ecole was the Montreal architect J. Omer Marchand (1873-1936), a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, who was in Paris by i893-55 That Marchand should go to Paris while his English-speaking compatriots continued to study in the United States or London only underscores what were natural links between French-speaking Quebec and Paris. Consequently, when the architectural course at the Ecole Polytechnique was expanded, and in the early igoos it remained a poor cousin to the architectural program at McGill University, the directors of the school turned to Paris. In 1907 the

io2

New Ideas

decision was made to establish a program independent from the course in engineering: Le 4 Janvier 1907, la Corporation decide 1'etablissent, en septembre suivant, d'un cours special d'architecture, aux soins des deux professeurs deja nomm£s, et donnant droit a un diplome d'architecte. M. Balete redige tout de suite un reglement, qui est accepte, le 4 mars. Ce n'etait qu'un commencement. En avril, on ecrit a M. de Foville, pretre de Saint-Sulpice, qui avaint vecu plusiers annees a Montreal et etait retourne a Paris, pour le prier de trouver en France un architecte, laureat des Beaux-Arts, autantque possible, qui consentirait a enseigner au Canada. C'est ainsi que nous vint M. Max Doumic, frere de M. Rene Doumic de 1'Academic Frangaise esprit vraiment distingue et veritable artiste.56

With the arrival of M. Doumic, the principles and methods of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts were firmly established at the Ecole Polytechnique. This was the first post-secondary institution in the country to adopt these principles, and there they influenced a generation of Quebec architects. Even before Doumic's appointment, Marchand had been appointed professor in perspective drawing, while when Doumic left Montreal in 1909 he was replaced by Jules Poivert, another laureate of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and Marchand's brother-in-law.57 Although the influence of the Beaux-Arts manner on architecture in Quebec was widespread from the early 19005 onwards, not least because of the success of McKim, Mead, and White's Bank of Montreal extension (1901-4) (figure 33), Beaux-Arts ideas did not affect formalized education among English-Canadians in the province as much as it did among francophones. The chief reason for this is that even though S. Henbest Capper trained at the Ecole, after his departure in 1903 the architecture course at McGill developed along Arts and Crafts lines. Nonetheless, it was inevitable that some students working in offices would come under Beaux-Arts influence, and Quebec itself produced perhaps the most gifted and articulate spokesman for the Beaux-Arts system in the country, W.S. Maxwell (figure 34). Born in Montreal in 1874, William Maxwell first studied architecture in the office of his brother Edward (figure 35), who had returned from Boston in the early 18905 to superintend construction of the Montreal Board of Trade. After four years in Edward's office, William himself left for Boston. There he worked in the office of Winslow and Wetherell and joined the Boston Architectural Club, coming under the influence of Desire Despradelle. By the spring of

103 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas

1898 he was back in Montreal. Signed drawings indicate that he spent the summer helping Edward, particularly in the design of Frenchinspired detail for the London and Lancashire Life building, then under construction (figure 36).58 In November he left for Paris and there enrolled as a special student in the atelier Pascal. He was evidently happy there, writing in 1900 to F.S. Monette, secretary of the PQAA, that "Paris is delightful and I wish I could prolong my stay for years," but later that year he returned to Montreal and in 1902 he formed a partnership with Edward.59 William Maxwell was later to write that as a young man in Montreal he had suffered from the lack of a systematic training. It was only in Boston with its clubs for draftsmen and lectures for students that he had been able to find his way as an architect. In a speech to the OAA in 1908 Maxwell spoke of the effect this had had on his development: "I had the good fortune to belong to the Boston Architectural Sketch Club for three years, and can look back upon this period as the one when I first seriously realized the greatness and nobility of architecture. On the weekly club evenings one could always listen to a lecture or paper worth hearing and round off the evenings with indigestibles, pipes and good fellowship. Well attended classes in design under Professor Despradelle of the Institute of Technology were held twice a week, also classes in modelling, drawing from life and water colour painting which kept us occupied on most of our evenings."60 As Maxwell went on to point out, the great strength of the Beaux-Arts system was that it was in fact systematic. Unlike training in an office where "some practitioners conscientiously train their pupils while many do not," the Beaux-Arts method "was a system both consistent and adaptable, useful for training students in a university and draftsmen working in offices."61 In defence of the academic system, Maxwell argued that the Ecole taught not a vocabulary of forms but a way of approaching architectural design clearly and logically. Planning and design were the subjects of greatest importance, while "a course is given which covers the mathematical and constructional phase of education and which above all things aims to educate the student in the artistic side of architecture." Besides this, working progressively from sketch to finished product, the system taught the student to develop organizational skills. "The equisse principle," he said, "justifies itself on the following grounds. First of all, the student uses his own powers and exercises his imagination, skill and judgement producing a conception of more or less excellence. Secondly he has a basis upon which to work, he is forced to become a thinker and he is at once concerned with the principles of design, and in the development of his idea

104 New Ideas

within the broad limitations of his own imposition is occupied all the time with a problem which develops those powers which must become proficient before he can rightly be considered an architect."62 It was this grounding in the conception and development of a design, Maxwell believed, which the Ecole des Beaux-Arts gave its students, not the ability, as was sometimes thought, to manipulate classic forms. There was no intrinsic reason, Maxwell argued, why a Beaux-Arts training should hamper artistic individualism: Although the draughtsmanship at the Ecole is of a very high standard, it is never considered as being of equal importance with the conception and development of the design. The exhibitions in a large hall at the Ecole exert a powerful influence, they get a man out of a rut, stimulate his imagination and broaden his point of view. The effect of many solutions of a problem all intelligently worked out cannot be other than broadly educative. The statement is sometimes made that the Ecole training has a tendency to kill the individuality of a man. I fail to see why it should: if a student's work is eccentric and not logical he certainly requires the discipline which a rational system of education will impose. If on the other hand he possesses an individual and open mind, the effort of the patron is always towards fostering and developing his personality.63

By the time William returned to Montreal, Edward had already developed a thriving practice. During the next five years the Maxwells emerged as the most successful firm in the country. As we shall see in chapter 9, their success seemed to prove the efficacy of Beaux-Arts training, and William himself wrote and lectured on its suitability to Canadian conditions. In 1909 he was called upon to form an atelier of his own, following the collapse of a sketch club established by the PQAA in 1905. The focus of the sketch club, led by Cecil Burgess (1870-1946), had been the study of historic buildings, but, in a way which echoed events in Toronto two years earlier, the students suspended the activities of the club so that they might "devote their efforts towards organising a systematic scheme of work as training in design."64 The atelier Maxwell was affiliated with the Society of Beaux-Arts Architects and that same year one of Maxwell's students, J. Roxburgh Smith, won a mention in the annual catalogue.65 With the formation of ateliers in Montreal and Toronto and the appointment of Marchand and Doumic at the Ecole Polytechnique, the focus of architectural education in Canada was now Paris and its great school. With the notable exception of McGill University, Canadian architects were to be trained in the academic system. When the University of Manitoba established an architecture course in

105 The Eighteen Club and Beaux-Arts Ideas

1912, it too turned to a graduate of the Ecole, New York architect Arthur Stoughton (1867—1955). The introduction of the atelier system, advanced by the Eighteen Club and occurring spontaneously in Quebec, corresponded almost exactly with the spread of the Beaux-Arts manner in architecture as a whole. Its leaders included men we have already met, J. Omer Marchand, John Lyle, and Edward and William Maxwell. This is no coincidence, but it should not obscure the fact that, at root, the spread of Beaux-Art ideas in education and so eventually to the profession at large lay not in the momentary appeal of classical forms - Eden Smith for one never used the orders in his life - but in the heartfelt desire for systematic training in design.

This page intentionally left blank

PART

THREE

Nationalism

This page intentionally left blank

C HAFTER

SEVEN

The National Idea

By the early igoos, the idea that architecture should be expressive of history, climate, and national life had taken hold in Canada. Pride in an expanding country, professional self-confidence, Arts and Crafts theory — all were factors stimulating the desire for national expression. But even before this, in the i88os and iSgos, at a time when the profession as a whole was preoccupied with registration and the threat of American competition, some architects had already begun to think about architecture in nationalist terms. They prepared the ground, and when the clouds of economic depression lifted at the end of the century, the national idea in architecture began to take shape. A common theme expressed by architects in the early iSgos was that architecture could play an important role in the development of Canadian society if it could develop its own character. "The magnitude of examples of architecture should testify to the greatness of our country," wrote A.C. Hutchison, and "the stamp of originality which we hope will be placed on our buildings may prove that Canada is a nation ... a country of which we may all be proud."1 "We must try to develop a national spirit," S.G. Curry told the PQAA, adding that, in order "to develop national life, we should encourage art, for the love of the beatuful had much to do with the formation of character."2 Looking around them, Canadian architects expressed the opinion that the profession had for the most part failed to produce work of a standard suitable for the country. "It is a melancholy fact," complained the Toronto architect W. Siddall (1861-1941), "that much that has been produced here is either positively bad or absolutely uninteresting. The buildings that are offensively bad are so from sheer ignorance or contempt for the recognised rules of art, and those that are dull and stupid often are so from the mere mechanical repetition of stock forms and stale ideas which do duty for thought and save

no Nationalism trouble of invention."3 Another writer described one fast-growing Toronto street as "fagades in which carved stone, pressed and moulded brick, galvanized iron corbels are arrayed in a manner which results in ugliness so obtrusive as to make one wish the means were at hand for inflicting deserved punishment upon the author."14 In the West, C.H. Wheeler (1838-1917) observed that it was only recently that architects in Winnipeg had begun to design durable buildings suitable for the extremes of climate.5 Another complaint often heard during the i88os was that Canadian architects were influenced by foreign work to such a degree that Canadian architecture seemed little more than a slavish imitation of what one might see in Boston or New York. Hamilton architect James Balfour (1854— 1917) urged his fellow architects not to copy buildings, but design them, "drawing no line that does not express a purpose, [so] that a new and perfectly suitable style would soon beautify our cities and towns. If we make an effort we will succeed in producing a Canadian nineteenth century style."6 One of the difficulties facing architects at the end of the nineteenth century was that, in the absence of a Canadian style, it was no easy matter to design buildings that were commodious, fashionable, and distinctively Canadian. In response to this problem, some architects used traditional styles in a contextual way or with applied ornament so that even if their style was not uniquely Canadian the buildings themselves responded to their surroundings. One of the best examples of this device was the use of late-medieval French architectural motifs to express national or nationalistic ideas. This was to prove an extraordinarily powerful idea, particularly in Quebec, where the use of French historical styles came to be seen as an expression of the province's unique history and linguistic character. Consequently it is worth reviewing briefly the background to what became, if not a Canadian style, at least something of a national phenomenon. The effect which French-inspired historical motifs could have on the popular imagination in Quebec was demonstrated, albeit unintentionally, by a series of public works carried out under the direction of the Canadian governor-general, Lord Dufferin, in the 18705. When Lord Dufferin arrived in Canada in 1872 the City of Quebec was in the midst of redevelopment, a process which entailed the destruction of the old city gates and lowering the ancient fortifications. Dufferin, who recognized Quebec as "one of the most picturesque and beautiful cities in the world," determined to stop this vandalism before the city, to use his own words, had been flattened "into the quadragular monotony of an American town."7 In place of

111 The National Idea the city's plans, Dufferin drew up a series of proposals which were "made with a view to preserving [Quebec's] old walls and gates, its picturesque appearance, and its ancient character."8 Besides construction of a terrace around the old ramparts, Lord Dufferin called for the development of a park just beyond the city walls on the plains of Abraham, the construction of a chateau within the old citadel to replace an earlier one destroyed by fire in 1834, and the construction of new gates through the city walls to provide necessary links with the expanding city beyond.9 Dufferin's proposals won support on all sides, but he himself was cool-headed about its apparent success; the gates and walls of the new city were the only part of the program likely to be carried out, he told his architect William Lynn (1829-1915) in 1875.10 This proved to be so, but Dufferin did succeed in stopping the mindless destruction of the old city, and the preservation of its historic character was his lasting gift to Canada. Moreover, he also left behind a romantic image of the city which has persisted to this day. In Dufferin's view, the beauty of Quebec lay not in its situation alone but in the happy conjunction of high cliffs, the St Lawrence, and the city itself with its buildings and fortifications. He described it as a "diadem of wall and towers."11 It was Dufferin's intention to reinforce these picturesque qualities by introducing highly romantic architectural forms which would play upon the fortifications already in place. The City of Quebec, he wrote the Earl of Carnarvon, had agreed "to allow me to send them a very clever architect I happen to know at home who has a specialite for picturesque medieval construction, and who is to be allowed to finish off the breaches ... with tourelles, towers, turrets etc. as may best preserve the ancient character of the enceinte."12 In the summer of 1875 William Lynn, Lord Dufferin's Irish architect, came to Quebec at Dufferin's request. His response to the city and the commission was a series of neo-medieval designs, some, like the St Louis Gate, eventually built, others, like the St John Gate or the new Chateau St Louis, forever a dream on paper (figures 37, 38, and 39). Dufferin's idea and Lynn's designs seem now an obvious, almost conventional, response to the old piles and high walls of Quebec, but to see them this way is to misread the past. There was no historical ground for Lynn's design; nothing like it had ever been built in New France. More to the point, many of the old gates whose destruction had prompted Dufferin to act had been constructed in a neoclassical style by the British command stationed at Quebec following the defeat in 1759 (figure 40). Dufferin and Lynn had simply imposed their own, romantic vision on Quebec, and it stuck. Consequently, though it is tempting to see the French antecedents in Lynn's design as an

112

Nationalism

architectural expression of the French character of Quebec, there is little evidence that this was either Lynn's or Dufferin's intention. Dufferin himself described Lynn's design for the chateau, rather surprisingly, as a "Chateau en Espagne."13 The idea of exploiting for nationalist effect the picturesque romanticism used by Dufferin and Lynn was, nonetheless, an obvious one, and it is no coincidence that the first architect to integrate Lynn's architectural ideas into his own work was a man at the heart of Quebec's nationalist movement, Eugene-Etienne Tache (18361912). Born in 1836, Tache was the eleventh son of Sir EtiennePaschal Tache, chairman of the Quebec conference leading to Confederation. E.-E. Tache was educated at the seminary of Quebec as well as Upper Canada College in Toronto. He studied painting with Theophil Hamel, surveying with Charles Baillairge and drafting in the offices of Walter Shanley and F.P. Rubidge. In 1861 Tache entered the Department of Crown Lands, becoming assistant commissioner of the department in Quebec.M By education, training, and inclination Tache was soon associated with those elements of Quebec society struggling in all fields of intellectual and artistic life to give expression to Quebec's distinct history and feelings of race. This nationalism was expressed in political terms by the election in 1886 of the Parti National. It also lay behind the construction after 1881 of a series of monumental sculptures in Quebec City and Montreal celebrating the heroes of French-Canadian history. Similarily, the painter Napoleon Bourassa had long had the ambition of establishing in Quebec a school of art based on a double foundation of national and religious feeling/5 It was in this atmosphere that Tache received the commission to design new departmental buildings and a parliament house for the province of Quebec. Construction of the departmental buildings began in 1877 and they were occupied in 1880. The foundation stone of the Palais legislatif was laid on 17 June 1884, and the building was finished in 1886. It is difficult to find in architecture during the 188os the open expression of nationalist feeling one finds so easily in politics or sculpture, but there is no doubt that Tache conceived of the palais along such lines. It was to be a sort of pantheon, a treasure house of painting and sculpture dedicated to the nation, past and future, and crowned by Tache's now famous motto "Je me souviens."16 The problem for Tache must certainly have been how to articulate these sentiments in architectural terms, there being no "Canadian" style. His solution was a Second Empire fagade integrated with an ambitious program of sculpture - figures of Cartier, Maisonneuve, and so on — so that taken as a whole the building's message would be

113 The National Idea

unambiguous. Although the Second Empire style was commonplace, in this context it clearly emphasized the bond with France. In the view of Princess Louise, it also spoke of Canada: "All this architecture is truly French," she observed, "with, in addition, a peculiar character of its own in which the learned, original, distinguished and very Canadian personality of the architect, Mr. Eugene Tache, manifests itself" (figure 4i).' 7 In 1883 Tache designed a court-house in Quebec City, also in Second Empire Style.'8 Then in 1884 he suddenly turned to the neo-medieval, picturesque mode of Lynn.' 9 The project was a drill hall for the Department of Public Works (figures 42 and 43). The design, consisting of a long, low drill hall, two small pavilions, and two lateral extensions, was eclectic in style, though unified by a playful, theatrical use of picturesque massing and detail. While Lynn's idea remains, Tache's models are more consciously French; indeed they seem to reflect the neo-inedievalism of Viollet-le-Duc, who was perhaps another influence. One has only to compare, for instance, the round towers of Lynn's St John Gate with the chateauesque turrets and Second Empire massing of the drill hall extension (figure 38). As architectural critics noted, Tache's design was facade architecture: the buttresses were too small and the walls seemed paper thin.20 These are defects which reflect Tache's own interests or lack thereof; the structural design was in fact by J.-B. Derome, while the plan of the building, with two awkward "lean-tos" housing the armouries, was radically subservient to the formal demands of frontal composition. Nevertheless, the drill hall is an extremely interesting building, and within the context of DPW work of the period a highly original one. There is no doubt that Tache used French forms because of the historic links of France and Quebec, and perhaps because of a desire to emphasize them. Otherwise, it is hard indeed to credit the imagery of his design, particularly the ornamental cresting, with its ranked lines of fleurs-de-lis and charming, naturalistic maple leaves (figure 44). In the drill hall, Tache, struggling to find an architectural metaphor for his own nationalism, had hit upon a happy solution. Its destiny was, of course, the chateau style, popularized in the great hotels of the railway age. The prototype and first monument to the style was the Chateau Frontenac by Bruce Price. Excavation began in May of 1892 and the hotel opened on 18 December 1894 (figure 45). Since Price had worked in the chateau mode before coming to Quebec, since there were numerous earlier proposals for a hotel on the site in a picturesque, vaguely French style — including one by

ii4 Nationalism

Tache - and since the style was a popular one in Great Britain and America, there is no reason to think that Price had himself been influenced by Tache and his drill hall.21 But what Tache's work does suggest is that by the time Price came to Quebec there already existed the idea that these medieval and early-Renaissance forms had a special resonance in Quebec, however common they might be elsewhere. Price in later life gave this as his own justification for using the style. "The motif of the hotel," he remarked in a well-known interview with Barr Ferree, "is of course, the early French Chateau adapted to modern requirements, a style certainly in keeping with the traditions of the old French city, and admirably suited to the picturesque situation."22 More significant, perhaps, are remarks made by the Quebec historian Ernest Gagnon. These are especially revealing because they are nothing less than an attempt to justify the use of early French Renaissance architecture on historical grounds: "On peut dire que dans son ensemble," wrote Gagnon, "1'architecture du 'Chateau Frontenac' rappelle les constructions de la premiere periode de la Renaissance, - periode ou 1'art classique commengait seulement a s'introduire dans le nord de 1'Europe et a meler la grave de ses formes aux lignes severes des constructions du Moyen Age. C'est a cette periode artistique que correspond la periode historique qui vit Jacques Carder remonter le fleuve Saint-Laurent, arborer la croix et les lis en face de Stadocone et reveler 1'existence du Canada a la France et au monde civilise."23 The work of Tache and Price is a good example of the way forms borrowed from European architecture could be used to articulate feelings or ideas about Canada. The introduction of foreign architectural forms into the Canadian landscape was a device that could be easily adapted to various ends, though not always with the same power to excite the imagination as the turrets of Old France above the ramparts of Quebec. Some architects however, thought the time had come for architects to move beyond the endless repetition of borrowed styles. They argued that this could be done if architects based their work on true principles. "We have no need to wait for the advent of genius to create Canadian architecture, if only we have in common the idea of making our architecture true," W.A. Langton told the Toronto Architectural Sketch Club in 1892. As things stood, he told his audience, We still have amphitheatrical churches with a couple of storeys of society rooms and class rooms, all contained within an exterior which represents as faithfully as it can the medieval church with its single spacious hall. We are about to have a drill shed here which, in as much as it is government work and

115 The National Idea the result of tradition rather than individual intention, we need not feel shy of criticizing. It is, of course, to be a castellated structure. In former days arms were kept in a castle. Must therefore the building that stores our arms nowadays represent a castle, however feebly? Are we to suppose that when Toronto is surrounded by the beleaguering host, our brave defenders will retire upon the impregnable drill shed and man the battlemented turrets and cornice?24

Given the facts of Canadian life, architects almost invariably pointed to climate as the one truth above all others which would lead them to an architecture of their own. In a paper titled "Climatic Influences on Architecture," the Ottawa architect G.F. Stalker (1841-1895) wrote that "the artistic and scientific construction of a building are the chief characteristics which distinguish an architect from a builder - and just as we see the votaries of fashion dressed in a style which is only suitable in Paris or London, so we find the followers of fashion in art designing their buildings as if locality and climate were in these days reduced by artificial means to a universal dead level." Whenever an architectural style had been developed, it had been related closely to the realities of climate, he said, and in Canada "We certainly have not a Canadian style of architecture ... one cannot fail to be struck with the want of consideration that has been shown to Dame climate." The chief thing, he went on to say, "the only thing for us to do in this matter is not to ignore our climate, although it can treat us with supreme contempt, but to give it in our architecture that consideration and study which is its due and which shall give a certain amount at least, of national character to our building."25 In point of fact, the introduction of new forms and ways of building had freed Canadian architects from many of the restrictions of the past, leading to an architecture less influenced by climatic considerations than ever before. Nowadays, Charles Baillairge wrote, "all the comforts of hot-water heating, electric lighting, and sanitary plumbing of handsome make, with the elegancies of hardwood finish, tiling, stained glass work, etc. are generally looked for. The effect of all this is that the old house of seventy or eighty years ago is looked upon with little favour."26 In contrast, until about the mid-nineteenth century Quebec architects and builders had no choice but to design buildings in a way that mitigated the worst effects of snow and cold. Over time this had led to the evolution of a distinctive architecture. The traditional Quebec house with its thick walls, small doors and windows, low ceilings, and double windows set flush with the outer face was easily warmed and well insulated, he said. Furthermore, the pitched roof and the absence of parapets and projecting cornices left

n6 Nationalism the snow free to fall to the street. "The Quebec architect," Baillairge wrote, "should build not because this or that style is fashionable, but with proper regard for the requirements of climate and surrounding circumstances, to produce such a style of building as will without question assert itself to be of a type suitable to the climate and other conditions of the locality in which it stands." This, he said, "the old buildings of Quebec did; let us not despise them, but so improve and embellish them and adapt them to modern notions, that in the new production we shall have, if not a national, at least a local style of architecture."27 Although it was not until after the turn of the century that Canadian architects began to experiment with the traditional architecture of Quebec in the field of domestic design, Baillairge's observations seem to have been part of a general awakening to the value of the old architecture of the province. In 1893 Louis Papineau wrote the CAB criticizing proposals to pull down an old parish church. He described what he called a mania to demolish the old churches, replacing them with constructions "neither gothic or classical" which completely ignored the fact that the old builders had evolved what he called a "Canadian type of church."28 That same year, public monies were gathered to save the Chateau de Ramezay in Montreal from destruction. Four years later, in 1897, A.T. Taylor made an impassioned plea for the preservation of the province's vernacular buildings. Indifference, ignorance, and personal interest had "robbed us of many an interesting piece of antiquity in Montreal," he said, urging the people of Quebec City to "Cling to everything that makes your city interesting from an antiquarian point of view. 'Grapple them to your souls with hooks of steel.' All over the province the quaint old village churches with their silver spires are being replaced with structures, many of them exceedingly pretentious ... Personally I regret to see the disappearance of the simple rural church hallowed by many years of worship ... We have few antiquities of any kind and what we have got it is our bounden duty to jealously guard and preserve."29 Again, despite these early signs of interest in the traditional architecture of Quebec, the scholarly study of the province's vernacular building was not to begin in earnest for another decade and a half. Nonetheless, the growing sensitivity of at least some architects towards the old architecture of the province was matched by an increasing awareness that foreign architectural idioms could not be reproduced in Canada without some accommodation to local conditions. As Saxon Snell, the English architect charged with the design of the Victoria Hospital in Montreal, remarked, even though the

117 The National Idea hospital was a copy of Edinburgh's Royal Infirmary, "I have had more difficulty in designing the plan for this hospital than any other I have ever built. This is accounted for by the peculiarity of the Canadian climate, its intense heat and cold."30 In 1893, another English architect practising in Canada, R.W. Gambier-Bousfield, told the OAA that to his mind English mouldings as they were commonly used in Gothic work in Canada were quite unsuitable to Canadian conditions. In his address, the CAB reported, "It was shown how unsuitable were such forms as the hollows of Early English moulds in which water will lie in the severe winters, and therefore what folly it is to introduce such forms simply because they are Early English."31 As Canadian architects themselves noted, nowhere had the Canadian profession been as successful in producing designs fitted to national conditions as in the field of domestic design.32 The reason seems to be, at least in part, that here Canadian architects could easily adapt British and American theories of design to their own practice. This attitude can be seen, for instance, in a lecture given by Edmund Burke to the Toronto Architectural Sketch Club in 1890. In his opinion, the design of Canadian houses should follow and be a compilation of American and English practice; those traditions which he describes as "the most familiar and accessible to us."33 Drawing heavily upon such standard works as Robert Kerr's The English Gentleman's House and C.F. Osborne's Notes on the Art of House Planning, as well as the contemporary work of R. Norman Shaw, he observed that in both countries, the best work was marked by a special consideration of climate - the amount of rainfall, the movement of the sun, and so on - and he advocated the same sort of careful planning in the design of Canadian houses.34 In Canada, Burke said, the necessity of avoiding snow traps had had the effect of "clipping the wings of many a flight of fancy planning," but he offered his students some concrete suggestions. Ideally, he said, the most important rooms and the main entrance should face to the south, "thus avoiding the coldest winds which are from the north and west. In our climate, the entrance should not be placed ... where it will receive the full effect of a snow slide from the roof. If a hood or porch is impracticable, a broad dormer may be located directly above the door, or a gable worked in to obviate or divert that which is always a dangerous nuisance." Likewise, he argued, "In our climate the hall should never have direct connection with the entrance door - a vestibule should be imposed. If the vestibule door can be placed at a right angle to the entrance it will tend to prevent the sweeping of a sudden gust of wind through and chilling the house should both doors happen to be open at the same

118 Nationalism

time." Finally, he said, "where a hall fireplace is introduced it should be in a cosy nook away from draughts, otherwise it would be as well to do without a fireplace in the hall altogether."35 Nowhere did architects have to come to terms with difficult climatic conditions so quickly as on the prairies. As the Winnipeg Tribune observed in 1895,tne Past decade had seen a marked improvement in domestic design as architects in Winnipeg evolved a standard type and method of construction. Out of necessity, this was giving rise to a distinctive Canadian house: In Canada we have scarcely developed a type as yet, but certain marked lines are already observable. The habitant lives in the same kind of a house that sheltered his forefathers when Quebec was besieged by Wolfe, but in the other provinces once the fierce struggle with nature is over, the settlers have aspired to something ampler. The people could not well borrow designs, because the conditions of temperature here are different from those of every other land. And most resembling Russia in climate, we cannot copy her, because our mode of life, our civilization is different. Out of these conditions then has been evolved or is being evolved, the Canadian house. It is compact approaching the square or the thick oblong. It has solid walls, with protecting air spaces to keep out the cold, and ample verandahs to keep off the blaze of the summer sun. In the matter of heating, Canadian houses are probably the best equipped in the world, and in the United States several of the best systems and furnaces bear the name of Canadian firms.36

By the early years of this century, this spirit of innovation had given rise to houses well adapted to local conditions and built without reference to past styles; the prototype indeed of a modern prairie house. A striking example is a summer house built for R. Wilson on the banks of the Assiniboine River, just west of Winnipeg, about 1903 (figure 46). As Percy Over, director of the Winnipeg office of Darling and Pearson, explained, the house was carefully planned to take account of the warm, dry summers. The front of the living room, he said, "opens by means of glass doors, the full width and height of rooms so that in warm weather this room becomes practically a large verandah. The kitchen arrangement is most satisfactory as it is really detached from the remainder of the house and all heat and odor emanating therefrom is kept absolutely clear of the living rooms."37 Architectural criticism in the Winnipeg Tribune, the clear lines of this summer house, and indeed the establishment of an office in Winnipeg by Darling and Pearson are all evidence of the emergence of a sophisticated architectural culture in the city by the turn of the century.38 And Winnipeg was not alone; the same could soon he said

i ig The National Idea of other centres across the prairies, a development underlined by the formation of architectural societies in both Saskatchewan and Alberta.39 This spread of professionalism across the country is one which needs to be discussed in the context of the high-flying boom in construction which marked the years before 1914, but the point to be made here is that, when the boom came, architects in the region already had a clear idea of the need to adapt styles and methods of building to local conditions, and the means by which this might be accomplished. One of the most important influences encouraging architects to express the realities of Canadian geography, climate, and history in their architecture was the spread of Arts and Crafts theory. As we saw in chapter 6, this theory was rooted in the lessons of vernacular architecture and in the use of decorative elements as an integral part of architectural expression. In England the movement also had a strong nationalist element. All these ideas found expression in Canadian architecture, especially after 1900 wvhen Arts and Crafts societies were founded in cities across the country, including Victoria, Toronto, and Montreal. The story of Arts and Crafts influence in Canada remains to be written - the mingling of the decorative arts with architecture, the work of key architects, the influence of popular taste - but it is worth remembering that many of these ideas were first introduced in the 18gos. We have already seen the effect of Eden Smith's ideas on professionalism, but there were others. In 1891, for instance, William Thomson told the Art Students' League that Canadian architects must develop a decorative vocabulary based on the local flora and fauna. He criticized the "stereotyped and meaningless pattern of design used as ornament on the Parliament Buildings" in Ottawa. "Instead of all this scroll ornament," he said, "why not use, invent or cause to be invented, some new conventionalised ornament of Canadian wildflowers or bas relief with historic and allegoric events in Canadian history."40 Another man closely linked with the development of a nationalist conscience among Canadian architects during the iSgos was the Ontario painter and sometime architect George Reid. Born at Wingham, Ontario, in 1860, Reid studied first in Toronto and then in Philadelphia and Paris before returning in 1890 to Toronto, where he took a job as instructor at the Ontario College of Art. During the 18905 he developed an interest in that aspect of Arts and Crafts theory which emphasized the unity of architecture with the so-called sister arts of painting and sculpture. This led to an increasingly public role, including lectures to the OAA on the unity of the fine arts and a public campaign for wall murals in public buildings; in particular a

i2o Nationalism

series on Canadian themes for the Toronto city hall, then nearing completion. Under the influence of the Arts and Crafts, Reid turned briefly to architecture, designing several houses and a church, all of which, with their vernacular forms and expressive use of natural materials such as timber and fieldstone, reflect the desire to evolve an architecture rooted in the landscape of North America (figure 47).41 Perhaps the most notable exploration in the country of this last idea was to take place in British Columbia during the decade before 1914. There the Victoria architect Samuel Maclure (1860—1929) was to produce houses of an extraordinary quality, reflecting to a remarkable degree in materials, in plan, and in detail the climate and geography of the West Coast and the culture of its inhabitants.42 Earlier, during the 18905, Francis Rattenbury (1867-1935) in his British Columbia Legislature (built 1893-9), T.C. Sorby in simple, shingled hotels, and the English-born Arts and Crafts architect R. Mackay Fripp (1858—1917) in a range of domestic commissions all experimented with the use of local materials. All three architects were affected by a wide range of influences and styles: English vernacular, Arts and Crafts, Swiss Chalet, California Rustic, even the ideas of clients.43 As Fripp noted in 1892, O.G. Evan Thomas played an important role in the design of his own house with its expansive verandah and gabled, double-height hall, this last a spatial device much used, for instance, by Maclure (figure 48).44 Out of this milieu was to emerge a distinct architectural culture. After the turn of the century, as the Canadian economy began to expand, architects across the country were given the chance to explore their ideas on an unprecedented scale. This is a truism. But it is not so well understood that this opportunity carried with it the responsibility of producing an architecture suited to and expressive of the great continental nation the country had become. Architects felt this keenly, and one, Percy Nobbs, professor of architecture at McGill, formulated a theory which outlined the development of Canadian architecture on nationalistic lines. Its effect was to articulate and sum up many of the ideas and hopes which had appeared during the 18908. Besides this, however, one must keep in mind that throughout this period American architects continued to be conspicuously successful at winning Canadian commissions. This was yet another factor encouraging the development of nationalism among Canadian architects. A belief in the necessity of a national architecture and in their own ability to provide it was, as Ivan Macdonald, editor of Construction magazine, pointed out, the essence of the Canadian profession:

121 The National Idea It is true that we have not architects in Canada who have the international reputation of some of the American designers; they have not had the opportunity to establish their fame, but as far as capabilities are concerned, recent work of Canadian designers has established the fact that no country in the world possesses a more highly cultivated, capable class of architects, as a whole, than Canada. Buildings from the Atlantic to the Pacific, bear evidence of the careful, studious work of our designers. They stand as unmistakeable evidence of the fact that these sober, studious men have realized the importance of their duties and are carefully and intelligently dealing with each problem that presents itself and applying themselves assiduously to the task of giving Canada an architecture suited to her traditions, her climate, the habits, the tastes and the ideals of her people, and adapted to the use of the materials nature has given her. Contrast the work of Canadians influenced by their knowledge of all that is Canadian with that of the American designer, controlled by American influences, and the difference may be defined as that which exists between the characteristics and ideals of a Canadian and those of an American.45

CHAPTER

EIGHT

Percy Nobbs and a National Theory

In his biographical note on the life of Gerald Baldwin Brown, the first Watson Gordon professor of fine art at the University of Edinburgh, D. Talbot Rice wrote that Brown's historical writing was marked by a perspective where "art is considered as manifestation of the life and culture of its age, and where great importance is always given to the connexion between art and its social background."1 While Brown never taught in Canada, it is with him that we find the natural beginning to this chapter, for it was this idea — that all art is intimately connected with the society from which it springs - which lay behind the development of Canadian architectural criticism after 1896, and it was, indirectly at least, the teaching of Brown which had "Brought this about.2 In 1880, Edinburgh University appointed Brown, who was then thirty-one and a graduate of Uppingham and Oriel College, Oxford, to fill the newly established Watson Gordon Chair. As the university calendar made clear, the Department of Fine Art had been established to provide not a technical education, but a theoretical one. "The Watson Gordon class-room is by no means to be employed as a technical school," it stated. "But the object of the Chair will be to impart full knowledge, and correct ideas with regard to the history and theory of fine arts, including painting, sculpture, and architecture, and other branches of art therewith connected."3 With this in mind, Brown quickly established the reputation of the new department, which, despite its theoretical orientation, was nonetheless open to the practical needs of students in painting and architecture. For instance, in 1884 the department offered a course of forty lectures on architecture "especially designed for those who are pursuing architecture as a profession."4 Through his writing and his teaching, Brown was soon a leading

123 Percy Nobbs and a National Theory

figure in Scottish intellectual and academic life with a range of activities and honours to his credit, including in 1890 the presidency of the Edinburgh Architectural Association. Among his students at Edinburgh was S. Henbest Capper, and there is little doubt that Capper was given his post at McGill University in 1896 on Brown's recommendation. In 1895, scarcely a year before the establishment of a chair in architecture at McGill, Sir William Dawson had retired from the principalship of the university and the post had been offered to and accepted by another Scottish academic, William Peterson. Born in Edinburgh and educated at Oxford, Peterson had been appointed to the faculty of Edinburgh University in 1879. In 1882 he had taken up a position as principal of University College, Dundee, where he remained until leaving for Montreal.5 While in Scotland, Peterson had become a good friend of Brown and so, when looking for a suitable man to fill the chair in architecture at McGill in 1896, he turned quite naturally to him for advice. Brown in turn suggested Capper as the man for the job.6 The significance of Capper's appointment at McGill was twofold. It set the stage for the future development of links between the Department of Fine Art at Edinburgh and the Faculty of Architecture at McGill - a correspondence that was to have important and long-lasting ramifications for Canadian architecture - and it meant that, under Capper's direction, the architecture course at McGill would from the very beginning have a strong theoretical and humanistic character. In the course of his career at McGill, which lasted from his appointment in 1896 to his resignation in 1903, Capper had as his aim the establishment of an architectural program modelled on those of the United States, including training in design and architectural science as well as the theory and history of architecture. But while Capper's efforts at McGill met with only limited success, in the more public world of the architectural profession as a whole he played an important role as a member of the PQAA and as an architectural critic. As one might expect of a man trained by Brown, Capper held as central the idea that architecture was fundamentally the expression of the age which produced it. In consequence, he emphasized the role of architectural history and, in turn, the value to historical scholarship of architecture. In his lectures he argued that it was possible to see in historical architecture living evidence of the past. "It is, perhaps," he said, "through its buildings mainly that the past holds out in tangible form its living hand to the present."7 In addition, it was also Capper's belief that, because the relationship between society and architecture could be observed in the architecture of the past, architects of the present day would do well to study past architecture and work from it.

184

Nationalism

Indeed, he suggested that through the study of the past, architects would find their way to a new national architecture. "In a very special way, architecture is concerned in the ennobling legacy of the past," he said, and "only through the past can we builders learn thoroughly to grasp the present and work out strenuously the future of our craft."8 In his lectures and his writing, Capper pointed to the development of architecture along national and historical lines which was then such a marked feature of architectural life in Great Britain and throughout Northern Europe.9 Given what we have seen to be clear evidence of a desire among Canadian architects for just such a national architecture from the early 18905 onwards, it is curious that nothing of a similar nature was attempted in Canada until after 1900. Certainly one difficulty any movement of this sort would have had to overcome was the problem of Canadian history and nationality. Could any nation with such a brief history and undefined nationality as Canada hope to find evidence of a national architecture in its own past? Moreover without deep traditions of the kind found in Great Britain or continental Europe, on what foundation might a modern national architecture be based? The man who attempted to solve these problems and in so doing provide Canadian architects with an architectural theory enabling them to explore their own architectural past and, working from this, to develop a national architecture as had their European counterparts was not Capper himself, but his successor at McGill. In 1903 Capper resigned his position at McGill in order to leave Montreal and take up a position at Victoria University, Manchester. Looking for a suitable replacement, William Peterson turned once again to Edinburgh University and offered the Macdonald professorship to another graduate of the Department of Fine Art, Percy Erskine Nobbs (1875—1964; figure 49). Born in 1875 in Haddington, a small market town just outside Edinburgh, Nobbs spent the early part of his life in St Petersburg, where his father worked for the St Petersburg Commercial Joint Stock Bank. Upon returning to Edinburgh, Nobbs studied first at the Edinburgh Collegiate School and then at Edinburgh University, where he took a Master of Arts degree in i8g6.10 That same year he entered the Edinburgh College of Art. Subsequently, he worked first in the office of Robert Lorimer and then in the architectural wing of the London County Council, fire brigade branch. In 1900 he won the Tite prize from the RIBA and two years later the Owen Jones studentship for work in colour.'J As Nobbs himself was to recognize in later life, one of the formative influences on his architectural thought was the academic training he

125 Percy Nobbs and a National Theoryhad received at the hands of Gerald Baldwin Brown.12 Similarily it would be difficult to overestimate the effect on Nobbs of the ideas of the Gothic Revival, the Arts and Crafts Movement, and especially the exploration of those ideals in the practice of Sir Robert Lorimer. Indeed, describing the Edinburgh childhood of his friend, contemporary, and later colleague at McGill, Ramsay Traquair, Nobbs wrote, "It is worth remembering that in the artistic life of the Edinburgh in which Professor Traquair grew up, the Gothic Revival was still actively in force." Traquair, Nobbs continued, "had an inevitable (remember the time and place of his upbringing) intimacy with the arts and crafts and all that pre-Raphaelites and William Morris stood for.'"3 The same could well be said of Nobbs himself. The intervention of Eden Smith and the Eighteen Club in the affairs of the OAA was, as we have seen, an important manifestation of the spread of Arts and Crafts ideas to Canada. Now, with the appointment of Nobbs to McGill, we have an example of Arts and Crafts influence entering Canadian architecture in another way, through the universities and by way of Scotland. As we saw in chapter 6, the formation of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in England in 1877 was evidence of a shift — in the context of the Gothic Revival as a whole — away from a point of view which saw some Gothic styles as intrinsically better than others, towards a value which saw all architecture as a form of historical evidence. Its central principle was "to treat our ancient buildings as monuments of a bygone art, created by bygone manners, that modern art cannot meddle with without destroying."14 At the same time, historical styles would be "the basis for the production of a genuine nineteenthcentury architecture," and a reverence for traditional building technology "the basis for architectural development.'"5 In response, Philip Webb, W.R. Lethaby, and others tried to design modern buildings which took as their starting point the traditional architecture and building techniques of England. Inevitably these ideas found their way northwards to Scotland. Rowand Anderson, for example, established the National Art Survey of Scotland to encourage the study of vernacular building. But though Arts and Crafts ideas were in the wind, as late as 1890 no one in Scotland had attempted to explore them in practice; that is to establish in Scotland, as Webb had done in England, a modern school of architecture based on the vernacular. This was to be the accomplishment of Sir Robert Lorimer. Born in Edinburgh in 1864, the son of a professor in law, Robert Lorimer had entered the office of the Edinburgh architect Hew Wardrup in 1884 following an incomplete and rather unsuccessful

is6 Nationalism

career at Edinburgh University, where he had read Humanities, Greek, and Fine Art. Under Wardrup's tutelage and that of his partners, George Washington Browne and especially Rowand Anderson, Lorimer completed his articles and then travelled south to work in the London office of the Arts and Crafts architect George Frederic Bodley. After rather less than a year in Bodley's office, Lorimer moved to the office of the late Scots architect James Maclaren and then in 1893 returned to Edinburgh to set up his own office.16 Upon his return to Scotland, Lorimer, under the influence of the ideas of the Arts and Crafts movement and out of a deep love of Scotland and its architecture, attempted to adapt the ideas of Webb to Scotland. In a series of houses modelled on the traditional Scottish architecture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, he brought the Arts and Crafts idea to Scotland in a way that had not been done before, gaining the recognition of Herman Muthesius, who noted in his famous survey of British housing, Das Englische Haus, that "Scotland will not achieve what England has already achieved - a completely national style of house building based on the old vernacular architecture — until it follows the lead given by Lorimer."17 It was in the midst of this experimentation and development along Arts and Crafts lines that Nobbs, in Lorimer's office, received his training. For Nobbs, the heart of Lorimer's work and that branch of the Arts and Crafts movement of which he was a part was its nationalist impulse and the desire to draw upon the vernacular architecture of the past. Calling Lorimer "the last of the great romantics, with a name to put beside that of Philip Webb and Norman Shaw," Nobbs saw Lorimer as a man who had been able to express through architecture his country's spirit. "It was given him," Nobbs wrote, "to materialize in building the very essence of the Scottish spirit as it had not been done since the days of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots. And this was all the more remarkable in that he came after a generation of archaeological barbarians had been making play with what they were pleased to call the Scots baronial style."18 For Nobbs, the nationalism implicit in Lorimer's work was characteristic of the Arts and Crafts as a whole and one of the lasting results of the Gothic Revival. Writing in 1907, Nobbs concluded that The third and perhaps the most important influence of Gothicism on design in general was the Nationalistic tendency. William Morris had done much by his writings to stimulate the appreciation of the excellence of the vernacular English architecture, or rather, building, of the days before industrialism laid its sordid hands on English life, and a body of domestic architects devoted to

127 Percy Nobbs and a National Theory beautiful old ways of doing things, sprang into existence. These men were keen to perceive the excellence of local styles, in which materials rather than exotic fashions dictated the treatment. It is to this school that the present pre-eminence of English domestic architecture, both in planning and detail, is due, and it is needless to say that most of them had been trained in the offices of the great Gothic Revivalists.' 9

And who were these men keen to perceive the excellence of local styles? Nobbs went on to ask, answering, "First among them I would name Philip Webb, and then W.E. Nesfield, whose lodge at Kew was the first graceful effort towards the revival of the Queen Anne style. Other masters of this unostentatious school are the firm of Ernest George and Peto, Ernest Newton, E.S. Prior, E. Lutyens, J. Kinross and W. Brierley, R.W. Jackson and R.S. Lorimer."20 It was with this background in the Arts and Crafts, these sympathies, and above all a belief in nationality as a source from which architectural development could proceed that Nobbs came to Canada in the summer of 1903. As he was soon to discover, however, for someone with his ideological integrity the architectural situation in Canada was far from straightforward. There was, on the one hand, as yet no scholarly understanding of traditional Canadian building, and on the other the sheer power of American design could not but have an effect on Canadian work, making the development of an indigenous tradition all the more difficult. When Nobbs arrived in Montreal, the local firm of Brown and Miller had just completed construction of a new American-inspired design for the Board of Trade, replacing the earlier one by Shepley, Ruttan, and Coolidge, which had been destroyed by fire. The Bank of Montreal addition by McKim, Mead, and White was already visible off the Place d'Armes. Both of these made an impression on Nobbs. He later recalled: "On arriving at the Montreal docks, my cab passed the new Board of Trade building by Brown and Miller and I made a mental note that 'There are people here who know how.' I was soon to be shown over the Bank of Montreal, then under construction from the design of Mr. Mead (McKim, Mead and White of New York) and made my evaluation of the Craig Street facade as the best thing of its kind in the city or anywhere else for that matter" (figure 33). 2l Despite his admiration for the work of McKim, Mead, and White, Nobbs was quick to realize that the Beaux-Arts system either in its American form or as practised by Canadians who had returned from study in Paris was a system not in sympathy with his own ideals. By their very nature, Nobbs was to argue, the methods of the Beaux-Arts precluded that responsiveness to local circumstance and culture

ia8 Nationalism

which was essential to architectural art. In an article which appeared in Construction, Nobbs wrote: "The weak point about the academic system of architecture is its elastic quality. Within the Union there is every conceivable climate, and the profusely illustrated American building papers show us the identical architectural formulae applied throughout the States. This is carrying the principle of national homogeneity in architectural expression to a reductio ad absurdum, but the point of interest to us is not that academic bondage prevails among the architects of the United States, but that we are, of necessity, very liable to infection with those ideals."22 In practice, Nobbs was far from dogmatic in his approach to the Beaux-Arts, finding much to admire in the work of Canadians such as W.S. Maxwell who had studied in Paris. Under certain conditions, and especially when dealing with the problems of large-scale planning, he noted that the academic tradition offered solutions others could well learn from. "If the English exponents of architectural culture would realise that the grand manner as practised in Egypt and Babylon and the cities of Alexander's Empire and Imperial Rome and gay Versailles has that in it which would impart a discipline to their planning and a coherence to their composition," he said, "they, too would gain in power of expression."23 But although he was willing to acknowledge the merits of Beaux-Arts planning, and as we shall see he was to do this in a very concrete way in his role as a competitions assessor, upon arriving in Montreal and taking up his post at McGill Nobbs quickly emerged as a leading voice among those who sought to break the spreading influence of the Beaux-Arts and look instead for architectural inspiration to the ideas and traditions of Great Britain. As an educationalist Nobbs soon found himself face to face with the realities of the Canadian situation. Like J.C.B. Horwood before him, he was not slow to perceive that the conditions of Canadian architecture were bound up with that of the country as a whole. The establishment of Beaux-Arts ateliers in Montreal and Toronto seemed certain to have a considerable effect on architectural education in the country. In Nobbs's view, this spread northward of the ideas and techniques of the Beaux-Arts Society was yet another manifestation of the Americanization of Canada. In his opinion, it was essential that Canadian architecture and Canadian architectural education be based on traditions sympathetic to the country's history and culture. In a lengthy address to the OAA in 1908 Nobbs attacked the formation of the Beaux-Arts ateliers on these grounds. "We have," he said, "while on the most friendly terms with the organizers of the movements, strenuously opposed the spread of their influence in Canada, on the ground that our history and tradition is different

12g Percy Nobbs and a National Theory

from that of the United States, and should be expressed in our architecture which has no logical relation with the academic school of Paris."24 This school, he said, repudiates medievalism, both French and Englsh, as having no contribution of tradition to offer our modern architecture and particularly ignores the building achievement of England as a negligible quantity ... a tremendous organisation exists in the Beaux-Arts Society which is ready and willing to affiliate Canadian architectural societies and schools, and it is likely to do so simply because there is no Canadian machinery of art education to take its place; and this is where the glorious traditions of English and French medieval and renaissance architecture are our natural and rightful heritage, just as truly as our traditions in the matter of literature and language! The political aspect of the "Americanization" of our arts, where they might just as well be based on National and Imperial tradition is, we venture to think, one which needs only to be pointed out to be appreciated by those at the helm of State.25

Soon after his arrival, Nobbs began to press for the development of a legitimately Canadian architecture. Drawing upon his background in the Arts and Crafts, he found it natural that this new architecture should be based on traditional forms combined with a sensitivity to geography and climate. The difficulty lay in the fact that, unlike the countries of Europe, Canada seemed to have no traditional architecture of its own upon which a new architecture might be based. As Nobbs observed, the Canadian profession remained unaware or uncertain about its own, legitimate traditions. "I think we all have a good deal to learn," he told a group of assembled architects, "because we have not established the type of our cycle very clearly, and we are still at sixes and sevens with our traditions."26 Despite this, it was Nobbs's argument that Canadian architects could well work from the past, provided they kept in mind the principle of development and did not resort to a slavish reproduction of old architecture. Above all, Nobbs held out the hope that the rigours of the Canadian climate would in time produce a Canadian architecture. "Ultimately," he said, "we might therefore expect in Canada as many architectures as climates, since architectural character is largely resultant from windows and roof forms."27 We should... derive great benefit from the fact that we have to invent our own solutions for the roof problem and not accept our great grandfathers', and as to the window question, there is no really satisfactory solution in sight yet that I am aware of. If we remember that it is the roof and the window that make the

130 Nationalism architecture, we see then we have our work before us. The features of Englsh architecture — chimneys, parapets, bays, ranges of lights, rain heads and all the rest of it — are absolutely inappropriate for our use. But the simple inventive spirit in which these things were evolved and welded together in vernacular use, and the reserved but kindly sentiment which these things evinced, we can surely take to heart and apply now. 28

This interest in the effect which climate had on the generation of architectural form, together with his conviction that it provided modern architects with clues for their own work, led Nobbs to look at the traditional architecture of Quebec with a discerning eye. Shortly after arriving in Montreal, he remarked in a series of articles published in the CAB that the traditional greystone houses of the city were marked by a character and suitability to local conditions not found in houses of more recent construction. To his mind, these houses, and the traditional architecture of Canada generally, suggested that architects in the past had produced an architecture suited to the country, but that over time this skill had been lost. "Our predecessors in this country up to about 1825 were doing pretty well in his matter," he told the royal Architectural Society of Canada in 1910: The stone houses of Quebec and Nova Scotia and the clap-board houses of New England showed real evolution of style, and in them a good many of our problems were solved at an early date. The lamentable thing is that the secret has been lost, and now we have to substitute architectural education at universities and other temporary expedients till such time as it is regained. To think that neither for love nor money could such a thoroughly sound piece of work, sound in taste and sound in construction, be put up to-day in a town or village throughout this broad Dominion as can be found, once at least in five miles, on the shore all the way from Mulgrave Straits to Ottawa City and all dated before i84o.29

As we have seen, sentiments along these lines had been heard from time to time beginning in the 18908, but Nobbs was the first to suggest that these vernacular forms might form the basis for a new national architecture. From 1904 onwards Nobbs expressed and explored these ideas as far as he was able, in lectures, articles, and his own work. Many of his ideas are a restatement of Arts and Crafts principles adapted to Canada, but at root the vigour of his thinking lay in an aesthetic system which saw the true purpose of all art, including architecture, as expression. "Art," he declared in 1910, "is a simple and natural

igi

Percy Nobbs and a National Theory

human activity, not an inexplicable quintessential mystery." Its purpose was always expression, he said, and "the subject matter of this mode of expression is that whole range and gamut of emotion and sentiment, and ... the means employed - the raw material of this expression - is sensuous pleasure."30 In a career spanning more than half a century, Nobbs never wavered from this point of view. It gave his thought a consistency unrivalled among Canadian architects during the crucial years of expansion before 1914. Although architecture was, above all, an art, for Nobbs there was an important distinction between architecture itself and the sister arts of painting and sculpture. While these latter remained the preserve of personal expression, architecture alone expressed society as a whole. Thus, he said, "the phenomena of architectural evolution ("The Styles," as the popular phrase expresses it) can best be explained by the ethnographic theory which regards architecture as history writ large; as the expression of the age in which it was generated ... national expression ... is the function of design."31 It was the interrelationship of the individual with society which generated architectural style. As he told the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada in 1910, "When men have had great feelings to express and great power of expressing them, happilyjoined with great opportunities, styles have been developed and evolved and brought to perfection, and from these we can deduce something of the everlasting laws and principles of our art in the light of which to model all sorts and conditions of designs."32 The second fundamental principle of Nobbs's thought was his belief in the validity of the linguistic analogy as an analytical tool; the idea that architecture is a sort of language in which one's power of expression depends on the skilful employment of a basic grammar of elements, which, together with allusion, metaphor, and imagery, can be used to call up shared experience. Just how characteristic this idea was of Nobbs's criticism was pointed out by Sir Andrew Macphail, a friend and colleague of Nobbs's at McGill. In his review of Nobbs's treatise Design, Macphail wrote: The analogy between the methods of literary expression and those for the discovery of form is pressed throughout the book. Pure form is regarded as clear statement. Modification by scale, by proportion and by refinement is regarded as elaboration of a thesis; the orders as metrical formulae, functional ornament as syntax, decoration as rhetoric and allusion. From this it is inferred that clarity of design like clarity in the written word is a virtue, and over-elaboration in form as in speech defeats its own purpose. In the case of major works of design this analogy is very clear. The plan is the plot; its

132 Nationalism structural development may create dramatic situations. The building may smile or frown or rest serene, its structural elements may chatter or chant, do their work with drilled precision or with playful exuberance. The artist in design controls all this behaviour. At his will there is a discreet mystery or expansive frivolity of seriousness. It is not alone in the plot but in the telling of the story that art is manifest; a like mood is engendered in the hearer of the tale and in the spectator of the building.33 For Nobbs the linguistic analogy was particularly helpful in understanding the use and power of traditional architectural forms. Speaking to the OAA in 1907, he argued that architects might well turn to the past for inspiration: "Traditional forms in architecture are as potent as in poetry to imbue the educated mind with a host of associations whereby to unravel the meaning of the "work of art," and a self-sufficiency though it may lead to originality will seldom lead to the deepest of beauties. Just as surely as the literature of this country must be founded on the literature which is our inheritance, so surely must its architecture depend upon the understanding of the architecture that has gone before."34 Both these ideas, the linguistic analogy and the conception that all art is a form of expression, were developed in Benedetto Croce's treatise on aesthetics: Estetica come Scienza dell'espressione e Linguistica Generate.35 We know by Nobbs's own admission that this book had a crucial effect on the development of his own ideas,36 and so we can place him solidly within the aesthetic traditon of the twentieth century. As Peter Collins observed, "ever since Benedetto Croce rehabilitated the philosophy of the mid-eighteenth century historian Giambattista Vico by asserting that all art is a type of language, it has been customary for writers on aesthetics, such as R.G. Collingwood, to regard all art as essentially something to do with 'expression'. Hence art has come to be regarded as a kind of eloquence, whereby its virtue is not in the form produced so much as in the emotion which it produces; not in the object created but in the intensity and sincerity by which expression is achieved."37 While many of Nobbs's ideas clearly had their basis in the Arts and Crafts movement, Benedetto Croce's theory provided Nobbs with a way to incorporate them into a larger, general aesthetic system. By 1908 Nobbs had come to see architecture in its highest form as a fine art demonstrating that power of expression integral to art in general. It is this belief which caused him to write, in terms characteristic of those who have accepted Croce's ideas, that the litmus test of architecture was not its form but the emotion which lay behind it, and especially the degree to which that emotion or sentiment had been

133 Percy Nobbs and a National Theory

caught in the creative act: "It is the sentiment of the thing that really matters most," Nobbs wrote, "and the one criterion by which to judge the excellence of a work is its potency to infect the emotions of the public it is made for."38 In his willingness and indeed his ability to adapt aesthetic theory to the particular conditions of Canadian architecture, Nobbs gave Canadian architects a theoretical foundation upon which to base their work. What is more, by calculation or by chance, Nobbs's ideas synthesized to a remarkable degree various currents of thought which had entered Canadian architecture during the i88os and 18905 - Arts and Crafts ideas, the importance of climate, the legitimacy of French and English forms to Canadian context, interest in the Quebec vernacular - all under an umbrella of national development. He had arrived just as these ideas found their way into the mainstream of architectural life. It is this which explains the influence and widespread acceptance of his thought. He was soon in demand as a speaker and critic; Bertram Goodhue observed in 1907 that Nobbs was "evidently the architectural arbitrator of his Majesty's possessions for the North American continent."39 During the decade before 1914 not everyone agreed with Nobbs's ideas, but few remained completely unaffected by them. While Nobbs was destined to influence the course of Canadian architecture more through his work as a teacher and critic than as a practising architect, he practised throughout his life, resigning the Macdonald professorship in 1911 to devote more time to architectural work perse.40 His first commission in Montreal, a union building for the young men of McGill, is a good example of how Nobbs had integrated the legacy of the Arts and Crafts in his own work. He received the commission in June 1904, not quite a year after his arrival in Montreal, so the building is full of events and details taken from his experience in London (figures 50 and 51). The heavy rustication of the door surround appeared in an earlier design for a town church, while the smooth abstraction of the second-storey drip moulds recalls London work of the period (figure 66). The building itself, however, is based on no easily identifiable model. Nobbs himself suggested Inigo Jones's Queen House, but such debt as there is is one entirely of mood. The McGill Union is a simple four-sided block with a surface of dressed Montreal limestone.41 But across these elevations, and in a manner entirely and beautifully determined by the interior spaces, Nobbs played with the elements at his disposal. These are simple enough - a broad cornice, string course, oriel windows, late-Gothic mullions, a broken pediment. All are borrowed from the architecture of England, but they are abstracted and used

134 Nationalism

out of context, freely, dictated by the formality and classicism of the building's symmetrical plan and massing. The result is certainly one of the best examples in Canada of the spirit of the Arts and Crafts; that is honesty of materials, expression of plan, utility of ornament, free development on historical models, it is this last idea of development which linked Nobbs with all those across the country, Eden Smith, George Reid, Samuel Maclure, and even W.S. Maxwell among them, who were trying to adapt old manners and ways of building to Canadian materials, climate, and life. The Arts and Crafts architects began with a belief in Gothic and the vernacular, but Nobbs, like many others, saw that the spirit of Gothic could be applied to any style; this is evident in the McGill Union. In broader terms, Nobbs believed that English architects such as R. Norman Shaw, John Brydon, H.T. Hare, and the firm of Lanchester and Rickards had evolved a classical style which was now, at the beginning of the twentieth century, a true inheritor of the Gothic spirit. Of Shaw he wrote: The free Anglo-Classic of this, the greatest perhaps of igth-century English architects, is based upon the style of the times of Queen Anne. No reliance is placed upon huge porticos or domes to give distinction to Shaw's buildings, and the orders are sparingly used, and mostly for internal effects. Trained in the Gothic school, and familiar in his earlier years with the seductive charms of French Renaissance work, this master more than anyone else has looked the modern problem boldly in the face and without allowing himself to be led away by the cult of "originality at all costs," which is responsible for so much hysterical building, has yet given us a distinctive note after a century of bewilderment - the note of natural evolution along the lines set by our forefathers — the truest note that can be struck in building art. Shaw's work is nothing if not English - severe, masculine, refined, relying in the main on the most abstract of architectural accomplishments - proportion - but not ignoring the most material considerations of pleasant tradesmanship. His great brick walls and clean cut stone dressings speak to us of all the qualities of national character to which our glorious, though little comprehended architectural past has been witness down through the years.42

Nobbs paid homage to Norman Shaw in his Macdonald Engineering Building of 1907, a project again at McGill, and like the McGill Union funded by the university's benefactor, Sir William Macdonald (figure 52). Although the building derives its own character from the local limestone, the relationship of plan to elevation, and a programmatic use of detail, its massing looks to Shaw's work (figure 53). But Nobbs's deference to Shaw had a deeper consequence. His willing-

135 Percy Nobbs and a National Theory

ness to accept the resurgent Classicism and the Grand Manner of English architecture as a model suitable for Canada was the final link in a chain of influences and ideas which Nobbs developed in his writing and which he set forth as a course for the development of Canadian architecture. Beginning with an aesthetic theory which saw the expression of national character as architecture's natural goal, Nobbs had taken the cause of Canadian architecture as his own. In opposition to the techniques and forms of the Academic system, Nobbs urged Canadian architects to look to their own soil for inspiration and to the traditions of France and Great Britain. Although only twenty-eight when coming to Canada, within three years Nobbs found himself at the very centre of the Canadian profession. It is to this that we now turn.

CHAPTER

NINE

Towards a National Architecture: The Ottawa and Saskatchewan Competitions In his articulation of a theory which would lay the basis for a national architecture, Percy Nobbs summed up the feelings of Canadian architects of all camps. His vision of an architecture nationalist in expression but based on French and English precedent appealed even to those, like W.S. Maxwell, whose method was rooted in the Beaux-Arts system. "Of late years," wrote Maxwell in 1908, "there has been a distinct advance made in McGill University, under the able direction of Professor Nobbs, a comprehensive course is given which, while making use of some of the principles in vogue in France, aims distinctly to foster in the students an appreciation of the fact that our architecture should have its roots in the English school, and yet frankly be more expressive of Canadian life and climatic limitations."1 In his view of what he thought the goal of Canadian architecture should be, Maxwell borrowed from Nobbs directly: "It should be our aim," he said, "to develop our architecture along lines which recognize our country and its traditions and association. We can well in our designing seek to assimilate that which is good and suitable in Great Britain and at the same time leave ourselves open to the many excellent influences which emanate from France and other countries. In the province of Quebec the best old work suggests a satisfactory solution of the climatic problems and a starting point which should supply us with inspiration."2 Two years later, the Winnipeg architect S. Frank Peters expressed similar sentiments in the course of a paper on the architecture of Western Canada. "I cannot help expressing the hope," he told the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, "that the RAIC will be recognised as the parent organization so to speak, and that we should continue to work together to serve the ends in which we are all so much interested viz, the establishment of a national style of architec-

137 Towards a National Architecture

ture which while necessarily varied according to the different sections, will all maintain the elements of good design and national characteristics."3 In practical terms, Canadian architects responded to the problem of creating a national style with all the elements at their disposal: the use of historical styles and local materials, deference to climate, and the design of ornament based on Canadian themes. After 1920 the self-conscious use of traditional Quebec styles and manners of building developed into a localized movement. All these ideas continued to hold the interest of the Canadian profession into the second quarter of the twentieth century, until the rise of Modernism. In this sense at least, the period beginning about 1905 (perhaps slightly earlier) and ending in the 19305 comprises a period of its own. We break off here at the turning point when the struggle for professional survival characteristic of the iSgos gave way in the new century to a search for national expression. But two important competitions, both held in 1906-7, show how the ideas of the past twenty years had now come to affect architectural practice. The first of these two competitions was for new government buildings at Ottawa. In 1906, faced with a growing bureaucracy, the federal government announced its intention to build a new justice building to house the federal courts as well as a departmental office building. Heretofore the customary practice of the government had been to place public works in the hands of the chief architect, so this decision was received with great interest by Canadian architects. It seemed a response to their efforts to have important public commissions opened to the profession at large. "The fact that the Government of Canada has held a competition for an important group of buildings indicates that we are accomplishing something in educating those who have but an indirect interest in the profession," observed W.S. Maxwell. He urged his fellow architects to continue advocating the principle of competitions for public buildings. "If representative architecture is to be produced," he said, "political patronage must be abolished and every encouragement given to the profession at large."4 For its part, the government was eager to work with the architectural profession. Edmund Burke, now president of the OAA, and Alcide Chausse, president of the PQAA, were invited to meet Charles Hyman, minister in charge of the DPW, and David Ewart, chief architect, to prepare a competition program. They were also asked to sit on the competition jury. 5 During the fall of 1906, the conditions of the competition were printed and mailed to every known architect in the country. The government planned to build the new buildings on the east side of

138 Nationalism

Majors Hill Park, linked to Parliament Hill by a "foot bridge of monumental design across the Rideau Canal" (figure 54). They could be designed in any style of architecture, but it was suggested that some phase of Gothic would best harmonize with the existing buildings. Awards in the competition would consist of cash in the amount of eight, four, two, and one thousand dollars to the top four entries.6 Despite general satisfaction with the competition, it was widely noted that the government had given no guarantee that the winning architect would be awarded supervision of the works. Even more disconcerting was the admission that the competition was to be "considered chiefly one of suggestion."7 The OAA observed that "the designing of these buildings is likely to prove abortive by reason of the lack of assurance that the successful competitor will be employed to carry out his design."8 Accordingly, the PQAA and the OAA sent a special delegation, including Percy Nobbs, A.C. Hutchison, and Frank Darling, to Ottawa in January 1907 to press upon the government the need for it to clarify its position. The minister refused to issue a statement outlining the rights of the winning entry, but instead offered tacit assurance that justice would be done. With this assurance the architects agreed to support the competition.9 Darling, for one, decided to enter it himself. In total, twenty-nine designs were received by the secretary of the DPW by the competition closing date of i July 1907. Upon receipt of the entries, the Board of Assessors met in the Railway Committee Room of the Parliament buildings, where, through the month of July, they examined the designs. In an effort to arrive at as impartial a judgment as possible, the board listed all entries under a pseudonym, and all were judged according to a system of points. The plan of the building was worth a possible thirty points, the design and economy of construction twenty-five each, and the design of the foot bridge and "compliance with the conditions generally" a further twenty.10 When the outcome of the competition was announced, it came as a surprise, but it was an outcome which seems in retrospect a manifestation of the changing nature of architectural practice in the country. Third and fourth places were given to the two Montreal firms of Saxe and Archibald and Brown and Vallence. However, the source of amazement was the fact that E. and W.S. Maxwell had won first prize over the favoured firm of Darling and Pearson, who emerged a close second. As suggested in the program, all the winning competitors had carried out their design in a Gothic idiom. This was prudent, but it presented the architects with certain problems. First of all, despite its continuing popularity for collegiate or ecclesiastical work, it was a

139 Towards a National Architecture

style no longer fashionable for public buildings. Secondly, the Gothic style, with its pointed windows and irregular planning, was not thought easily adaptable to the needs of a modern bureaucracy. Nonetheless, if any firm could overcome these difficulties, it ought surely to have been Darling and Pearson, where both partners were skilled in Gothic design. Their response was to avoid direct historical references, using Gothic elements in a free and reductive manner dictated by the need for visual punctuation and adequate light (figures 55 to 57). Almost all the windows had square-surrounds, and bay windows were introduced wherever possible. The most important influence on the design was the existing buildings of Parliament Hill. A photograph taken in the late i86os shows more or less what Darling and Pearson's view of them would have been, standing on the site of the proposed buildings (figure 58). Their proposal was a restatement and abstraction of what they saw. The pinnacled tower of the central block had become a four-turreted "gatehouse" dominating the composition. The high-pitched roof rising above the East Block reappeared twice, capping two high towers, both with stripped Arts and Crafts - inspired detail, and both, like the original, grounding a lateral mass. The correspondence of old and new was also explored in the plan. Three buildings — East, West, and Centre Block - have become two, but this hardly matters. Darling and Pearson created a group centred, like the existing buildings of Parliament Hill, on a symmetrical block and flanked by subordinate masses at right angles. One is now linked by a range, the other by a screen, but the effect, the underlying parti, echoes the original so clearly that there can be little doubt Darling and Pearson had used the buildings of Parliament Hill as their model. Darling and Pearson's entry was much admired by the assessors. Chief architect David Ewart gave them a higher total score than he did the Maxwells.11 Edmund Burke wrote that, despite the irregularity of plan, the departmental building would make a most convenient office building, with a pleasing outline to the elevation. Above all, it was in his view the relationships of Gothic which Darling and Pearson had managed to capture. "The exterior is well designed and would harmonize with the existing buildings," he noted, retaining the same spirit of irregulatity of plan, which gives a pleasing effect to the whole." In his view, Darling and Pearson's elevations were equal to those of the Maxwells and their use of the Gothic style was rather better; he preferred the picturesque effect of their massing, particularly in its relationship to the existing buildings of Parliament Hill.12 With Darling and Pearson's design so admired by Burke and Ewart, the question arises why the Maxwells won. The answer can be

140 Nationalism

summed up in one word: planning. In contrast to the carefully balanced, asymmetrical arrangement of parts by Darling and Pearson, the Maxwells' design - plan and elevation - was defined by a series of primary and secondary axes. This gave their design a consistency and order Darling and Pearson's lacked. Part to whole, one building to another, one group of buildings to another, all formed, in the words of the CAB, "one grand connected design that might have been planned at one time by a master mind" (figures 59, 60, and 61).13 Burke's jury notes reveal that in his view the justice building was particularly notable in this respect; that is to say in logic of plan.14 Composed around three contiguous quadrangles, the building was dominated by a monumental entrance foyer on the front and a library at back, joined by a passage on axis across an intervening court. Two side entrances gave direct access to the library from private judicial chambers. These chambers or offices, together with the main court rooms, occupied the subsidiary quadrangles. Both were u-shaped on plan with a corridor closing the ends. The courts were placed at the front of the building on axis with the main foyer and so easily found. Beyond them lay two small, octagonal conference rooms linked by a private corridor to the judicial offices and so to the library. Thus the Maxwells had created in effect two separate circulatory systems, one public, one private. Each was given its own character, one monumental, one workmanlike, and each functioned efficiently within the strict parameters of a rigidly symmetrical and formal plan. This intellectual rigour was expressed in other ways. The Maxwells sought to maximize the use of natural light and minimize the deleterious effects of climate. They provided for a flat roof, draining to the centre, as the safest solution to the problems posed by heavy snowfall, ice, and rain. Citing Gaudet's Elements et theorie de I'architecture, they ensured an even, natural light in the courtrooms and library through a balance of high and low lights and a flat ceiling.15 High bay windows rising through three storeys opened the library towards the street. Indeed, as Burke pointed out, the demands of light had determined the exterior elevations. In the case of the departmental building, the desire to provide light to a range of offices had, in Burke's view, resulted in a "somewhat flat" facade.16 The willingness of the Maxwells to subordinate style to the demands of function was the result of a conscious decision. In their submission they stated that they had purposely avoided a strict adherence to Perpendicular or Decorated Gothic as not suitable for the lighting of rooms and offices "in a manner equal to the best

141 Towards a National Architecture

traditions of practical architecture."17 Similarity, they endeavoured to adapt as far as possible the innovations of commercial architecture to public building. Reviewing the submission for the departmental building, Construction commented that the drawings demonstrated it to be "a practical example of a monumental office building, embodying all the features that would enter into the best type of a modern commercial structure of this type."18 Underneath the Gothic skin of the justice buildings, the Maxwells had designed a modern building of the most advanced type, employing sophisticated systems of construction, ventilation, and the like. Their design was a reflection not only of their philosophy but also of the rapidity with which Canadian architects were adapting modern forms of construction to all manner of building, little more than a decade after their introduction. Significantly, this is the sort of building the Government wanted. As early as July 1905, the minister of public works announced in connection with the proposal to erect new buildings that "If I have the carrying out of the work I intend to erect a modern building with modern offices and not, as in the present buildings, where clerks have small rooms. I think we should adopt the most modern methods in the erection of the new buildings."19 As Burke noted, all the offices in the Maxwell design were well placed and proportioned so that they could be used as constructed or subdivided as wished.20 It could be argued, and indeed it was, that for all its merits the Maxwells' design lacked the sensitivity to site displayed by Darling and Pearson. Their free-ranging plan spread across the park, open to surrounding vistas and creating picturesque views of its own. In contrast, the Maxwells' justice building turned in on itself, towards internal courts, an arrangement that was criticized on a site which offered park and city views.21 Nonetheless even if the Maxwells had been able to avoid the use of courts, the difference between the two designs was fundamentally one of approach, not of detail. Both firms had employed Gothic, and mainly late Gothic, detail in a free, synthetic manner, but Darling and Pearson's design is rooted in the Gothic-Revival, Arts and Crafts theories of late nineteenthcentury England. Its free plan and its picturesque skyline speak of the British tradition. The Maxwell design with its underlying formality, is something quite different. It is a clear, methodical solution to the design problem, according to Beaux-Arts principles, adapted to Canada and clothed in Gothic. The ideological-artistic divide is obvious, but it reflects quite accurately the rival influences dominating Canadian architecture just after the turn of the century. Moreover, the fact that the Maxwells won a competition devoted to Gothic at

142

Nationalism

the very moment when the Beaux-Arts manner was first being introduced and understood in the country as a system of design rather than just a vocabulary of forms demonstrates how formidable and adaptable A system the Beaux-Arts was. The success of the Maxwells proved the power of Beaux-Arts technique. Clearly, it offered Canadian architects a way to design and plan large-scale, complex buildings with clarity, precision, and skill. In the end the Government decided to forego the Maxwells' winning design in favour of a rather perfunctory and much cheaper office building designed by the DPW. To Canadian architects this was yet another example of the reluctance of the government to entrust private practitioners with public commissions, and it was a serious blow to their efforts to create a national architecture. The Manitoba Association of Architects protested: "In our opinion the architectural style characteristic of a country can only be developed when encouraged by the Government and fostered by the nation, and that as it is to the Government that most large undertakings of a monumental nature may be looked for, it can be well understood that without the Government's aid in the most liberal spirit, the growth of the national architecture must be materially retarded."28 Nevertheless, the justice and the departmental competition had brought into the open the importance of new building technologies and services in the design of public buildings. It was also a sort of rehearsal for another competition, one which was brought to a successful conclusion, and one which seemed to offer conclusive proof of the progress made by the Canadian profession during the past twenty years. The competition was for a legislative building for the new province of Saskatchewan. Quite apart from the importance of the project in its own right, the competition was to take on a special significance because of its outcome, and especially perhaps because of its organization. The background to the project is well known but it is perhaps worth going over the ground very briefly once again. In 1905 the federal government, in a somewhat tardy recognition of the rapid settlement of the region, granted provincial status to Saskatchewan and Alberta. In the five years between 1901 and 1906 the population of present-day Saskatchewan had grown by 300 per cent, from 49,000 to approximately 153,000. In the next five years the population was to double, making Saskatchewan the third most populous province in the country after Ontario and Quebec. By 1916 its population had risen to 363,787.23 Regina, the former capital of the North-West Territories, was chosen capital of the new province. There was no existing structure large and commodious enough to house the assembly and bureauc-

143 Towards a National Architecture

racy of the provincial government, so one would have to be built. Furthermore, since the site of the new building - 168 acres on the south side of a reservoir — was undeveloped, a plan would have to be drawn up. The premier of the province, Walter Scott, was anxious that the project begin as soon as possible. By April 1907 he had commissioned and received a proposal for the development of the building site from Frederick Todd, the Montreal-based landscape architect.24 Todd's plan was subsequently abandoned, but not before the new legislative building had been built where he suggested, facing north, back from the water's edge and on the axis of Smith Street (figure 62). The land surrounding the building was developed as park, and it has under various hands become one of the most beautiful legislative grounds in the country.25 Apart from the landscaping of the site, the problem remained of finding a suitable design for the legislative building itself. During the summer of 1906 Scott seems to have offered the job to John Lyle, who had only just returned to Toronto from New York. This, at least, is suggested by Scott's invitation to Lyle that he come west as the province's chief architect.26 But Lyle refused the offer and Scott decided instead to hold a competition.27 It is here that we encounter Percy Nobbs, for Scott turned to Nobbs and asked him to take charge of the competition on behalf of the Saskatchewan government. It is not clear why Scott selected Nobbs; perhaps it was because of Nobbs's position at McGill, perhaps because he had just adjudicated a competition held in Halifax for a new Anglican cathedral. In any case, Nobbs accepted on condition that the competition follow guidelines laid down by the RIB A, and, with this agreed, set about organizing the competition. One of the first decisions taken by Scott and Nobbs was to limit the contest to a number of selected architects. This was in accordance with the RIB A recommendations, and each firm would receive an honorarium of $1500, irrespective of its final standing. Because Scott was ill during the winter of 1906-7, a final decision on the architects to be invited to enter the competition was delayed until the summer of 1907. In order to keep costs to a reasonable level, Scott decided to restrict the number of architects to seven, including one each from the United States and Great Britain, one from Saskatchewan, and four others from across the country.28 In Scott's view, the choice of an American architect presented little difficulty. The natural choice was Cass Gilbert, architect of the Minnesota state capitol. Scott was an open admirer of the Minnesota capitol building and had written to the board of the State Capitol Commissioner in St Paul on his own account for information on the

144 Nationalism

Minnesota competition. Scott in fact described the Minnesota capitol as "one of the really successful buildings on this continent."89 The choice of a representative architect from Great Britain was left to Nobbs. After conferring with Sir Aston Webb, who suggested either Lanchester and Rickards or Mitchell and Raine, Nobbs invited the latter.30 One of their most recent projects had been a design for a town hall in Durban. The selection of Canadian architects was more difficult and was the result of collaboration between Nobbs and Scott. It was Scott's opinion that the British Columbia architect Francis Rattenbury should be invited to compete on the basis of his design for the British Columbia legislature, a commission he had won by competition in 1893 (figure 63). The Regina firm of Storey and Van Egmond was selected to represent the home province and Nobbs recommended that the final three firms be Darling and Pearson, E. and W.S. Maxwell, and Marchand and Haskell of Montreal.32 In the meantime, Nobbs drafted the competition program. For the most part this consisted of standard material on format, conditions of entry, and so on, all following the RIBA rules. But there is no mistaking the influence of Nobbs's ideas in his recommendations to the competitors. He reminded them that climate, availability of materials, and conditions of the labour market should all be taken into account. Indeed, he said, they would "largely dictate the type of building selected by the assessors." Because of the distance of the new building from the city, he suggested that "some outstanding feature such as a dome or tower" would be suitable, noting that "the character of the country will render this a valuable landmark." Finally he thought the building should be of red brick with buff stone dressings and while "the style of the building is left open to the discretion of the competitors ... they are reminded ... that this fact should be expressed in its Public buildings."33 Clearly all this is a restatement of Nobbs's own architectural principles; the importance of climate, use of local materials, attention to site, the expression of history and culture through style. To those who knew Nobbs, this was a clear signal of his belief in the validity of what he called the Anglo-Classic in Canadian public architecture — that is the architectural traditions of English classicism. It was in the midst of this activity that Nobbs, by virtue of his work for the Saskatchewan government, was invited to Edmonton by the government of Alberta to review their plans for a provincial legislative building. While the Saskatchewan government had decided to hold a competition, the government of Alberta chose instead to appoint an architect. During the winter of 1906 they had considered offering the commission to Francis Rattenbury. Like Walter Scott, the

145 Towards a National Architecture

Alberta government greatly admired Rattenbury's British Columbia legislative building. It was indeed a building which had an important effect not just on the architectural culture of the West Coast but on that of the prairies as well. Although Rattenbury had changed his models - the Americans looked to Soufflot and Christopher Wren, Rattenbury to the early Renaissance of Brunnelleschi and Colleone the success of his design transported northward the idea of the domed, symmetrically composed capitol building long established in the United States.34 In the end Rattenbury was not offered the post perhaps because he was unwilling to superintend construction of the new building - but the image of the British Columbia legislative building persisted.35 During the summer and fall of 1906, Edward Collis Hopkins, architect for the Alberta Department of Public Works, worked on a proposal for the "Alberta Capitol Building" which, in the words of the Edmonton Daily Bulletin, was "similar to the British Columbia Parliament building."36 In the spring of 1907, responsibility for the new legislative building was turned over to Allen Merrick Jeffers (1875-1926), a recently arrived American trained at the Rhode Island School of Design and in the Providence office of architects G.W. Cady and sons.37 Jeffers worked through the late spring and summer, and by August he had prepared a design. It was this that the Alberta government wanted Nobbs to review. In his report Nobbs, with a few reservations, praised Jeffers's plan as sound and well considered. He was less enthusiastic about its form and elevations. The design, he said, "is an excellently worked out example of the 'Academic Style' of work so popular just now in the United States." This, he said, is a style carried to its perfection in France and it has two drawbacks to lay against its stately grandeur, (i) It is thoroughly non-British in feeling, the English tradition of classical architecture being far more sincere, freer and bolder and consequently more elastic in treatment. The design prepared is precisely the class of work to be found in every state in the Union and every Republic in South America and experiences [sic] truly cosmopolitanism and the Latin civilization. (2) The French Academic style is essentially an expensive one in which to design the relation between actual utility space as against passages, halls, stairs, walls etc., being [sic] rarely better than two to one. The modern Free Classic evolved for English Public Buildings and sometimes called the Anglo-Classic or Imperial Style has this to recommend it that it has distinctive national character while the planning can be far freer and closer than in Academic work, the proportion of used to non-used space being rarely less than three to one, a very decided advantage where economy

146 Nationalism is to be considered. I would suggest that your architects devote some attention to English models of public buildings with which they are I believe quite unfamiliar.38

It is impossible to say with certainty which of Jeffers's designs Nobbs had reviewed, but an undated design survives which fits Nobbs's description well. If this is not the actual design, it must certainly have been one very like it (figure 64). Jeffers's design was a compilation of ideas borrowed from the American state capitols. The massing with central block, rotunda, wings, and end pavilions marked by low domes or lanterns is closest perhaps to the Minnesota capitol. Theodore Link had introduced a temple front to the Mississippi capitol (1901—3), while the colonnaded drum, consoles, ribbed dome, and lantern were employed by various architects across the United States, including, besides Link, the firm of McKim, Mead, and White at Rhode Island. Although excavation had already begun for the foundations of the new building, we know Jeffers made some changes to his design in response to Nobbs's report. These included the removal of the lanterns over the east and west pavilions. Nobbs thought these redundant, since there was no large hall or courtroom underneath them; they were not really required and "expressed something that was not there."39 By far the most significant change was to the dome. It was in fact completely redesigned and in a highly original fashion. The circular drum and colonnade are gone, replaced by an octagon, open balustrade, oversized consoles, roundheaded window with broken pediment and brackets (figure 65). The question is whose work this was, Jeffers's or Nobbs's. In the absence of documentary evidence it is impossible to know, but at least part of the answer lies in Nobbs's design for a town church which he entered in the RIBA Soane Medallion Competition (figure 66). Here, in the low dome of the church, one finds most of the ideas which, transfigured, are to appear in the Alberta legislature design. The octagon with balustrade has been kept, though enalrged, perhaps to accommodate the line of vision or to form a screen. The dividing pedestals remain, altered to match the balustrade, while the consoles are heightened in order to lift the dome. The oval windows are simplified and reduced, but the curve of the moulding remains, extended and reflected to meet the line of the rib. It is hard to imagine Nobbs redesigning the dome on his own account; its final form was probably the result of collaboration between the two men.40 Nonetheless, Nobbs's reaction to Jeffers's design, and the remodelling of the dome, are a good indication of how, in the midst of the Saskatchewan Competition, Nobbs himself

147 Towards a National Architecture

thought Canadian architects might rework a paradigm of the American Beaux-Arts, giving it a life of its own. When Nobbs returned to Montreal from Edmonton and Regina in August 1907, he and Scott had only to settle the matter of the assessors for the Saskatchewan competition. Originally it had been proposed that there would be three assessors: Nobbs, Scott himself, and one other person to be recommended by Nobbs. Accordingly, Nobbs had invited the New York architect Bertram Goodhue, a man whose work he admired and to whom he had recently awarded first prize in the Halifax Cathedral competition. For his part, Goodhue shared many of Nobbs's opinions concerning the role of architecture and understood what Nobbs was trying to achieve. On reading the conditions of the competition, Goodhue wrote Nobbs, "the thing I like best about them was that they seemed to me to call for a building that should reflect ethnically the people for whose use it is to be built."41 In the meantime Scott had decided to withdraw from his place on the jury because of ill health. Cass Gilbert suggested that Scott invite Frank Miles Day, president of the American Institute of Architects, to take his place.42 In November 1907 Nobbs went to Chicago to the convention of the AIA, where he met Day and arranged for the three assessors to meet in Montreal towards the end of December. Goodhue agreed to come at the same time and stay on for a hunting expedition with Nobbs. In the end this fell through, but the three met as planned and made their decision, and the results were sent to Regina.43 As is well known, the winners of the competition were E. and W.S. Maxwell. Moreover, there is no doubt they had won honestly, without preference, on the merits of their design. Premier Scott later reflected that he would have preferred another design; Goodhue that "I am genuinely sorry the design we all selected was not Darling's."44 The entries themselves reflected a variety of influences. Mitchell and Raine's design displayed the same full-blooded neo-Baroque as their design for Durban, with high towers, a receding double pediment borrowed from Blenheim and a rather awkward, internalized plan. Alone among the competitors Cass Gilbert had turned to Gothic. Marchand and Haskell grafted a flamboyant tower on to an otherwise classical mass. Francis Rattenbury reworked the American-inspired motif of colonnaded drum and tourelles, though not without two British lions protecting the doors of power. Storey and Van Egmond looked to the Minnesota capitol. Indeed their idea is not unlike Jeffers's idea for Alberta before changes to the dome. Finally, alone among the competitors, Darling and Pearson and the Maxwells had attempted to synthesize the formal organization and grandeur of the

148 Nationalism

Beaux-Arts with the free, inventive forms of the English Baroque (figures 67 to 70). There can be no doubt that these two designs were a response to Nobbs's ideas as they had been expressed in the competition program. This is especially true of the Maxwells, perhaps less so of Darling and Pearson, who had been exploring English classicism independently and in advance of Nobbs's rise on the Canadian scene. In the fagade of their design for the Bank of Commerce, Winnipeg (1900), for instance, one sees the movement, robust modelling, and interest in Baroque and Mannerist details typical of late Victorian and early Edwardian classicism. The idea of a projecting porch with heavily rusticated, in this case block, columns and a segmental pediment is closely related to William Young's Whitehall entrance for the New War Office, London (1899), as well as Nobbs's own manner at McGill (figures 52 and 71). In any case the significance of style was not lost on contemporary critics. The editor of Construction remarked that government buildings in Canada had traditionally been constructed in the Gothic style, so Maxwell's use of what he termed the English Renaissance was unusual. Nonetheless, he pointed out, the English Renaissance style was "from the historical point of viewjust as suited to Canada and more readily available to modern conditions."45 The two designs, particularly the elevations, reflect the personalities of the two firms. Although the Maxwells had introduced English detail, especially in the dome with its square drum, broken corners, and segmental pediments, their manner remains chastely Beaux-Arts and French. Darling and Pearson's design is free and inventive, a reworking of historical motifs in the spirit of contemporary English work. Goodhue's remark suggests that Darling had placed a close second in the competition, as had happened so often in his career. Without documentary evidence there is nothing to be gained by second-guessing the judges' choice, but one can say that whatever the grounds for their decision, the Maxwells design proved to be a popular one. The fact that the Maxwells had won in the face of competition as formidable as that of Cass Gilbert seemed a sign that the Canadian profession had come of age. Moreover the Maxwells, in that they had taken the American state capitol type and given it a British character, seemed to capture the nature of the new western provinces: essentially British societies on the plains of North America. Within the context of the development of Canadian architecture as a whole since the 18905, the Maxwells' design is interesting because in its creation E. and W.S. Maxwell seemed to draw upon the lessons and techniques of the immediate past to such a degree that the building as completed seems a summing up of the progress that had been made

149 Towards a National Architecture

since the difficult days before the turn of the century. We have already seen, for instance, that it reflected the nationalism of the period. "In designing the exterior of the building," the architects wrote, "a free adaptation of English Renaissance work has been employed as being best suited to the requirements, and offering a logical, sensible and architecturally interesting solution of the problem that marks it unmistakably as representative of the British sovereignty under which the Province is governed."46 It was also from the technical point of view a modern building, designed with a sensitivity to climate and intended to be as efficient as possible. Although the original proposal called for a building of red brick and buff stone, as constructed the Saskatchewan legislative building boasted a facade of cream-coloured Manitoba limestone hung on a frame of reinforced concrete.47 To aid circulation and to render the heating of the building as easy as possible, the plan was reduced to an oblong with a short central crossing which housed the legislative chamber.48 On the main floor of the building the offices were set southwards with the library and reading rooms to the north, so that during the winter the soft, northern light would fall on the reading rooms and readers would be spared the glare of sunlight reflected off the snow. Besides all of this, the Saskatchewan parliament house, with its American architectural antecedents, with its situation in a landscaped garden, and in view of the skill with which the Maxwells ordered space and volume to serve the needs of imperial grandeur, is one of the achievements of the American-and French-inspired Beaux-Arts manner in Canada. Beginning with a view of the dome rising from across the lake, one's movement towards the centre of power was carefully arranged: across the lake by bridge, west along the lakeshore, and then up and along the main axis through park to a broad flight of stairs, under the main portico and into the entrance hall. From here, one crossed a hall to meet a staircase of honour which led in turn to an anteroom placed just outside the legislative chamber, exactly at the meeting of the major and minor axes of the plan. Standing at centre, one was faced with simultaneous vertical and horizontal views into the dome and along what were literally the corridors of power. Within this schema, the entire building was organized heirarchically, in order of function and proximity to vice-regal authority, a relationship expressed through the manipulation of space and decoration. The apartments of the lieutenantgovernor and premier were found at the centre of the building, with all other functions and functionaries distributed respectively in order of importance.

150 Nationalism

With their success in the Saskatchewan legislative competition following so closely upon their win in the justice and departmental competition at Ottawa, the Maxwells found themselves at the pinnacle of the architectural profession in Canada — at a time when W.S. Maxwell was still only thirty-three years of age. The Saskatchewan competition also did a great deal to further the ideas and career of Percy Nobbs. After the successful use of the English Baroque at Regina by the Maxwells, Canadian architects began to use English Baroque and Classical forms with increasing regularity. On another level, the competitions at Ottawa and Saskatchewan served to bring into focus many of the ideas that had been circulating among Canadian architects since the 18905. These included the value of architectural professionalism, the power of Beaux-Arts theory and planning, and the possibilities of new building technology. Above all, the competitions encouraged the spread of a nationalist sensibility among Canadian architects: now, at the beginning of a new century, Canadian architects were being called upon to design a national architecture for a new nation and a new nationality. The willingness on the part of both the public and the architectural profession to see in architecture tangible expression of the more fundamental development of the country as a modern, continental nation is a marked theme of Canadian architecture in the years leading up to 1914. It has been noticed by modern and historical writers alike: Alberta's population climbed from 185,000 to over 375,000 in the six years following the achievement of provincial status. Construction of public buildings became a major priority of the Provincial Administration during this period of rapid settlement. The numerous schools, institutions, telephone exchanges, court houses, and Legislative Assembly which were accordingly built came to be perceived as tangible yardsticks for measuring Alberta's progress in comparison to American states to the south, symbols of the rapid strides by which Western Canada had been transformed "from a primeval wilderness into a civilized territory" within a few short years. Thus a contemporary writer was moved to remark: "... it is in completed and prospective structures of a governmental type that Western Canada as a new country is distinctly transcendent in the building line. No other country so youthful has ever seen work of this kind carried on in such a thorough manner ... There is absolutely no comparison between these buildings and the early public buildings of the western section of the United States. The public buildings of the Canadian West are planned along far more substantial lines, and are more monumental in design and better adapted to the purpose for which they are intended."49

151 Towards a National Architecture

Implicit in those words taken from Construction is the belief that the Canadian West was a different society from that of the United States and that this could be seen in the quality and character of its public buildings. It is a point of view which sums up how the assumptions of architectural life had changed since 1890. Twenty years earlier, when J.C.B. Horwood had observed that the problems facing Canadian architecture were intimately bound up with the ability of architects and public alike to see in their own building the expression of national life, his was a rare and unusual voice. Now this idea permeated public and professional views of architecture. There were few architects indeed who did not give it at least tacit consent. As we have seen, the development of this idea in practical terms was difficult, and the response of architects was correspondingly complex. We have only touched on some of the ways architects manipulated idea and form in search of their goal; there were many others. Architects did, however, have two powerful allies. The first was an economic climate of confidence and prosperity which gave them extraordinary opportunities to explore their ideas in real form. The second was a public eager to create an advanced, civilized culture equal to that of Europe and the United States. Architects responded by designing the infrastructure of a modern, industrial state; government buildings, houses, banks, schools, hotels, railway stations, all were built in great numbers, often under extraordinary conditions, and all reflected the varied taste of Canadians and the skill of Canada's designers. Whether these buildings comprise a body of work unique in the world is a difficult question; Percy Nobbs, for one, thought they did not, but they were to be a source of pride. After the war, in the 19205, the country as a whole awoke to the fact that architecture had become one of the most developed and sophisticated of the country's arts. Characteristically, the architecture of the first decades of this century demonstrates a boldness and self-confidence not to be seen again on so wide a scale for at least a generation. Money made this possible, but an equal, perhaps more important, factor was the matured idealism of architects themselves. The psychological and economic shocks sustained by architects in the i88os and 18905 gave birth to a highly professional, competitive, committed profession in the new century. Architects were resolved to keep pace with innovations in building technology, which they did, introducing reinforced concrete systems, for instance, as quickly as virtually any group of architects in the world. Similarily, drawing on different theories and traditions, notably the Beaux-Arts and the Arts and Crafts, they

152 Nationalism produced architecture of a variety and kind only now being rediscovered and understood. If the decade before 1914 was the high summer of this flowering of architectural life, the 19208 were an autumn when many of the ideas developed in the early 19005 found their full expression. It was only then, for instance, that the idea, first expressed by Percy Nobbs, of founding a modern Canadian architecture based on the Quebec vernacular was taken up and explored by a school of architects. Given this it is perhaps difficult to justify our ending here, precisely when the struggles of architects in the i88os and 18905 had begun to bear fruit. But as we have suggested, by this time architecture in the country had entered a new era, with different expectations and different preoccupations.

Notes

CHAPTER

ONE

1 See, for instance, Whiffen and Keeper, American Architecture 1607-1976; Burchard and Bush-Brown, The Architecture of America; Kaufmann, ed., The Rise of an American Architecture; Hitchcock, The Architecture of H.H, Richardson and His Time, Scully, The Shingle Style. 2 The effect of improved rail connections between Montreal and the United States is explored in Bland, "Overnight Trains to Boston and New York made Montreal 'American'." 3 None, however, was as high. For example the Temple Building (A.F. Dunlop, Montreal 1890), the Freehold Loan Co. building (E.J. Lennox, Toronto, 1887), and the Canada Life Building and a building for the Canadian Bank of Commerce (both by R.A. Waite in Toronto, 1889—90) were all six or seven storeys. 4 In fact the architects of the building, Babb, Cook, and Willard, had been invited to enter a competition for the design of two buildings for New York Life in Kansas City and Omaha in 1887. The competition was won by McKim, Mead, and White. Besides the Montreal building, Babb, Cook, and Willard designed buildings for New York Life in St Paul and in Minneapolis in 1888—90, Roth, McKim, Mead and White, Architects, 167—9; Schuyler, "Glimpses of Western Architecture: Saint Paul and Minneapolis." 5 Although the first design for Windsor Station was presented in 1886, construction did not begin until the spring of 1888. See Kalman, The Railway Hotels, 7-9. Other projects by Price for the CPR or its staff during the late i88os include the Banff Springs Hotel, work on Van Home's own house on Sherbrooke St, and a house for James Ross in Montreal (1890), as well as houses for J.M. Browning, Sir George Stephen, Sir Donald Smith, and William Van Home, all in Vancouver. See Mills, Vancouver Architecture, 8—9.

154 Notes to pages 10-14 6 In the context of the Gothic revival see, for instance, Richardson, "Canadian Architecture in the Victorian Era"; Stanton, The Gothic Revival and American Church Architecture on Frank Wills; Toker, The Church of Notre Dame in Montreal. 7 In 1873, 1876, and 1879 Tully recommended the construction of improved facilities for the provincial legislature. "Report of the Architect" in Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Sessional Papers no. 7,43 Victoria, a, 1880, pp. 7 and 8. 8 25 February 1880. "Newspaper Hansard." 9 "Reports of Public Works, Architects and other papers in relation to Parliament and Departmental Buildings." Ontario, Department of Public Works, sessional papers no. 52, 43 Victoria, A, pp i and 2. A drawing for "a parliament house, Toronto" survives: RG 15, series E-6, folder 12, Picture and Drawings Collection, OA. 10 In a statement in the house, C.F. Fraser reported that ten tenders were received on each of the two designs. The lowest was $542,000, the highest $925,000. 18 March 1885, "Newspaper Hansard." 11 18 March 1885. "Newspaper Hansard." 12 At an exhibition of the Ontario Society of Artists, May 1882, Frank Darling exhibited a "Perspective of Design for New Parliament Buildings for Ontario" under his own name. Darling deposited a drawing of his design as his diploma work with the RCA. National Gallery of Canada accession no. 229. Charles Hill, Curatorial Files, National Gallery of Canada. 13 Dendy, "Frank Darling," in Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects, i: 502-3; also Architects' Biographical File, MTCL. 14 Palmer, History of St. Matthias' Church, 5 and 6; Robertson, Landmarks of Toronto, 4:69; on Trinity College see Owen, "Projects for Trinity College, Toronto"; also Dendy, Lost Toronto, 123-7. 15 We do know that the legislative chamber was placed in the centre of a quadrangle. 14 April 1887. "Newspaper Hansard." Fraser criticized Darling's plan on these grounds, 23 March 1886. "Newspaper Hansard." 16 25 February 1885. "Newspaper Hansard." 17 23 March 1885. "Newspaper Hansard." 18 W.G. Storm was born in Lincolnshire, England, in 1826. In 1830 he came to York (Toronto) with his parents. About 1844 he entered the office of William Thomas. In 1848 he became the assistant of F.W. Cumberland (1820-81) and in 1852 Cumberland's partner. He played an important part in the design of University College, Toronto (1856—9) and was by the 18705 a leading architect on his own account. His last important work was Victoria College (1891—2). He was instrumental in the formation of the Ontario Association of Architects. Architects' Biographical File, MTCL. 19 W. Edwards to R. Waite, 2 September 1885. "Correspondence Respecting

155 Notes to pages 14-21 the New Parliament Buildings." RG 15, series s-6, volume 3. OA. 20 Richard Waite was born in London in 1848 and, with his parents, moved to New York in 1857. The family later moved again, to Buffalo, but in 1864 Waite was back in New York City studying mechanics with John Ericsson. In the early 18705 Waite returned to Buffalo, where he opened an architectural office. He died in New York City in 1911. On Waite see White, Our County and Its People, 502-3. Waite referred to his Buffalo practice in a letter, Waite to Fraser, 20 February 1886. RG 15, series s-6, volume 3. OA. 21 Smith, ed., History of the City of Buffalo and Erie County, 2:311. 22 Waite to Fraser, 20 February 1886. RG 15, series s-6, volume 3, OA. 23 Edwards to Waite, 22 July 1885; 2 September 1885; 2 7 November 1885. RG 15, series s-6, volume 3, OA. 24 23 March 1886, "Newspaper Hansard." 25 Fraser to Waite, 18 December 1885; 8 January 1886. RG 15, series s-6, volume 3, OA. 26 Darling and Curry to Fraser, 6 February 1886; 8 February 1886. Printed in "Correspondence Respecting the New Parliament Buildings, presented to the Legislative Assembly by Command." 27 23 March 1885. "Newspaper Hansard." 28 "The Need for Organisation," CAB 1:6 (1888). 29 The Honourable David Creighton, member from North Grey. 14 April 1887. "Newspaper Hansard." 30 General assembly, 20 April 1887. RCA transcripts p. 57 (153). 31 Darling and Curry to Fraser, 8 March 1887. Printed in "Correspondence Respecting the New Parliament Buildings." 32 Ibid. 33 "The Need for Organisation," 7. 34 "Montreal Building Notes," CAB 3:7 (1890): 78. 35 "Montreal," CAB 9:1 (1896): 2—3. 36 On the introduction of new materials see Lambert and Lemire, "Building in Montreal." 37 "A Day in Montreal," AABN 22:614 (1887): 163. 38 See Stanford, To Serve the Community; Dendy, Lost Toronto, 6 and

7.

39 "Annual Dinner of the Toronto Architectural Sketch Club," CAB 3:12 (1890): 136. 40 "Report of the Building Committee", 19 February 1889. Toronto Board of Trade, Minute Books, p. i. 41 Architectural Guild of Toronto, Minute Book, 17 May 1888. 42 "Report of the Building Committee," 19 February 1889. Toronto Board of Trade, Minute Books, p. i. 43 Ibid. 44 AABN 24:673 (1888): 230.

156 Notes to pages 21-7 45 Ibid. 46 "Report of the Building Committee," 19 February 1889. Toronto Board of Trade. Minute Books, pp 1-3; a discussion of Ware's comments can be found in CAB 2:4 (1889): 38. 47 "Report of the Building Committee," Toronto Board of Trade, p. 3; and AABN 25:686 (1889): 82. 48 "Report of the Building Committee," Toronto Board of Trade, p. 4. 49 AABN 28:756 (i8go): 181. 50 "The New Toronto Board of Trade Buildings," CAB 3:5 (1890): 54—5. 51 The assessor was William Knox (1858—1915) of the Toronto firm Knox, Elliot, and Jarvis. His report was published in CAB 3:1 (1890): 5. On the competition see also CAB 2:12 (1889): i. 52 CAB 3:8 (1890): 89. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. On the Board of Trade see Collard, The Montreal Board of Trade 1822—1972. 55 PQAA Minute Book, 11 October 1890, pp. 15 and 16. ANQM. 56 CAB 3:8 (1890): 89. 57 PQAA Minute Book, 14 October 1890, p. 41; 21 November 1890, p. 33. The PQAA suggested Thomas Fuller, chief architect of the federal DPW. 58 PQAA Minute Book, 21 November 1890, p. 33. 59 Ibid. 60 PQAA Minute Book, 4 December 1890, p. 41; The Board of Trade offered to raise the number of Canadian architects from four to six, but declined to name them in advance or to appoint a Canadian expert. This was rejected by the PQAA as Canadians would still not be on an equal footing vis-a-vis American competitors. 21 November 1890, P-3561 In connection with correspondence between the PQAA and the OAA on the issue, see PQAA letterbook, ANQM: C. Clift, secretary of the PQAA, to S.G. Curry, 21 November 1890, in which Clift notes that having examined the conditions of the competition the council of the PQAA had decided "unanimously not to enter the competition" and "strongly recommend the Ontario Association to follow suit ... as we feel sure the affair is already settled for a foreigner"; Clift to Curry 27 November 1891, including a copy of the PQAA'S response to the Board of Trade proposals; Curry to Clift 2 December 1890, noting that the OAA had written the Board of Trade on the issue, but the board by return stated "it is evidently too late for the committee to consider our suggestions now." 62 Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 3:12 (1890): 135. 63 CAB 4:8 (1891): 78. 64 "American Architectural Methods from the Standpoint of a Canadian," CA56:i(i8 9 3): 9 .

157 Notes to pages 28-33 CHAPTER TWO

1 W. Baldwin, "Mechanics' Institute Address on Architecture." Baldwin Papers, Baldwin Room, MTCL. 2 "Association of Architects, Civil Engineers and P.L. Surveyors of the Province of Canada, "Journal of the Board of Arts and Manufactures for Upper Canada 1:1 (1861): 14. This was kindly made known to me by Stephen Otto and Robert Hill. 3 This was described by W. George Storm in "An Appeal for Organisation," CAB 1:2 (1888): 3. A copy of the constitution of the Canadian Institute of Architects was given to Charles Barry by F.J. Rastrick in 1877. It survives in the RIBA library, Pam. 06 (4/9) 4 Proceedings of the OAA, in CAB 2:12 (1889): 137. 5 Burwash to Storm, 15 February 1887. Additional i, box 6, Horwood Collection, OA. 6 Proceedings of the PQAA, in CAB 3:11 (1890): 115. 7 Ibid., 116. Born in Edinburgh in 1850, A.T. Taylor was educated there and at the Royal Academy, London. In 1883 he came to Montreal, where he soon enjoyed a successful practice, notably for the Bank of Montreal, the Merchant's Bank of Canada, Molson's Bank, and McGill University. He was also professor of ecclesiastical architecture at the Presbyterian College, Montreal. He returned to London in igo^.JRJBA third series, 33:17(1926): 518. 8 Proceedings of the PQAA, in CAB 3:11 (1890): 112. 9 "An Appeal for Organisation," CAB 1:2 (1888): 3. 10 Architectural Guild of Toronto, Minute Book, 3 October 1887. Members present were E. Burke, A.R. Denison, W. George Storm, Walter Strickland, D.B. Dick, S.G. Curry, F. Darling, G. Helliwell, S.H. Townsend. The Architectural Guild was disbanded in 1898. 11 Gambier-Bousfield, "The Profession in Canada," 173. 12 Morgan, ed., Canadian Men and Women of Our Time, 829.

13 CAB 1:1 (1888): i. 14 Ibid. 15 Stamp, "Educational Leadership in Ontario," 199—200; Ross, Getting into Parliament and After. 16 CAB 4:2 (1891): 16 17 University Commission, box i, 665-0023, University of Toronto Archives. 18 Ontario, Department of Education, Report of the Minister of Education for 1886, 169. 19 Science, School of Practical, file. RG2-P2, code no. xxxiv, OA. 20 Architectural Guild of Toronto, Minute Book, 8 November 1888; R.W. Gambier-Bousfield, "The Profession in Canada," 173.

158 Notes to pages 34-40 21 Architectural Guild of Toronto, Minute Book, 14 March 1889. 22 CAB 2:4 (1889): 40; CAB 3:12 (1890): 137. 23 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, vol. 23, 53 Victoria, 31 January to 7 April 1890, p. 142. 24 "Ottawa Institute of Architects," CAB 2:3 (1889): 30. 25 CAB 3:1 (1890): 2; a second notice appeared in CAB 3:2 (1890): 14. 26 "Province of Quebec Association of Architects," CAB 3:9 (1890): 102. 27 PQAA minutes, 10 October 1890, pp. 10-41; see also CAB 4:5 (1891): 56. CHAPTER THREE

1 From "An Act Respecting the Profession of Architects." Statutes of Ontario, 53 Victoria, chapter 41, section 20. 2 The draft was described in "Letter from Canada," AABN 23:752 (1890): 115. 3 Ibid. 4 On this issue see CAB 3:2 (1890): 14; 3:4 (1890): 38; 3:7 (1890): 76; 4:10 (1891): 94. 5 This was the difference in rates reported by the Toronto Builder's Exchange. See CAB:^ (1890): 40. 6 For a discussion of statutory registration in Great Britain see Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession, 135; Saint, The Image of the Architect, 63-8; Jenkins, Architect and Patron, 220-7. 7 JRIBA n.s. 6 (19 December 1889): 86. 8 Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession, 22. 9 In June 1892 "An Act to regulate the Practice of Architecture in the State of New York" was passed, only to be vetoed by the governor. The bill was subsequently printed in the Inland Architect 19:5 (1892): 62 and 63. On professionalism in other countries, see, for example, Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession, 135—41; Wilton-Ely, "The Rise of the Professional Architect in England," 203—4; Draper, "The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the Architectural Profession in the United States," 214—16, both in S. Kostof, ed., The Architect; Freeland, The Making of a Profession, 202—45. 10 Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession, 135—41; on the Society of Architects see Butler, The Society of Architects, 50-3. 11 At the first annual meeting of the OAA, held at the Canadian Institute on 20 November 1889, before the Ontario Architect's Act had been given to the House, George Durand moved the following motion: "that the thanks of the Association are due to Mr. Hugh Romieu Gough, late president of the Society of Architects for the courteous and valuable assistance he had rendered us, that we honour him for the glorious fight he is making in the cause of registration and heartily wish him the fullest success in his

159 Notes to pages 40—6 efforts." Proceedings of the OAA before Incorporation, 58. The Society of Architects later turned to the Canadian Associations. In January of 1899, C.M. Butler wrote both the PQAA and OAA requesting information on the PQAA'S amendment bill which established statutory registration in Quebec in 1898; C.M. Butler to the PQAA, 14 January 1899; W.A. Langton to the PQAA, 24 January 1899, accession number o6-Pi24/i, PQAA Letterbook, ANQM.

12 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, vol. 23, pp. 77, 102, no, 116, 137, 142, 199. 13 See Langton, "The Association in the Past," 11. 14 "Letter from Canada," AABN 28:752 (1890): 115. 15 "The Architects' Bill," Toronto Globe, 21 March 1890, p. 5. 16 AABN 28:752 (1890): 115. 17 Ibid. 18 As quoted in CAB 4:8 (1891): 77. 19 JRIBA N.S. 6 (5 June 1890): 353-4. 20 Ibid. 21 AABN 23:752 (1890): 116. 22 Proceedings of the PQAA in CAB 5:10 (1892): 100. 23 Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 4:5 (1891): 59. 24 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, vol. 22, 56 Victoria, pp. 11-16; The British Columbia Institute of Architects: Declaration of Establishment and Bye-Laws; "The British Columbia Institute of Architects," CAB 5:12 (1892): 100. 25 Proceedings of the British Columbia Institute of Architects in CAB 7:1 (1894): 12. The hope of introducing a registration bill did not die, however. In July of 1899, following the introduction of registration in Quebec, W. Ridgeway-Wilson wrote Joseph Venne at the PQAA: "Mr. J.D. Mortimer of the Canadian Architect gave me your name as one likely to be able to furnish me with a copy of your new Act of Incorporation for architects. I should be greatly obliged if you could spare me a few copies, as I with others had a hard try at this subject some few years ago in our lotal house." 12 July 1899, PQAA Letterbook, ANQM. 26 CAB 3:11 (1890): 121; 4:5 (1891): 56; 4:7 (1891): 69; 4:9 (1891): 88. 27 CAB 5:4 (1892): 36; 5:5 (1892): 46. 28 Proceedings of the Ontario Associaton of Architects in CAB 6:2 (1893): 22. 29 Langton, "The Association in the Past," 11. 30 Ibid., 11 and 12. 31 Card, The Ontario Association of Architects, p. 16. In that year the government established an Architects' Registration Board independent of the OAA. In 1935 the two were amalgamated. 32 PQAA Minute Book, 24 November 1892, pp. 283-5, ANQM.

160 Notes to pages 46-52 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

"Canada," AABN 56:1119 (1897): 77. PQAA Minute Book. 30 September 1897, p. 195, ANQM. Ibid., 7 October 1897. Ibid.; PQAA Minute Book, 27 October 1897, p. 211. "An Act to amend the Act incorporating the Province of Quebec Association of Architects, 1898, 61 Victoria, Chapter 33, amending the Act 54 Victoria, Chapter 59; PQAA Minute Book, 15 February 1898, p. 257, ANQM. Proceedings of the Ontario Association of Architects in CAB 5:2 (1892): 16. Ibid. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 6:2 (1893): 26. Ibid., 22. Ibid. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 5:2 (1892): 16. Ibid. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 6:2 (1893): 22. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 7:2 (1894): 24. Ibid. Ibid., 27; "Canada," AABN 51:1057 (1896): 143. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 9:1 (1896): 17 Langton, "The Ontario Architects' Act," CAB 7:6 (1894): 75. CHAPTER FOUR

1 Numerous articles of indenture are held in the Horwood Collection, additional i MU3g85, QA. These include one dated 3 July 1871 between Frank Burke and Henry Langley, architect of Toronto. The term was five years. For the first two years Burke was to work without payment. In the third and fourth years he received $ 100 a year, and in the fifth year, $200. In return Burke's father agreed to provide "board, lodging, etc." for his son. 2 For a discussion of training in the Chief Architect's Branch, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, see Archibald, By Federal Design; also the F.G. Alexander Diaries, MG 29 8333, PAC. Born in England, Alexander arrived in Canada in 1870 at the age of twenty-one. He worked first in the office of Henry Langley in Toronto, but in 1872 joined the DPW in Ottawa. 3 An account is given in the diaries of W.G. Burns of Toronto, whose journal, dating from the early 18905, survives. It includes a description of the education of Burns in the office of Storm. The diaries remain in the hands of the family. 4 CAB 4:9 (1891): 90. 5 CAB 3:10 (1890): 114.

161 Notes to pages 52-6 6 "The Ontario Architects' Bill," CAB 9:11 (1896): 175. 7 By October 1875, architectural design was taught in the Ecoles des Arts et Metiers at Montreal, Quebec, and Levis. A report to the provincial government based on a study of schools of art in Boston and New York recommended that "un systeme uniforme d'enseigner le dessin devrait etre introduit immediatement dans touts les Ecoles Publiques de la Province." Conseil de Arts et Metiers, Rapport du Comite, 97; see also Baillairge, "Rapport sur 1'etat actuel de 1'art de batir dans la Province de Quebec," pp. 413, 429-36; Board of Arts and Manufactures of the Province of Quebec, Report of the Committee Named to Enquire into the Question of Practical Schools; "Council of Arts and Manufactures of the Province of Quebec," CAB 7:11 (1894): 142. 8 CAB 7:11 (1894): 142. 9 Journal of the Board of Arts and Manufactures 4:1 (1894): 7; Lewis, "Education in Science and Art," 113—14. 10 "Hamilton Arts School," CAB 9:10 (1896): 157. 11 Mont St. Louis: un demi-siecle au Mont St. Louis, 399; Presbyterian College Annual Calendar, 1875,1887, 1889; Maurault, L'Universite de Montreal, 52. 12 Minute Book of the Architectural Draughtsmen's Association of Toronto, 9. 13 The draftsmen applied to become the Architectural Section of the Canadian Institute almost immediately. A meeting was held on 10 January in the Canadian Institute Building, at which time the association was officially established under the aegis of the institute. Minute Book of the Architectural Draughtsmen's Association of Toronto, 11. 14 Ibid. Other papers included 14 March 1887, a paper by J.W. Gray titled "The Doric Temple in Its Religious and Artistic Aspects"; 4 April 1887, a paper on carpentry; 2 May 1887, a paper by S.G. Curry on plumbing. 15 Proceedings of the PQAA, CAB 3:9 (1890): 115. 16 "Remuneration of Draughtsmen," CAB 3:1 (1890): 2. 17 "American Architectural Methods," CAB 6:1 (1893): 8. 18 Proceedings of the OAA, CAB 8:2 (1895): 21. 19 Proceedings of the PQAA, CAB 4:9 (1891): 90. 20 Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession, 130. 21 The Acts, 53 Victoria, chapter 41, in Ontario, and 54 Victoria, chapter 59 in Quebec. Besides the OAA and the PQAA, the principle of professional examination was also adopted by the short-lived British Columbia Institute of Architects. In a report on the formation of the institute, the RIBA Journal noted that its by-laws "provided that after the expiration of two years from its registration, the Institute shall have power to declare that candidates for Fellowship shall have passed an examination - exactly like Section 3 of theRIBAcharter."/7?/5A n.s. 9 (24 November 1892): 47. 22 Ontario Association of Architects Records 1884-1954, MU 2734, OA;

162

Notes to pages 56-60

also Horwood Architectural Drawings Collection, Additional no. 5, OA.

23 Ontario, Department of Education, "Report of the Minister of Education for 1888," 217. 24 An Act, 53 Victoria, Chapter 41; in 1895 an application was received by the OAA from the Royal Military College, Kingston, requesting that graduates of the RMC be placed on an equal footing under the act as graduates of the School of Practical Science. The matter was referred to the minister of education, who decided it was not in his power to enlarge the scope of the act without an amendment passed in the legislature. "Report of the Registrar and Librarian," OAA 15 July 1895, Horwood Collection, box 8, OA. 25 Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 9:1 (1896): 17. 26 Ontario, Department of Education, Report of the Minister of Education for 1889, 310. 27 Ontario, Department of Education, Report of the Minister of Education for 1890, 366. 28 Baillairg£, "On the Necessity for a School of Arts for the Dominion," 68-76. 29 "Architectural Training," CAB 4:9 (1891): 97—8. 30 Proceedings of the PQAA, CAB 3:10 (1890): 115. 31 Ibid., 116. 32 Ibid., 116. 33 PQAA Minute Book. 28 September 1893, vol. i, p. 343; Two years earlier a special committee appointed by the PQAA recommended the organization of classes in design, pen-and-ink drawing, colouring, construction, modelling, and perspective. The report was signed by A.C. Hutchison, secretary of the committee. PQAA Minute Book, 27 October 1891, Vol. i, p. 193; reports on these classes can be found in CAB 4:12 (1891): 103; 6:10 (1893): 104; 7:10 (1894): 128. 34 In 1901, A.T. Taylor commented on the role played by the PQAA in the establishment of the architecture course at McGill: "A few years ago we petitioned the Governors of the University to establish a chair of architecture and I have reason to understand that this had weight with Sir William Macdonald in his action in founding and endowing such a chair." A.T. Taylor to the secretary of the PQAA, 21 January 1901, PQAA Letterbook, o6-p 124/1, ANQM. 35 "Professor S.H. Capper," CAB 9:11 (1896): 175. 36 For an account of the development of post-secondary architectural education in the United States, see Weatherhead, The History of Collegiate Education in Architecture in the United States. 37 "Architecture in the University," CAB 9:11 (1896): 179. 38 P.E. Nobbs, "Report on the Department of Architecture," October 1903, Peterson Papers, McGill University Archives.

163 Notes to pages 61~74 39 40 41 42

CAB 4:2 (1891): 20. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 11:1 (1898): 9 and 10. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 8:2 (1895): 22. Ibid. CHAPTER FIVE

1 Proceedings of the PQAA in CAB 6:10 (1893): no. 2 This claim was made by the Toronto World in an article titled "Quarter of a Million Cage," 6 August 1895. Although difficult to prove, the claim is creditable, since the self-supporting steel cage, invented in Chicago, did not arrive in New York until the late i88os. See Fryer, "A Review of the Development of Structural Iron," in A History of Real Estate, Building and Architecture in New York City, 455-84; and Weisman, "A New View of Skyscraper History," in Kaufmann, ed., The Rise of an American Architecture, i15-60. 3 Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 7:2 (1894): 30 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., 31. 6 Ibid., 30. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., 29. 9 J. Wilson Gray, "Alterations to the Confederation Life Building," CAB 12:2 (1899): 235-7. 10 Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 7:2 (1894): 29. 11 CAB 6:3 (1893): 38. 12 During the early 18905, Canadian architects often used the term "iron construction" to refer indiscriminately to the various structural systems employing iron or steel or both, including the steel cage. 13 Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 7:2 (1894): 30. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 29. 16 Burke was already known to Simpson. In 1886 he and his then partner Henry Langley designed a house for Robert Simpson on Bloor Street East, an illustration of which appeared in AABN 19:530 (1886). 17 Architectural Biographical File, MTCL; also Proceedings of the OAA, 1907, 21 and 22; Construction 12:1, p. 11. 18 "Elements of Building Construction - Structural Iron Work," CAB 5:3 (1892): 28. 19 "Some Observations on Fireproof Building in New York," CAB 6:3 (1893): 36-8. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.

164

Notes to pages 74-8

22 See, for example, Arthur, No Mean City, 184. 23 "The Development of Architecture in the Province of Quebec," Construction 20:6 (1927): 193. 24 In an article titled "The Safety of Public Buildings," Toronto World, 11 January 1895, Edmund Burke outlined the changing circumstances leading to the use of rolled steel in the construction of office buildings. These included the rising cost of land, problems of fire, and the need for long spans and wind bracing. He noted that with higher buildings "The increased thickness of walls which would be necessitated by [conventional] methods in the erection of a high building would occupy so much valuable floor space and reduce the light to such an extent that the commercial success of the building would be interfered with." It was not until some or all of these factors affected building that the steel cage came into common use, possibly because of cost, which in any case gradually fell over time. The first steel cage appeared in Winnipeg, for instance, in 1904 with the construction of the Union Bank building by Darling and Pearson (Denhez et al, Winnipeg's Warehouse Area, 17). Farther west, the first ribbed-steel superstructure was employed in Vancouver in 1905 in construction of the West Hastings Street Post Office (Mills, Vancouver Architecture, 22). 25 "Popular Impressions vs. Fact," CAB 8:4 (1895): 54. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 "The Simpson Department Store," CAB 8:10 (1895), 115; Edmund Burke outlined the fireproof system used in the Simpson store in "The Safety of Buildings," Toronto World, 11 January 1895. 30 CAB 8:11 (1895): 139. 31 CAB 3:8 (1890): 87. 32 Baillairg6, "A Plea for a Canadian School of Architecture," CAB 6:11 (1893), 107. 33 CAB 9:9 (1896), 131-132. 34 Baillairge, "A Plea for a Canadian School," 107. 35 "New Library Building, McGill University, Montreal," CAB 9:8 (1895): 96. 36 "Popular Impressions vs. Fact," CAB 8:4 (1895): 54. 37 "Building in Canada in 1895," CAB 9:1 (1896): 10; for information on the McKinnon building see CAB 8:4 (1895): 54; for the Globe building see "Quarter of a Million Cage," Toronto World, 6 August 1895. On the Montreal Street Railway building see CCR, 2 i March 1895; and CAB 9:4 (1896): 55, which noted that "The entire building is carried on steel columns, which rest in concrete and brick foundations laid in gravel." There were no doubt other early steel-frame buildings besides these. The

165 Notes to pages 78-84

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55 56 57

CAB reported that Richard Waite's Canada Life building in Montreal (1894—5) would be constructed of steel, encased in fireproof materials and faced with Ohio bluestone, CAB 7:2 (1894): 42. Still it is not clear whether this should be interpreted as consisting of a self-supporting cage. Another possibility is the St Catherine Street store of J.A. Ogilvy, designed by David Ogilvy, recently returned to Montreal from the United States, CCR, 8 February 1894, p. 11. In Montreal, for example, the value of building permits fell from approximately $3,358,000 in 1891 to $1,533,000 in 1895, rising only gradually for the rest of the decade. "Some Observations on Fire-proof Buildings in New York," CAB 6:3 (1893): 38. Ibid. CAB 5:12 (1892): 121. CAB 9:6 (1896): 86. Ibid. "The American Tall Building," CAB 11:1 (1898): 5-7. Peters, "Architecture of the West," 79. Taylor, "The Functions of Truth in Art," 121. Doran, "Truth in Architecture," 86. Burke, "Two Questions in Connection with Steel Construction in Buildings," 31. Taylor, "The Functions of Truth in Art," 121. Capper, "The American Tall Building," 5—7. The introduction and use of terra cotta in architecture at the end of the nineteenth century is a subject worthy of study on its own. In the context of steel and iron architecture its theoretical attractiveness, quite apart from its decorative qualities, lay in the fact that, as a recognizably light and plastic material with limited structural properties of its own, its use implied the presence of a structural framework behind. This could not be said of a veneer of stone or brick, since these read as structural materials. Unlike terra cotta, their use in what was essentially a non-structural context was false to their own properties. The first use of terra cotta for sheathing a fagade in the United States was in 1889-90, the occasion Burnham and Root's second Rand McNally building in Chicago. See Whiffen and Koeper, American Architecture, 252. Doran, "Truth in Architecture," 86. Ibid. Langton, "Notes of an Architectural Tour in England and France," 57. "The Royal Canadian Academy Exhibition," CAB 8:5 (1895): 65. "The American Tall Building," CAB 11:1 (1898): 5. "Thirty Storey Office Building in Gothic Design," Construction 3:9(1910): 64.

i66

Notes to pages 85—90

C H A P T E R six 1 "The Ontario Association of Architects and What It Should Do," CAB 11:3(1898): 50. 2 The membership of the Eighteen Club was: Eden Smith (president), J.C.B. Horwood (ist vice-president), Henry Sproatt (and vice-president), C.H. Acton Bond (3rd vice-president), Ernest A. Rolph (secretarytreasurer), C.D. Lennox, A.C. Barrett, C.S. Becket, Sanford F. Smith, J. Francis Brown, A.E. Wells, William Rae, Charles E. Langley, Vaux Chadwick, J.P. Hynes, W. Ford Rowland, R.B. McGiffin, Alfred H. Chapman. 3 Lennox, ed., Catalogue of the First Exhibition of the Toronto Architectural Eighteen Club, 13-14; Toronto Architectural Club, Minute Book, 29 May 1899. 4 AABN 67:1262 (1900): 67-8. 5 Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 13:1 (1900): 11. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 AABN 67:1262 (1900): 68. 11 Ibid. 12 Proceedings of the OAA, 1906, p. 28; Toronto Architectural Eighteen Club, Minute Book, 12 November 1900. 13 Neal and Moffet, Eden Smith, 7-9; see also Toronto Globe and Mail, 12 October 1949, and Mathers, "Eden Smith," 112—13. 14 Eustace Bird Diaries, MS-54g, OA. 15 According to Stephen Heward, who worked in Strickland and Symon's office in the late 18805 when Eden Smith was senior draughtsman, Smith had trained in an English architect's office before coming to Canada. Heward does not say which office that was. This information was kindly made known to me by Stephen Otto, and is taken from an unpublished autobiographical account. Stephen Heward, "For My Children," 1946. 16 The church was begun in the fall of 1887 and completed in 1888. See Robertson, Landmarks of Toronto, 98. 17 Ibid., 96—7. 18 For a review of the English Queen Anne Revival see Girouard, Sweetness and Light. 19 St John the Evangelist, the Garrison church, was built to replace an earlier one of 1857 by William Hay. It was built through 1892 and opened in the spring of 1893. Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News 7:79 (1893): 153 and 177-8; Robertson, Landmarks of Toronto, 31. 20 The east end of the chancel was extended in 1912, a baptistry built in

167 Notes to pages 91-8

21

22 23 24 25

26 27

28 29 30 31

32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

1919. The church was remodelled in 1963, at which time Eden Smith's rood screen was moved to the back of the church. For a history of the church see Reeves, "Over One Hundred Years - A Personal History of St. Thomas'." For a survey outlining the formation of the guilds and their relation to architecture, see Davey, Arts and Crafts Architecture, 46-55; for a review of the ideas behind the movement, see Macleod, Style and Society, 55-67. Macleod, Style and Society, 51—3. Macleod, Style and Society, 58. Builder 71:2802 (1896): 307. "Architectural Education 1900," CAB 13:6 (1900): 109; Eden Smith's quotation is from Lethaby, "Art, the Crafts and the Function of Guilds," 99. This appeared in Quest, a limited edition Arts and Crafts journal published by G. Napier and Co. Birmingham. "Education in Architecture," AABN 72:1330 (1901): 92. Registration bills were introduced to Parliament in the UK in 1889, 1890, 1892, 1895, 1900, and 1903. In 1906 RIBA accepted the principle of registration. Registration was introduced in 1931 with the Architects' Registration Act, and made compulsory in 1938. Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession, 147—56. The Times, 3 March 1891. R.N. Shaw and T.G.Jackson, Architecture a Profession or an Art; thirteen short essays on the qualifications and training of architects (London 1892). Besides Quebec, registration was introduced by Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia before it was introduced by Ontario. Lennox, ed., Catalogue of the First Exhibition of the Toronto Architectural Eighteen Club, Toronto, 1901. The exhibition ran from 26 January to 9 February 1901. "The Toronto Architectural Eighteen Club Exhibition," CAB 14:2 (1901): 29. See Weatherhead, The History of Collegiate Education in Architecture in the United States; Hamlin, "The Influence of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts on our Architectural Education," 241—7; Drexler, ed., Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts; Noffsinger, The Influence of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts on the Architects of the United States. Stewart, "Architectural Schools in the United States - University of Pennsylvania," 326. Proceedings of the OAA in CAB 13:1 (1900): 11 — 12. Proceedings of the OAA, 1901,34. Ibid., 19. Proceedings of the OAA, 1902, p. 11. Proceedings of the OAA, 1903, p. 11. Ibid.

i68 Notes to pages 98—104 41 Proceedings of the OAA, 1901, p. 40. 42 Proceedings of the OAA, 1902, p. 20. 43 The committee appointed by the Eighteen Club consisted of C.H. Acton Bond, W. Ford Howland, William Rae, J.C.B. Horwood, Henry Sproatt, and R.B. McGiffm. Proceedings of the OAA, 1905, p. 23. 44 Proceedings of the OAA, 1907, pp. 25—6. 45 "Toronto has Beaux-Arts Society," Construction 2:1 (1909): 80. 46 Ibid. 47 There he came under the spell of the Ecole and of France, writing to his parents of his gratitude at studying there, "which has so entirely changed my architectural ideas and given me an insight into the methods of working of the greatest school of art and architecture." Lyle to his father, 26 March 1896. John Lyle Collection, OA. 48 The best treatment of Lyle is Hunt, John M. Lyle. 49 Weatherhead, The History of Collegiate Education, 76-9. 50 Ibid., 78 51 Maxwell, "Architectural Education in Canada," 51. 52 "Architectural Education in Toronto," Construction 3:5 (1910): 51. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. A description of Lyle's method of teaching can be found in a letter to the University of Toronto in which Lyle proposed, unsuccessfully, that his students might compete in projects with students enrolled at the Faculty of Applied Science. Lyle to the Council, Faculty of Applied Science, University of Toronto, 2 December 1910. University of Toronto Archives. 55 Montreal Gazette, 12 June 1936; JRAIC 13:6(1936): 125. 56 Ecole Poly technique, Album Souvenir, 51—2. 57 "J.O. Marchand," JRAIC 13:6 (1936): 125; Poivert was professeur de composition architecturale, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Conditions d'Admission, 6—7. 58 "W.S. Maxwell, Well Known Architect Dies," Montreal Star, 25 March 1952; Lemire, "Maxwell, Edward and Maxwell, W.S.," in Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects 3:124—5; Edward Maxwell, office journal, 1898; RIBA Nomination Papers, W.S. Maxwell, RIBA, 25 May 1928. 59 Maxwell to F.S. Monette, 9 February 1900. His Paris address was 83 Boulevard Montparnasse. PQAA papers, 2-06-? 124-1 ANQM. 60 Maxwell, "Architectural Education in Canada," 51. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid., 50 63 Ibid. 64 The sketch club had been formed with the object of "providing junior members of the profession faculties in the study of architecture." PQAA

169 Notes to pages 104-13 Yearbook, 1907, p. 75; see also PQAA to P.E. Nobbs on the formation of the sketch club, 20 March 1905, PQAA Letterbooks. 65 The Society of Beaux-Arts Architects Yearbook 1909-1910 (New York 1910) plate 19; on the formation of the Atelier Maxwell see PQAA Yearbook, 1910, p. 29. CHAPTER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13

14 15 16

17 18 19

SEVEN

Proceedings of the PQAA in CAB 4:9 (1891): 91. CAB 3:12 (1890): 136. Siddall, "the Advancement of Public Taste in Architecture," 28. CAB 4:7 (1891): 70. Wheeler, "The Evolution of Architecture in Northwest Canada," CAB 10:1 (1897): 8. "Architecture in Canada," CAB 1:1 (1888): 3. Dufferin to Earl of Carnarvon, 21 December 1874, Dufferin-Carnarvon Correspondence 1874-1878, 124-5. Dufferin, My Canadian Journal, 416. On Dufferin's proposals see Murphy, "Les projets d'embellisements de la villede Quebec," JCAH 1:2 (1974): 18-29. Dufferin to Lynn, 30 December 1875, William Henry Lynn Papers. RIBA Library. For a review of Lynn's previous work for Lord Dufferin, closely related in style and spirit to the Quebec projects, see Bence-Jones, "Building Plans of a Viceroy," Country Life 148:3832 (1970): 816-19; anc^ H8: 3833 (^T0): 9°°-4Dufferin to Carnarvon, 21 December 1874, Dufferin-Carnarvon Correspondence, 125. Ibid. Dufferin to Lynn, 30 December 1875, Lynn papers, RIBA. The Quebec architect Charles Baillairge" played a role in the final design, refining Lynn's proposals. See Cameron, "Charles Baillairge Architect," 246. Richardson et al., Quebec City, 517; Brousseau-Hudon, L'Hotel du Parlement, Quebec, 8—9. On this theme see Gubbay, "Three Montreal Monuments." Derome, "Charles Huot et la peinture d'histoire au Palais legislatif de Quebec (1883—1930)," National Gallery of Canada Bulletin 27 (1976): 2; Gagnon, Le Palais legislatif de Quebec, 84—9. Quoted in Gagnon, Le Palais, 109; see also Cameron and Wright, The Second Empire Style in Canadian Architecture, 68. Giroux, "Les Palais de la Province de Quebec," i: 171-80. Annual Report of the Minister of Public Works, 1883-4, Sessional paper no. 10 (Ottawa i884):2g; "Report of the Chief Architect," Report of the

170 Notes to pages 113—20

20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41

Minister of Public Works, appendix no. 2, sessional paper no. 9 (Ottawa 1888): 31. Architectural Review (Boston) 5:7 (1898): 74. A sketch of Tache's proposal survives in Fonds E.E. Tache, Drawings Collection p-286, ANQ; on the Chateau Frontenac see Kalman, The Railway Hotels, 32—7. On the influence of the French chateau in Great Britain see Bassett, "The French Renaissance Revival in British Architecture 1824—1914," PHD thesis, Edinburgh University 1979. Ferree, "Talk With Bruce Price," 82. Gagnon, Le Fort St. Louis, 319-20. CAB 5:5 (1892): 47. Stalker, "Climatic Influences on Architecture," 105. Baillairg6, "Notes on Quebec Architecture," 10. Ibid. CAB 6:10 (1893): 101. A.T. Taylor's address on retiring as president of the PQAA. PQAA Minute Book. 9 September 1897. o6-pi24, 16 ANQM. "The Victoria Hospital, Montreal," CAB 2:7 (1889): 52. Gambier-Bousfield, "Mouldings," 66. Burke, "Some Notes on House Planning," 55. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. "A Perfect Home," Winnipeg Tribune, 21 December 1895, p. 3. This article was kindly pointed out to me by Mr Giles Bugailiskis. "North-West Letter," CAB 16:9 (1903): 148. The house was built for Mr R. Wilson; the architect is unknown. Darling and Pearson opened their Winnipeg office in 1902. CAB 15:4 (1902): 55. For an account of early attempts at the formation of an architectural society in the province, see "North-West Letter," CAB 14:5 (1901): 115; and 16:12 (1903): 197. The first meeting of the Manitoba Association of Architects was held 25 May 1906 in Winnipeg. In this context it is notable that Alberta was the first province after Quebec to introduce statutory registration. The registration bill was included in an act incorporating the Alberta Association of Architects and given assent 9 May 1906. The first meeting of the association was held in Edmonton in June 1906. An act to incorporate the Saskatchewan Association of Architects was passed 21 March 1911, and given assent two days later. "Art Education in Canada," CAB 4:1 (1891): 10. Miner, G.A. Reid, Canadian Artist; Pepall, "Architect and Muralist, The Painter George Reid in Onteora, New York," 44—7; see also George Reid's paper and scrapbook, Art Gallery of Ontario.

171

Notes to pages 130-7

42 On Maclure see Segger, "Variety and Decorum: Style and Form in the Work of Samuel Maclure 1860—1920," 87-98; Eaton, The Architecture of Samuel Maclure; Segger and Franklin, Victoria. 43 For a review of architectural developments in Vancouver and Victoria in the 18905, see Mills, Vancouver Architecture 1886-1914, and Architectural Trends in Victoria, British Columbia 1850—1914. 44 Notes on Fripp's design appears in CAB 55:9 (1892): 78. 45 "Foreign Architects as Designers of Canadian Structures," Construction 1:9 (1908): 25-6. CHAPTER

EIGHT

1 D. Talbot Rice, "Gerald Baldwin Brown," Dictionary of National Biography (London 1949), 105—6. 2 This idea of "Kuntsgeschichte" reflects the traditions of German scholarship and has dominated twentieth-century architectural history. See Watkin, The Rise of Architectural History, 2—17 and 148—60. 3 Edinburgh University Galendar, 1880-1, p. 64. 4 Edinburgh University Calendar, 1884-5, P- 64. 5 Canadian Who Was Who (Toronto 1938), 342-7. 6 Peterson-Brown correspondence, Peterson Papers, Department of Architecture File, RG 2P-&44-14, McGill University Archives. 7 Capper, "Architecture in the University," 179. 8 Ibid., 181. 9 On national influences in European architecture see Davey, Arts and Crafts Architecture, 195-203. 10 Bland, "Percy Erskine Nobbs,"/RA/C42:1 (1965): 14; areviewof Nobbs's early life can be found in Wagg, Percy Erskine Nobhs, i —4. 11 Ibid. 12 On the publication of his book Design: A Treatise in the Disco-very of Form, Nobbs entered the following dedication: "To the memory of Professor Gerald Baldwin Brown and Sir Robert Stoddard Lorimer, two of my mentors." 13 Nobbs, "Ramsay Traquair," 147. 14 Macleod, Style and Society, 52. 15 Ibid., 44 and 53. 16 Savage, Lorimer and the Edinburgh Craft Designers, 1—8. 17 Muthesius, The English House, 62. 18 Nobbs, "The Late Sir Robert Lorimer," 352. 19 Nobbs, "Gothic Revivals of the Nineteenth Century," 47—8. 20 Ibid., 48. 21 Nobbs, "Architecture in the Province of Quebec during the Early Years of the Twentieth Century," 418.

172 Notes to pages 128-38 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38 39

40 41

Nobbs, "State Aid to Art Education in Canada," 45 Nobbs, "The Architecture of Canada," 58. Nobbs, "State Aid to Art Education in Canada," 45 Ibid. Nobbs, "The Architecture of Canada," 60. Nobbs, "Architecture in Canada," 93. Nobbs, "The Architecture of Canada," 59. Ibid. Ibid., p. 56. Nobbs, "State Aid to Art Education in Canada," 44. Nobbs, "The Architecture of Canada," 57. Macphail, "Design; A Review of Mr. Nobbs' Book," 115. Nobbs, "Gothic Revivals of the Nineteenth Century," 51. Croce, Aesthetics as Science of Expression and General Linguistic appeared in English translation 1909. In Design Nobbs wrote: "With two reservations, the reader is asked to accept the position of Benedetto Croce as set forth in his Aesthetic and General Linguistic in 1907 ... to fill out the arguments here only epitomized." Nobbs, Design, 15. Collins, Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture, 173. Nobbs, "The Architecture of Canada," 57. Letter, Goodhue to Nobbs, 11 June 1907, Bertram Goodhue Correspondence, Percy Nobbs Correspondence File, Canadian Architecture Collection, McGill University. This was the cause of disagreement between Nobbs and McGill University; see Wagg, Percy Erskine Nobbs, 21. The McGill Union is described in detail in Wagg, Percy Erskine Nobbs,

is-1?-

42 Nobbs, "Gothic Revivals of the Nineteenth Century," 48. CHAPTER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NINE

Maxwell, "Architectural Education in Canada," 51. Ibid. Peters, "Architecture of the West," 79. Maxwell, "Architectural Education in Canada," 53. "Report of the Assessors," 3, DPW Records, vol. 4239, file 1298—1, RGI i, PAC. Ibid., 18. Ibid., 2. Ibid., 8. "Report of the Assessors," 10. DPW Records. A reference to the delegation is made in a letter from the PQAA to the OAA. Its purpose was "to see

173 Notes to pages 138—43 whether joint action could not be taken ... to improve the conditions as to the award of the work." PQAA to OAA, 5 January 1906, PQAA Letterbooks, 06 PI24-2, ANQM. 10 "Report of the Assessors," 17. DPW Records. This breakdown of points appears in the above, but it is a simplification. Edmund Burke's "Assessor's Notes on Competitive Designs for Departmental and Justice Buildings, Ottawa" contains the following arrangement: Conditions - 10, Grouping — 5, Arrangement of Parts — 20, Lighting — 5, Designs — 25, Cost - 25, Bridge — 10; from Papers Re Competition for Designs for Departmental and Justice Buildings, Ottawa c. 1907, Horwood Architectural Drawings Collection, Additional no. 5, OA. 11 The scores given to Darling and Pearson and to E. and W.S. Maxwell, respectively, were as follows: David Ewart 80 and 76; Edmund Burke 83 and 90; Alcide Chausse 78 and 89; from Edmund Burke, "Assessor's Notes." 12 Ibid., 2. 13 CAB 20:9 (1907): 183. 14 Burke, "Assessor's Notes," Papers re Competition, 19-20. 15 Gaudet, Elements et Theorie de I'Architecture. 16 Burke, "Assessor's Notes," Papers re Competition, 20. 17 "Prize Designs," Construction 1:1 (1907): 48-9. 18 Ibid., 49. 19 Canada, House of Commons Debates. First session, 5 Edward vn, vol. 73, 14 July 1905, p. 9606. 20 Burke, "Assessor's Notes," Papers re Competition, 20. 21 Fitzpatrick, "Ottawa Parliament Buildings," 57—8; for a review of the competition, see also "Architects in Competition," Ottawa Evening Journal, 4 September 1907. 22 Statement of Delegation, found in DPW Records, vol. 4239, file 1298-1, R G l l , PAC.

23 Canada Year Book 1918, 87. 24 Regina Leader, 27 April 1907. 25 A good deal has been written on this. See, for instance, Bodnar, "The Prairie Legislative Buildings of Canada," which includes a bibliography; Thomas, "Saskatchewan Legislative Building and Its Predecessors." In 1911 — 12 a revised scheme was drawn up by the English landscape architect Thomas Mawson. 26 J. Lyle to F.J. Robinson, 4 July 1906; the Toronto architect Eustace Bird subsequently wrote concerning the project; E. Bird to S.H. O'Brien, 13 July 1906; Both found in Legislative Building Competition File, R 195—118, Saskatchewan Archives Board (SAB), Regina. 27 In a letter to British Columbia architect Francis Rattenbury, Premier Scott stated that his preference was to select an architect, but he decided to

174

28 29 30

31

32 33

34

35 36 37

38 39 40

41 42 43

Notes to pages 143-7

hold a competition in order to avoid political criticism. Scott to Rattenbury August 1907, Legislative Building Competition File, SAB, Regina. Ibid., and Scott to Rev. D. Oliver, 17 September 1907, Legislative Building Competition File, SAB, Regina. Ibid., and Frank Hanson to Walter Scott, 7 September 1906, Legislative Building Competition File, SAB, Regina. Nobbs to Scott, 15 July 1907. Nobbs also considered the English architect A. Prentice; Scott to Nobbs, 12 August 1907, Legislative Building Competition File, SAB, Regina. Scott to Oliver, 17 September 1907, Legislative Building Competition File, SAB, Regina; see also Barrett and Liscombe, Francis Rattenbury and British Columbia, 181—2. Scott to Nobbs, 12 August 1907, Legislative Building Competition File, SAB, Regina. "Conditions of Competition for the Selection of an Architect for the Proposed Legislative and Executive Building at Regina, Saskatchewan," 5, SAB, Regina. On Rattenbury's design see Barrett and Liscombe, Francis Rattenbury, 32—4; for European influences on American state capitol design see Hitchcock and Scale, Temples of Democracy. This is suggested in Barrett and Liscombe, Francis Rattenbury, 169. Edmonton Bulletin, 5 May 1906, p. i. On Jeffers see Bodnar, "The Prairie Legislative Buildings," 25-6; Mills, "The Early Court Houses of Alberta," 16; Architectural Institute of British Columbia, Biographical File 111. Nobbs to John Stocks, 12 August 1907, Legislative Competition File, SAB, Regina. Ibid Jeffers was also assisted by John Chalmers, structural engineer, and William Fingland, another structural engineer from Winnipeg. According to the Edmonton Bulletin, "The complete design was submitted to Professor Nobbs of Montreal ... and after his revision was finally approved and adopted." Edmonton Bulletin, 27 December 1907, p. 3. Jeffers resigned his post in 1912 and the building was completed by Richard Palin Blakey. Goodhue to Nobbs, 18 October 1907, Nobbs Correspondence File, Canadian Architecture Collection, McGill University. Gilbert to Scott, 20 August 1907, Legislative Building Competition File, SAB, Regina. The conditions of the Saskatchewan Competition were printed on 3 September, and the competition closed on 30 November; Nobbs to Goodhue, 24 October 1907, 25 November 1907, 11 December 1907.

175 Notes to pages 147—50

44 45

46 47 48

49

Nobbs Correspondence File, Canadian Architecture Collection, McGill University. Goodhue to Nobbs, 30 December 1907; Nobbs Correspondence File, Canadian Architecture Collection, McGill University. "Winning Design in Regina Competition," Construction 1:4(1908): 37. It is worth keeping in mind that both the editor and the Maxwells themselves used the term "English Renaissance" broadly, to encompass virtually the entire range of Classicism in Great Britain from Inigo Jones onwards. Letter to Walter Scott accompanying the submission of the design for the competition, Legislative Competition File, SAB, Regina. Scott decided that the building would be cheapened if built of brick, and chose stone. Scott to Page, 13 July 1909, Scott Papers, SAB. This was the Maxwells' argument. Whether the two long corridors which resulted are convenient is a moot point. In any case, the Maxwells had avoided the use of courts, for which they had been criticized at Ottawa. Darling and Pearson, on the other hand, used two courts to light internal corridors and stairs, so on this point the two firms' relative positions at Ottawa had been reversed. Mills, "The Early Court Houses of Alberta," 14—15; the quotation is taken from Construction 1:11 (1908): 47.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

NOTE

Sources found in endnotes are listed here, with the exception of minutes and proceedings of the OAA, the PQAA, and the British Columbia Institute of Architects. Since these are the most important sources, they warrant a word of explanation. Turning first to the PQAA, the minutes of the association from 1890 onwards, as well as the PQAA letterbooks, are currently held at ANQM, Fonds Ordre des Architectes du Quebec. Abridged accounts of the PQAA annual convention during the 18905 are found in the CAB. In Ontario the minute book of the Architectural Draughtsmen's Association of Toronto, the Architectural Guild of Toronto, and the OAA before incorporation, that is 21 March 1889 to 21 November 1889, are all found in the Ontario Archives, MU 2734. After that date one must rely on the proceedings of the OAA printed in the CAB. Beginning in 1901 the OAA published their annual proceedings in catalogue form, printed by the CAB press. The minute book of the Architectural Eighteen Club is in the possession of the OAA. The CAB also published accounts of the proceedings of the short-lived British Columbia Institute of Architects. Alexander, F.G. Diaries. MG 29 833 vi. PAC. Allaire, S. "Eleves canadiens dans les archives de 1'Ecole des Beaux-Arts et de 1'Ecole des Arts Decoratifs de Paris." Journal of Canadian Art History 6:1 (1982): 98-111. Archibald, M. By Federal Design: The Chief Architect's Branch of the Department of Public Works, 1881-1914. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. Ottawa: Parks Canada 1983. Architects' Biographical File. Fine Art Department, MTCL. Arthur, E. No Mean City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1964. 3rd edition, revised by Stephen A. Otto 1986.

178 Bibliography — From Front Street to Queen's Park. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart 1979. "Association of Architects, Civil Engineers and P.L. Surveyors of the Province of Canada." Journal of the Board of Arts and Manufactures for Upper Canada 1:1 (1861): 14. Aylsworth, M.B. "The Need for Organisation." CAB 1:6 (1888): 7-8. Baillairge, C. "A Plea for a Canadian School of Architecture." CAB 6:10 (1893): 105-8. — "Notes on Quebec ArchitectuAB 6:1 (1893): 10. — "On the Necessity of a School of Arts for the Dominion." Transactions of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers 1:2 (1887): 68—76. - "Rapport sur 1'etat actuel de 1'art de batir dans la Province de Quebec et des moyens a prendre pour y remedier." In H.-J.-J.-B. Chouinard, Fete nationale des canadiene-francais celebree a Quebec en 1880. Quebec: A. Cote'etCie 1881. Baldwin, W. Papers. Baldwin Room. MTCL. Balfour, J. "Architecture in Canada." CAB 1:1 (1888): 3 Barrett, A., and Liscombe, R. Francis Rattenbury and British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press 1984. Bird, E.G. Diaries, Sketchbooks 1892-4. Microfilm 1^8-549. OA. Bassett, D. "The French Renaissance Revival in British Architecture 18241914." PH D thesis. Edinburgh University 1979. Bence-Jones, M. "The Building Dreams of a Viceroy." Country Life 148: 3832 (1970): 816—19; and Country Life 148:3833 (1970): 900—4. Berger, C., ed. Imperialism and Nationalism, 1884—1914: A Conflict in Canadian Thought. Toronto: Copp Clark 1969. Berger, C.W. The Sense of Power: Studies in the Idea of Canadian Imperialism, 1867—1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1970. Blakeley, P.R. Glimpses of Halifax. Halifax: Public Archives of Nova Scotia !949Bland, J. "Overnight Trains to Boston and New York Made Montreal 'American.' Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada 2 (1977): 46-55- "Percy Erskine Nobbs."/RA/C 42:1 (1965): 14. Board of Arts and Manufactures of the Province of Quebec. Report of the Commission Named to Enquire into the Question of Practical Schools. Montreal 1885. Bodnar, D. L. "The Prairie Legislative Buildings of Canada." MA thesis. University of British Columbia 1979. British Columbia Institute of Architects, British Columbia Institute of Architects: Declaration of Establishment and Bye-Laws. Victoria: Ellis and Co. 1892. Brosseau, M. Gothic Revival in Canadian Architecture. Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, no. 25. Ottawa: Parks Canada 1980.

179 Bibliography Brousseau-Hudon, F. L'Hoteldu Parlement. Quebec: L'Assemblee Nationale du Quebec 1981. Brownlee, D.B. The Law Courts: The Architecture of George Edmund Street. Cambridge, Mass, and London: MIT Press 1984. Browne, G. "Architecture or the Art and Science of Building." CAB 7:12 (i894): !52Burchard, J., and Bush-Brown, A. The Architecture of America: A Social and Cultural History. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 1961. Burke, E. "Elements of Building Construction -Structural Iron Work." CAB 5:3(1892): 28-9. — Papers re Competition for Designs for Departmental and Justice Buildings Ottawa c. 1907. Horwood Architectural Drawings Collection. Additional no. 5. OA. — "Some Notes on House Planning." CAB 3:5 (1890): 55—7. - "Two Questions in Connection with Steel Construction in Buildings." CAB 11:2 (1898): 31. Burns, W.G. Diaries 1889—93. The Burns family. Butler, C.M. The Society of Architects. London: W.S. Cowell 1925. Cameron, C. "Charles Baillairge Architect (1826-1906)." PHD thesis. Laval University 1982. Cameron, C., and Wright, J. Second Empire Style in Canadian Architecture. Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, no. 24. Ottawa: Parks Canada 1980. Canada. Department of Public Works. Annual Report 1883—4. Sessional papers no. 10. Ottawa: Queen's Printer 1884. Canada. Department of Public Works. "Majors Hill Park, proposed Departmental and Justice Buildings." RG 11, volume 4239, file 1298—I.PAC. Capper, S.H. "The American Tall Building." CAB 11:1 (1898): 5—7. - "Architecture in the University." CAB 9:11 (1896): 179-82. Card, R. The Ontario Association of Architects / #90—7950. Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1950. Carrington, S., Saunders, I.J., Rostecki, R.R. Early Buildings in Winnipeg. Ottawa: Parks Canada. MRN 389. 7 volumes. 1974—7. Chausse, Alcide. "History of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada." N.p.,n.p. 1938. - "Incorporation of the Canadian Institute of Architects." Construction 1:1 (i9°7):33Collard, E.A. The Montreal Board of Trade 1822-1972. Montreal: Montreal Board of Trade 1972. Collins, P. Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture. London: Faber and Faber; Montreal: McGill University Press 1965. Condit, C. American Building Art: The iqth Century. New York: Oxford University Press 1960.

180 Bibliography Conseil des Arts et Metiers. Rapport du Comite. Montreal 1876. "Constans Fides." "An Appeal for Organisation." CAB 1:2 (1888): 3. "Correspondence Respecting the New Parliament Buildings, presented to the Legislative Assembly by Command." 19 March 1888. In Ontario, Department of Public Works. Central Registry Files. Nos. 282-310, 1880—95. RG '5' sei"ies s-6, vol. 3. OA. Croce, B. Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic. Trans. I). Ainslie. London 1909. Curry, S.G. "Architecture: Looking Back." Construction 20:6 (1927): 175—83. — "History of the Architectural Guild of Toronto." JRA1C 7:9 (1930): 317-18. Davey, P. Architecture of the Arts and Crafts Movement. London: Architectural Press 1980. Dendy, W. Lost Toronto. Toronto: Oxford University Press 1978. Denhez, M., Fuller, G., Lehrman J., Rostecki R., and Thompson, W. Winnipeg's Historic Warehouse Area. Winnipeg: Heritage Canada 1976. Derome, R. "Charles Huot et la peinture d'histoire au Palais legislatif de Quebec (1883—1930)," National Gallery of Canada Bulletin 27 (1976). Dick, D.B. Is There a Possibility of a New Style of Architecture? Toronto: Canadian Architect and Builder Press 1897. Doran, W.E. "Truth in Architecture." CAB 9:6 (1896): 86-7. Drexler, A., ed. The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. London and New York 1977. Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal. Conditions d'admission reglements et programme des cours. Montreal 1909. — Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal 1873—I94&> Album Souvenir. Montreal 1948. Eidelberg, M. "The Canadian Connection." Canadian Collector 19:1 (1984): 22-4. Ferree, B. "A Talk With Bruce Price." Pp. 65-84 in Great American Architects Series. Nos. 1—6. May 1895—July 1899. New York: Da Capo Press 1977. Fitzpatrick, F.W. "Ottawa Parliament Buildings." Construction 1:3 (1908): 57-8Freeland, J. M. The Making of a Profession: A History of the Growth and Work of the Architectural Institutes in Australia. Sydney: Angus and Robertson 1971. Gagnon, E. Le Fort et le Chateau Saint-Louis. Quebec: Leger Brousseau 1895. - Le Palais legislatif de Quebec. Quebec: C. Darveau 1897. Gambier-Bousfield, R.W. "The Profession in Canada." JRIBA n.s. 5 (28 February 1889): 173. - "Mouldings." CAB 4:6 (1891): 66. Gaudet, J. Elements at theorie de ['architecture. 4 volumes. Paris 1905. Girouard, M. Sweetness and Light: The Queen Anne Movement 1860—1900. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1977. Giroux, A. "Les palais de justice de la province de Quebec de ses origines au

181 Bibliography debut du vingtieme siecle." Travail inedit numero 294. Ottawa: Parks Canada 1977. Gotch, J.A., ed. The Growth and Work of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 1834-1934. London: RIBA 1934. Gray, J. W. "Alterations to the Confederation Life Building." CAB 12:12 (1899): 235-7. Gubbay, A. "Three Montreal Monuments: An Expression of Nationalism." MFA thesis. Concordia University 1978. Halifax Guide Book. Halifax: C.C. Morton 1878. Halifax, Nova Scotia and Its Attractions. Halifax: Howard and Kutsche. N.d., n.p. Hamlin, A.D.F. "The Influence of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts on our Architectural Education." Architectural Record 23:4 (1908): 241—7. Hartley, Rev. F.H. "St. Matthias' Church Toronto." The parish 1923. Helliwell, G. "Current Architectural Styles." CAB 7:3 (1894): 44. Hersey, G.L. High Victorian Gothic: A Study in Associationism. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press 1972. Heward, Lt. Col. S.A. "For My Children." Typescript. 1946. Hitchcock, H.-R. The Architecture ofH.H. Richardson and His Times. New York: Museum of Modern Art 1936. Revised edition, Hamden: Anchor Books 1961. — "Buffalo Architecture." Exhibition catalogue. Albright-Knox Gallery 1940. Hitchcock, H.-R., and Scale, W. Temples of Democracy. New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1976. Horwood, J.C.B. "American Architectural Methods from the Standpoint of a Canadian." CAB 6:1 (1893): 8-9. Hubbard, R.H., "Vice-Regal Influences on Canadian Society." Pp. 256—75 in The Shield of Achilles. Ed. W.L. Morton. Toronto 1978. Hunt, G. John M. Lyle: Toward a Canadian Architecture. Kingston: Agnes Etherington Art Centre 1982. Illustrated Toronto, Queen City of Canada. Toronto: Acme Publishing and Engraving Company 1890. Jenkins, F. Architect and Patron: A Survey of Professional Relations and Practice in England from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day. London: Oxford University Press 1961. Jones, H.G., andDyonnet, D. "History of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts." N.p., n.p. 1934. Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia. Vol. 22 (1893). Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario. Vol. 23 (1890). Kalman, H., and D. Richardson. "Building for Transportation in the Nineteenth Century." Journal of Canadian Art History. 3:1 and 3:2 (1976): 21-43.

182

Bibliography

Kalman, H. Exploring Vancouver. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press 1974. — The Railway Hotels and the Development of the Chateau Style in Canada. Victoria: Maltwood Museum, University of Victoria 1968. Kaufmann, E., Jr, ed. The Rise of an American Architecture. New York: Praeger 1970. Kaye, B. The Development of the Architectural Profession in Britain. London: George Allen and Unwin 1960. Kelsey, A., ed. Architectural Annual 1901, Philadelphia: Architectural League of America 1901. Kerr, R. The English Gentleman's House, or, How to Plan English Residences. London 1864. Kiewiet de, C.W., and Underbill, F. Dufferin-Carnarvon Correspondence 18741878, Toronto: Champlain Society 1955. Kostof, S., ed. The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession. New York: Oxford University Press 1977. Lady Dufferin. My CanadianJournal 1872-1878. Ed. G.C. Walker. Don Mills: Longmans Canada 1969. Lambert, P., and Lemire, R. "Building in Montreal: A Break with Tradition." Canadian Collector 13:1 (1978): 77—81. Langton, W.A. "The Association in the Past." Pp. i o-14 in Proceedings of the Ontario Association of Architects. Toronto 1901. - "Notes of an Architectural Tour in England and France." CAB 9:4 (1896): 56-7La Corporation de 1'ecole a 1'occasion du soixante-quinzieme anniversaire de fondation. Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal 1873 —1948 Album Souvenir. Montreal 1948. Leggo, W. The History of the Administration of the Right Honourable Frederick Temple, Earl of Dufferin, Governor-General of Canada. Montreal: Lovelle Printing and Publishing 1878. Lemoine.J.M. Picturesque Quebec: A Sequel to Quebec Past and Present. Montreal: Dawson Brothers 1882. Lennox, C., ed. Catalogue of the First Exhibition of the Toronto Architectural Eighteen Club. Toronto 1901. - Catalogue of the Second Exhibition of the Toronto Architectural Eighteen Club: Toronto 1902. Leny, R.M. "The Professionalization of American Architects and Civil Engineers, 1865—1917." P H D thesis. University of California, Berkeley 1980. Lethaby, W.R. Architecture, Mysticism and Myth. London 1891. Third edition 1974— "Art, the Crafts and the Function of Guilds." Quest 2:6 (1896): 95— 100.

183 Bibliography Lewis, R. "Education in Science and Art." Journal of the Board of Arts and Manufactures for Upper Canada 6:5 (1866): 113—14. Lyle, J. Paris letters. Lyle collection. Folder 8. Picture Collection. OA. Lynn, W.H. Papers. MSS. Box i. AC/Lyn 1 — 14. RIBA Library. Macdonald, I. "Foreign Architects as Designers of Canadian Structures." Construction 1:9 (1908): 25-6. Macleod, R. Style and Society: Architectural Ideology in Britain 1835—1914. London: RIBA Publications 1971. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects. Ed. A Placzek. Volumes i and 3. New York: Free Press 1982. Macphail, Sir A. "Design; A review of Mr. Nobbs' Eook." JRAIC 14:6 (1937): 114-15. Maurault, O. "The University of Montreal, "JRAIC 3:1 (1926): 5-10. — L'universite de Montreal. Montreal: Les Editions des Dix 1952. Mathers, A. "Eden Smith. "JRAIC 27:3 (1950): 112—13 Maxwell, E. Office Journal. Canadian Architecture Collection, McGill University. Maxwell, E. and W.S. "Legislative Buildings, Regina, Sask." CAB 21:2 (1908): 11-14. Maxwell, W.S. "Architectural Education in Canada." Construction 1:4 (1908): 49-52 and 57. Middleton, J. The Municipality of Toronto: A History. 3 vols. Toronto: Dominion Publishing Company 1923. Mills, G.E. Architectural Trends in Victoria, British Columbia 1850—1914. 2 volumes. MRN 354 Ottawa: Parks Canada 1976. — "The Early Court Houses of Alberta." MRN 310. Ottawa: Parks Canada

1977— Vancouver Architecture 1886—11^14. 2 volumes. MRN 405. Ottawa: Parks Canada 1975. Miner, M.M. G.A. Reid, Canadian Artist. Toronto: Ryerson Press 1946. Mont St. Louis: un demi-siecle au Mont St. Louis. Montreal: Impremerie de la salle 1939. Morgan, H.J., ed. Canadian Men and Women of Our Time. 2nd edition. Toronto: William Briggs 1912. Murphy, A. "Les Projets d'embellissements de la Ville de Quebec proposes par Lord Dufferin en 1875." Journal of Canadian Art History 1:2(1974): 18-29. Muthesius,DasenglischeHaus 3 volumes, Berlin: Wasmuth 1904-5. Published in English as The English House. Trans. Janet Seligman. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples 1979. Neal, C., and Moffet, WJ. Eden Smith, Architect 1858-1949. Toronto: Architectural Conservancy of Toronto 1976. Nobbs, P.E. "Architecture in the Province of Quebec during the Early Years of the Twentieth Century. "JRAIC 33:11 (1956): 418-19.

184 Bibliography — "Architecture in Canada." JRAIC 1:3 (1924): 91—5. — "The Architecture of Canada." Construction 3:11 (1910): 56—60 and 64. — Design: A Treatise in the Discovery of Form. London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press 1937. — "Gothic Revivals of the Nineteenth Century." Pp. 42—52 in Proceedings of the Ontario Association of Architects. Toronto 1907. — "Ramsay Traquair."//?A/C 16:6(1939): 147. - State Aid to Art Education in Canada." Construction 1:5 (1908): 44-7. - "The Late Sir Robert Lorimer."/#A/C 6:10 (1929): 352. Noffsinger, J.P. The Influence of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts on the Architects of the United States. Washington: Catholic University of America Press 1955. Noppen, L., Paulette, C., Tremblay, M. Quebec: Trois siecles d'architecture. Quebec: Editions Libre Expression 1979. Oliver, R. Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue. New York: Architectural History Foundation 1983. Ontario. Department of Education. Report of the Minister of Education 1886-92. Ontario. Department of Education Report of the Minister of Education, 1880-1892. Ontario Historical Society. Profiles of a Province: Studies in the History of Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Historical Society 1967. Osborne, C.F. Notes on the Art of House Planning. New York 1888. Over, P. "North-West Letter." CAB 16:9 (1903): 148. Owen, G.H. "Projects for Trinity College, Toronto. "Journal of Canadian Art History 4:1 (1977): 61—72. Owram, D. Building for Canadians: A History of the Department of Public Works 1840—1960. Ottawa: Department of Public Works, Public Relations and Information 1979. Palmer, Rev. R.F., SSJE. "History of St. Matthias' Church." Toronto: The parish 1973. Parks, W.A. Report on the Building and Ornamental Stones of Canada. Canada. Department of Mines. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau 1912. Pepall, R. "Architect and Muralist; The Painter George Reid in Onteora, New York." Canadian Collector 19:4 (1984): 44—7. Peters, S.F. "Architecture of the West." Construction 3:11 (1910): 78—9. Peterson, W. Correspondence. Department of Architecture File. RG 2P/ 644/14. McGill University Archives. Presbyterian College Annual Calendar. Montreal: William Drysdale 1875, 1887, 1889. Provinceof Quebec Association of Architects. Yearbook. Montreal 1910,1911, 1912. Rea, W. "Education in Architecture." AABN 72:1330 (1901): 91-4. Randall, J.D. Buffalo and Western New York, Architecture and Human Values. Buffalo: The author 1976.

185

Bibliography

Real Estate Record Association. A History of Real Estate, Building and Architecture in New York City. New York 1898. Reprint New York: Arno Press 1967. Reeves, E. "Over One Hundred Years - A Personal History of St. Thomas'." N.p., n.p., n.d. Reid, G. Papers and Scrapbook. Art Gallery of Ontario Library. Reksten, T. Rattenbury. Victoria: Sono Nis Press 1978. Richardson, A.J.H. "Guide to the Architecturally and Historically Most Significant Buildings in the Old City of Quebec." Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin 2:3 and 2:4 (1970): 5-140. Richardson, A.J.H., Bastien, G., Dube, D., Lacombe, M. Quebec City Architects, Artisans and Builders. Ottawa: History Division, National Museum of Man 1984. Richardson, D. "Canadian Architecture in the Victorian Era." Canadian Collector 10:9 (1965): 20-9. Robertson, J.R. Robertson's Landmarks of Toronto. Volume 4. Toronto: J. Ross Robertson 1894. — Sketches in City Churches. Toronto: J. Ross Robertson 1886. Rogatnik, A. "Canadian Castles: Phenomenon of the Railway Hotel." Architectural Review 141:5 (1967): 364-72. Rose, G.M., ed. A Cyclopedia of Canadian Biography. Toronto: Rose Publishing Co. 1888. Ross, G. Correspondence, in School of Practical Science file. RG 2—Pa, code no. xxxiv. OA. Ross, G, Getting into Parliament and After. Toronto: W. Briggs 1913. Ross, G.W. The Universities of Canada. Toronto: Warwick Brothers and Rutter 1896. Roth, L. McKim, Mead and White, Architects. London: Thames and Hudson 1983Royal Canadian Academy. Transcripts. PAC. Saint, A. The Image of the Architect. New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1983. Saint, A. Richard Norman Shaw. New Haven: Yale University Press 1976. Saskatchewan, Department of Public Works. Annual Report 1905-7. Regina: King's Printer 1908. Savage, P. Lorimer and the Edinburgh Craft Designers. Edinburgh: Paul Harris 1980. Schuyler, M. "Glimpses of Western Architecture: Saint Paul and Minneapolis." Harper's Magazine 83:10 (1891): 736-55. Scott, W. Correspondence, in Legislative Building Competition file. R 195. SAB, Regina. Scully, V.J., Jr The Shingle Style and the Stick Style. Revised edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1971.

i86 Bibliography Segger, M. "Variety and Decorum: Style and Form in the Work of Samuel Maclure 1860—1920." Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada 7 (1981): 87-98. Segger, M., and Franklin, D. Victoria: A Primer for Regional History in Architecture. Watkins Glen, New York: Heritage Architectural Guides 1979. Service, A. Edwardian Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson 1977. Service, A., ed. Edwardian Architecture and Its Origins. London: Architectural Press 1975. Shaw, R.N., and Jackson, T.G. Architecture A Profession or an Art; thirteen short essays on the qualification and training of architects. London: John Murray 1892. Siddall, G. "The Advancement of Public Taste in Architecture." CAB 12:2 (1899): 28. Smith, G. Canada and the Canadian Question. Toronto: Hunter, Rose and Co. 1891. Smith, H.P., ed. History of the City of Buffalo and Erie County. 2 volumes. Syracuse: Mason and Co. 1884. Society of Beaux-Arts Architects. Report of the Committee on Education. New York 1905. Society of Beaux-Arts Architects. Yearbook 1909—10. New York: Svetland Publishing Co. 1910. Stalker, G.F. "Climatic Influences on Architecture." CAB 4:12 (1891): 105—6. Stamp, R.W. "Educational Leadership in Ontario." In Profiles of a Province. Toronto: Ontario Historical Society 1967. Stanford, G.H. To Serve the Community: The Story of Toronto's Board of Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1974. Stanton, P.B. The Gothic Revival and American Church Architecture: An Episode in Taste 1840—1856. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1968. Stewart, P.C. "Architecture Schools in the United States — University of Pennsylvania." Architectural Record 10:3 (1901): 314—36. Storm, W.G. Correspondence relating to the reconstruction of University College in 1890. Horwood Architectural Drawings Collection. Box 6. MU 3984. OA. Sturgis, D.N.B. "Brick Building in London." Architectural Record 14:6 (1903): 444-52. Sturgis, R. "The Works of Bruce Price." Supplement to Architectural Record 9:5 (1899): 1-65. Sullivan, A. "John A. Pearson, Master Builder." Yearbook of Canadian Art. Compiled by the Arts and Letters Club of Toronto. London and Toronto: J.M. Dent 1913. Taylor, A.T. "The Functions of Truth in Art." CAB 5:12 (1892): 120-1. Thomas, C.A. "Symbols of Canada: The Post Office and Custom House Buildings Designed by Thomas Fuller between 1881 and 1896." MA thesis. University of Toronto 1978.

187 Bibliography Thomas, L.H. "Saskatchewan Legislative Building and Its Predecessors." Royal Architectural Institute ofCanada Journal 32:7 (1955): 248—52. Thomson, W. "Art Education in Canada." CAB 4:1 (1891): 9-10. Toker, F. The Church of Notre Dame in Montreal. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press 1970. Toronto Board of Trade. Council Minute Books. MG 28 111, 56, volume 4. Role 9827. Townsend, S. "Annual Dinner of the Toronto Architectural Sketch Club." CAB 3:12 (1890): 136. Traquair, R. "The Buildings of McGill University." JRAIC 2:2 (1925): 45—65. Tuck, R.C. Gothic Dreams: The Life and Times of a Canadian Architect, William Critchlow Harris 1854—1913. Toronto: Dundurn Press 1978. Turner, P.J. "The Development of Architecture in the Province of Quebec since Confederation," Construction 20:6 (1927): 189-95. Wagg, S. "The McGill Architecture of Percy Erskine Nobbs." MFA thesis. Concordia University 1979. - Percy Erskine Nobbs: Architect, Artist, Craftsman. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press for the McCord Museum 1982. Wallace, W.S. The Macmillan Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 3rd edition. London: Macmillan Co. 1963. Watkin, D. The Rise of Architectural History. London: Architectural Press 1980. Weatherhead, A.C. The History of Collegiate Education in Architecture in the United States. Los Angeles: The author 1941. Wenzel, P., and Krakow, M. A Monograph of the Work of McKim, Mead and White, 1879—1915. New York: Architectural Book Publishing Company i9!5Wheeler, C. "The Evolution of Architecture in Northwest Canada." CAB 10:1 (1897): 8. Whiffen, M., and Koeper, F. American Architecture 1607—1976. Cambridge: MIT Press 1981. White, T.C. Our County and Its People. Volume 2. Boston: Boston Public Library 1898. Yeigh, F. Ontario's Parliament Buildings. Toronto 1893.

Picture Credits

American Architect and Building News: fig. i (10 Aug. 1889); fig. 3 (iBJune 1888); fig. 9 (5 Dec. 1887); fig. 23 (25 May 1895); fig. 42 (24 Dec. 1887) Archives nationales du Quebec: figs. 43 and 44 Art Gallery of Ontario, G.A. Reid Scrapbook: fig. 47 British Architect: fig. 66 (20 March 1903) Canadian Architect and Builder: fig. 14 (June 1891); fig. 21 (Jan. 1895); fig. 27 (May 1888); fig. 31 (Nov. 1902); fig. 46 (Sept. 1903); fig. 47 (March 1901); figs. 55, 56, and 57 (all Oct. 1907); figs. 59, 60, and 61 (all Sept. 1907) Canadian Architecture Collection, McGill University: fig. 51 City of Toronto Archives: fig. 11 (A77-8) Construction: fig. 5 (June 1923) Government of Alberta: fig. 64 Metropolitan Toronto Library Board: fig. 8; fig. 20 (CAB Jan. 1895); figs. 22 and 26 (both Catalogue of First Exhibition of Toronto Architectural Eighteen Club 26 Jan.-g Feb. 1901); fig. 48 (CAB Aug. 1892) A Monograph of the Work of McKim, Mead and White (New York 1915); fig. 33 Notman Photographic Archives, McCord Museum, McGill University: figs. 2, 34, 35, 36, 49, 50, 52, 53 Ontario Archives: figs. 4, 10, 12, 13, 19, 24 Public Archives of Canada: fig. 38; fig. 39 (c 115316); fig. 40 (PA 56061; L.P. Vallee); fig. 41 (c 21906; John Woodruff); fig. 45 (PA 23212); fig. 58 (c 1185; S. McLaughlin); fig. 63 (PA 51358); fig. 65 (PA 40769) PAC, National Map Collection: fig. 6 (53841); fig. 7 (53843); fig. 37 (47958); fig. 54 (78961) Public Archives of Manitoba: figs. 17, 32, and 71 Public Archives of Nova Scotia: figs. 15 and 16 Saskatchewan Archives Board: fig. 62; fig. 67 ((1-8249(1)); fig. 68 (11-8249(4)); fig. 69: fig- 7° (R-B246(s)) All other photographs are from the author's collection.

Index

American Architect and Building News, 18, 21-2, 41, 87 American architecture: influence of, no, 117, 120, 123, 127-9, '351 on Architectural Eighteen Club, 94-7; on tall office buildings, 72-4, 81, 84; on use of iron and steel, 67-8; on Saskatchewan legislative building competition, 143-7; preference for, 17—24, 26, 29, 31, 36-8, 54-5; reaction to, 9-10 Anderson, Rowand, 125 architects: legal standing of, 37

Architectural Draughtsmen's Association of Toronto, 53 architectural education, 58, 93, 98; and professionalism, 54—5, 57; atelier system, 96-9, 105, 128; examinations, 55-6; in the United States, 95, 103; problems of, 51-2,54-5,58,62, 88; pupillage, 51-2,

58; training in design, 62, 94—6, 105 Architectural Eighteen Club, 92-4, 105, 125; and education, 94-7; and registration, 87, 92; and the OAA, 87-8, 92; formation of, 86—7 Architectural Guild of Toronto, 20, 30, 33,38 architectural journalism, 31 Architectural League of America, 86, 92, 94-5 Architectural League of New York, 86 Architectural Section of the Canadian Institute, 53 architectural societies, 28—30, 119 Art Student's League, 119

Arts and Crafts Movement, 102, 119—20, 141, 151; and Architectural Eighteen Club, 90-5; and Percy Nobbs, 125—7, 130-4 Aylsworth, M.B., 15

Baillairge, Charles, 28, 57, 77, 112, 115-16 Baldwin, W.W., 28 Balfour, James, no Baroque Revival, H7-50 Bird, Eustace, 89 Board of Arts and Manufactures for Upper Canada, 53 Boston Architectural Sketch Club, 102-3 British Columbia Institute of Architects, 43-4, 48 Brown, David, 29, 35 Brown, J. Francis, 22 Brown, George, 28 Brown, Gerald Baldwin, 59 Brown and Vallence, 138 Buffalo, New York: Buffalo German Insurance Company Building, 14; Pierce's Palace Hotel, 14 building inspectors: 37 Burke, Edmund, 53, 72, 83-4, 117-18; and education, 54-5, 62, 95-6; iron construction, 70-3, 76, 82; Ottawa, competition for justice and

190 Index departmental buildings, 137, 139-40; professionalism, 32; Simpson store, 67, 75; see also Burke and Horwood; Langley and Burke Burke and Horwood, 78, 94 Burgess, Cecil, 104 Canadian Architect and Builder, 31—2, no Canadian architecture: opinions of, no; proposals for development of, 114—21, 142, 144, 148-51; Nobbs on, 128—30, !33-7 Capper, S. Henbest, 59—60, 80—4, 102, 123-4 Carnarvon, Earl of, i n chateau style, 113 Chausse, Alcide, 137 Chicago Architectural Club, 86 Clarke, Hon. Edward, 13 climate: influence of on architecture, no, 115-18, 120, 129—30, 133, 136, 140, 144, M9 Collingwood, R.G., 132 Collins, Peter, 132 competitions, architectural: problems of, 11, 21-2; see also Montreal; Ottawa; Regina; Toronto Croce, Benedetto, 132 Curry, S.G., 30, 47, 61, 79, 107; see also Darling and Curry Darling, Frank, 12-13, 32,71, 138, 147; and architectural education, 57, 98; Ontario legislative building competi-

tion, 12—13, 16, 19; registration, 49; see also Darling and Curry; Darling and Pearson Darling and Curry, 12—13, 15—16, 22 Darling and Pearson, 118, 138-41, 147-8 Dawson, Sir William, 123 Day, Frank Miles, 147 Department of Public Works, Federal, 52, 137, 142 Derome, J.-B., 113 Despradelle, Desire, 95, 102-3 Dick, D.B., 30, 49, 69 Doran, W., 58, 80-1,83 Doumic, M., 102, 104 Dufferin, Lord, 110-12 Dunlop, A.F., 55, 58 Ecole des Arts et Metiers, 52—3 Ecole des Beaux-Arts: educational method, 62, 94—101, 103—4; influence in Canada, 97, 101-5; m Ottawa, competition for justice and departmental buildings, 140—2; Saskatchewan legislative building competition, 148—51; Nobbs's criticism of, 127—9 Ecole Polytechnique, 53, 58, 60, 94, 101—2, 104 Edinburgh University, 122-4 Edmonton: Alberta legislative building, 144-7 Ewart, David, 137, 139 Eyre, Wilson, 94 Ferree, Barr, 114 Findlay, Robert, 74

Fireproof construction, 76-8 Flagg, Ernest, 96—7 Fraser, Hon. C.F., 12-14, 16 French architecture: influence of, 110, 113-14, 133-6 Fripp, R. Mackay, 120 Fuller, T., 34 Gagnon, Ernest, 114 Gambier-Bousfield, R.W.,33, 3 8,4i-2, 68-9, 71, 117 Gaudet, Julien, 140 Gemmell, J., 98 Gilbert, Cass, 94, 143, 147-8 glass: in shop design, 68-71 Goodhue, Bertram, 133, 147-8 Gordon and Helliwell, 12-13, 15 Gothic Revival, 125, 134, '39-43. H7 Gough, H. Romieu, 39-40

Gouinlock, George, 84 Gregg, A.H., 47, 96-7 Gregg, William, 70 Halifax: McPherson's People's Store, 68; Nova Scotia Furnishing Company building, 69 Hamel, Tehophil, 112 Hamilton: Canada Life Company building, 10, 14 Hamilton Art School, 5273- 99 Hastings, Thomas, 96 Hay, William, 28 Helliwell, Grant, 97 Hopkins, Edward C., 145 Horwood, J.C.B., 26, 54, 73,94,98, 128, 151 Hunt, Richard Morris, 23-4

igi Hutchison, A.C., 29, 52-4, 57-8, 67, 109, 138 Hyman, Hon. Charles, 137 Hynes.J.P., 86, 89, 94 Ireland, John, 52 iron and steel construction, 14, 71, 74—8, 83 James and James, 21-3 Jackson, T.G., 93 Jeffers, A.M., 146-7 Kansas City Board of Trade, 20 Kerr, Robert, 117 Lanchester and Rickards, 144 Langley, Henry, 12, 72 Langley and Burke, 53—4, 70, 78; see also Edmund Burke Langton, W.A., 39—40, 45- 72, 83, 97-8, 114 Lennox, E.J., 19 Lennoxville: Bishop's College, 12 Letang, Eugene, 95 Lethaby, William, 90—2, !25

Lorimer, Robert, 124—5 Louise, Princess, 113 Lynn, W.H., 111-13 Lyle, John, 99, 101, 105, H3 Macdonald, Ivan, 120 Macdonald, Sir William, 59.134 McGill University, 46, 58-60, 94, 101, 120, 123—4,136 Mackenzie, Hon. Alexander, 13 McKim, Mead and White, 102, 120, 127,146

Index

Maclure, Samuel, 134 Macphail, Sir Andrew, 131 Manitoba Association of Architects, 142 Manitoba, University of, 104-5 Maxwell, Edward, 59, 102-4 Maxwell, E. and W.S., 138, 140—2, 144, 147-50 Maxwell, William S., 102-5, 128. !34. 136-7 Marchand, J. Omer, 101—2, 104—5 Marchand and Haskell, 144,147 Memorialists, 93 Mitchell and Raine, 144, 147 Monette, F.S., 103 Mont St Louis Institute, 53 Montreal: Bank of Montreal, 127; Board of Trade building, 127; competition for, 23—6, 35; Canada Life Company building, 10; Chateau de Ramezay, 116; London and Lancashire Life building, 103; Macdonald Engineering building, 134; McGill University Union, 133; Montreal Presbyterian College, 53; Montreal Street Railway building, 78; New York Life Assurance Company building, 10, 74, 78; Redpath Library, 77, 79; Royal Victoria Hospital, 116-17; Standard Life Assurance Company building, 18; Sun Life Assur-

ance Company, competition for, 22—3, 74; Windsor Station, 10, 19 Montreal Board of Trade, 23—6 Morris, William, 91, 125 Mortimer, C.G., 31-2 nationalism, 109—14, 119-21, 128-9, 132, 136-7 Nobbs, Percy, 60, 120, 124-36, 138, 151-2; and Alberta legislative building, 144—7; critical system, 130-3; Ecole des Beaux-Arts, 127-8, 135, 144-7; Ottawa, competition for justice and departmental buildings, 138; Saskatchewan legislative building competition, 144, 146-8 Ontario Architects' Act, 34, 36—8, 61; passage of, 40— i; reaction to, 41-50 Ontario Association of Architects, 119, 138; and Architectural Eighteen Club, 86-9, 92—9; and education, 47-8, 51,55-6, 60-3, 95-9; and Montreal Board of Trade, 24—5; formation of, 30, 33-5 Osborne, C.F., 117 Ottawa: competition for justice and departmental buildings, 137-42 Ottawa Institute of Architects, 34 Papineau, L, 116 Peters, S. Frank, 81, 136-7

192 Index Peterson, William, 12 3-4 Pennsylvania, University of, 94-5 Poivert, J., 102 Post, George, 20 Price, Bruce, 10, 17, 19, "3 Prior, Edward, 90 professionalism, 35 Province of Quebec Association of Architects: and education, 51-62, 104; registration, 43-7, 85; formation of, 24, 34-5 Province of Quebec Association of Architects, Act of Incorporation, 42-7, 55 Quebec: traditional architecture of, US"16. J3° Quebec Association of Architects, 34 Quebec City: Chateau Frontenac, 113; Chateau St Louis, 111-12; court house, 113; drill hall, 113; gales, 110—11, 113; Palais legislatif, 12, 112

Queen Anne Revival, 90 Rae, William, 92 Rattenbury, Francis, 120, 144-5, H7 reinforced concrete, 84 registration, 36-50, 85-8, 93; and British Columbia Institute of Architects, 43; in England, 39-40, 93; Quebec, 46; Western Canada, 119^9; national system of, 43-4; opposition to, 37-8, 40, 48-9, 86, 88,93

Reid, George: 119—20, !34 Regina: Saskatchewan legislative building, competition, 142—4, 146-50 Rice, D. Talbot, 122 Richardson, H.H., 70 Richardsonian Romanesque, 9, 17, 19, 70-1 Robertson, J. Ross, 90 Ross, Hon. George, 32-6,38,40, 51, 56 Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, 136-7 Royal Canadian Academy, 16, 83 Royal Institute of British Architects, 39-42, 45. 55. 93. H4 Rubidge, F.P., 112 Ruskin, John, 79, 91 St Paul: Minnesota State Capitol, 143—4 Saxe and Archibald, 138 School of Practical Science, Ontario, 32, 38, 56-7, 60-2, 94 Scott, Hon. Walter, !43-4 Shanley, W., 112 Shaw, R. Norman, 93, 134 Shepley, Ruttan and Coolidge, 25 Siddall, W., 109 skyscrapers, 69, 73—5, 78-84 Smith, Eden, 87-92, 94, 96, 98, 105, 119, 125, 134 Smith, J. Roxburgh, 104 Society of Architects, 39-40. 93 Society of Beaux-Arts Architects, 99-100, 104, 128 Sproatt and Rolph, 94 steel construction: see iron

Storey and Van Egmond, 144 Stalker, G.F., 115 Storm, W. George, 13, 2 9-35. 45. 52-3. 72 Stoughton, Arthur, 105 Strickland and Symons, 89 Symons, W.L., 98 T Square Club of Philadelphia, 86 Tache, Eugene-Etienne, 112-14 Taylor, A.T., 29, 53, 77, 79-82, 116 terracotta, 83^1 Thomas, William, 28 Thomson, William, 119 Todd, Frederick, 143 Toronto: Army and Navy store, 70; Bank of Commerce building, 18, 74; Board of Trade building, 22, 74; competition for, 19—22; Canada Life Company building, 10; City Hall, 19; Confederation Life Company building, 70; Convocation Hall, 12; drill hall, 114—15; Freehold Loan Company building, 71; Globe Publishing Company building, 78; Home for Incurables, 12; Mail Newspaper Company building, 14; Mackinnon Company building, 78; Ontario Legislative building, competition for, 11-19, 30; St Cyprian, 90; St John the Evangelist, 90, St Jude, 90; St Matthias, go; St Simon, 89; St Thomas,

193 Index go, 92; Simpson, R., store, 67, 72, 75-6, 78, 83-4; Smith, Eden, house, 90—2; Temple building, 84; Victoria College, 90-2. Toronto Architectural Sketch Club, 73, 114 Toronto Beaux-Arts Society, 99 Toronto Board of Trade, 19-23 Toronto Society of Architects, 99 Townsend, S.H., 19, 49, ?i

Traquair, R., 125 Tully, K., 11 Turner, Philip, 74 Vancouver: O.G. Evan Thomas house, 120 Victoria: British Columbia legislative building, 145 Viollet-le-Duc, E.E., 113 Waite, Richard, 10, 13—14, 16, 18—20, 22—3, 26 Watson, A.E., 101 Ware, William Robert, 20, 21,95

Webb, Sir Aston, 144 Webb, Philip, 125 Wells, Arthur, 85-7, 94 Wheeler, Charles, no Wickson, A.F., 97 Winnipeg: Bank of Commerce, 148; McClary Manufacturing Company building, 70; Wilson, R., house, 118 Winslow and Wetherell, 102 Wright, C.H.C., 57, 60, 96 Wright, Frank Lloyd, 94 Young, James, 32