Whatever may be the misgivings entertained by many engineers respecting
the future use of cast iron for structures of certain kinds, it is clear
that for architectural purposes this material is likely to be employed
to an extent hardly contemplated by many who have looked upon it with
disfavor. At the present moment many buildings may be seen in London, in
which cast iron has been introduced instead of stone for architectural
features, and the substitution of cast iron for facades in many
warehouses and commercial buildings seems to show that, notwithstanding
the prejudices of the English architect against the importation of the
iron architecture of our transatlantic brethren, there is a prospect of
its being largely employed for frontages in which ample lighting and
strength are needed. The extensive window space necessary in narrow city
thoroughfares, and the difficulty of employing brick in large masses,
such as pilasters and lintels, have chiefly led to the adoption of
material having less of the uncertain durability and strength of either
stone or terra-cotta in its favor. Architects would gladly resort to the
last-named material if it could be procured in sufficient size and mass
without the difficulties attendant upon shrinkage in the burning, and
the winding and unevenness of the lines thereby caused. They have also
an even more tractable material in concrete ready to their hand, if they
would seriously bring themselves to the task of stamping an expressive
art upon it, instead of going on designing concrete houses as if they
were stone ones. Cast iron has the advantage of being a tried material;
it is well adapted for structures not liable to sudden weights or
to vibration, and so it has come to be used for features of an
architectural kind, by a sort of tacit acknowledgment in its favor.
Those who are desirous of seeing examples of its employment in fronts
of warehouses will find instances in Queen Victoria Street, Southwark
Street, and Bridge Road, and Theobalds Road, where the whole or portions