of fronts have been constructed of cast iron. At some corner premises in
Southwark, the piers as well as the windows are formed of cast iron,
the former being made to assume the appearance of projecting pilasters.
There is nothing to which the most captious critic could object in the
treatment adopted here; the pilasters and other features have plain
moulded members, and there is no principle of design in cast work which
has been violated--the only question being the purely aesthetic one--is
it justifiable to copy features in cast iron which have generally been
constructed in stone or marble? The answer is obvious: Certainly not,
when those features suggest the mass and proportions or treatment
proper only for stone or marble; but when they do not so represent the
material, it is quite optional for the architect to build up his front
with castings, if by so doing he can obtain greater rigidity of bearing,
strength, and durability. He ought, of course, to vary the proportions
of his pilasters and horizontal lintels, and make them more in accord
with the material. It is the wholesale reproduction of the more costly
and ornamental features, such as we see in many buildings of New York
and Philadelphia, where whole fronts are manufactured of cast iron and
sheet-metal, which has shocked the minds of architects of culture and
sensitive feeling. Such imitations and cheap displays outrage the artist
by the attempt to produce in cast or rolled metal what properly belongs
to a stone front.

Bearing this distinction in mind, we are not presuming too much to
assert that architects have in cast iron, when properly employed under
certain restrictions, a material which might be turned to account in
narrow fronts where the use of brick or stone piers would encroach too
much upon the space for light. For warehouse fronts, we have evidence
for thinking that the employment of iron might be attended with
advantage, especially in combination with brickwork for the main