© J. G. Bragdon, Pittsburgh, Pa. COUNTY BUILDINGS, PITTSBURGH BY HENRY H. RICHARDSON. P. 462] [Illustration: © Frank H Child Courtesy of Architect THE BREAKERS, NEWPORT, R. I. RESIDENCE OF CORNELIUS VANDERBILT, BY RICHARD MORRIS HUNT. P. 462] [Illustration: © The American Architect. Courtesy Architects, Carrere & Hastings DETAIL OF RESIDENCE OF MR. THOMAS HASTINGS WESTBURY, LONG ISLAND. P. 468] [Illustration: SCHILLER THEATRE BUILDING, CHICAGO BY LOUIS H. SULLIVAN. A DESIGN THAT ASSERTS THE HEIGHT AND UPWARD GROWTH OF THE STRUCTURE. ONLY CENTRAL PART CARRIED TO FULL HEIGHT, SO AN ALL-AROUND CORNICE WAS POSSIBLE. P. 474] [Illustration: Courtesy of Thompson-Starrett Co WOOLWORTH BUILDING BY CASS GILBERT. FIFTY-ONE STORIES. PP. 471, 476] [Illustration: Courtesy of Thompson-Starrett Co. STEEL CAGE CONSTRUCTION SCENE IN LOWER NEW YORK; SPIRE OF TRINITY CHURCH IN THE FOREGROUND. P. 470] apart from our lives, but as a product and expression of and a contribution to, the living present. We shall think of it in terms of life, as simulating the organic and functional qualities of a living thing. It will be all but a living thing, both as it takes its place amid the life of its surroundings and also as it serves the needs of life in its specific capacity. Already we have thought of buildings as organic, as structures that have been built upon a well-considered plan, with parts that perform their individual functions in the common purpose. We have also noted that the character of the structure was affected by the actual methods of building and the material employed. We have learned to be critical on certain points. Was the plan a fit one for its purpose? Did the façades conform to or confuse or contradict the character of the plan? Did the design conform to the purpose of the building and the methods of construction, or was it, however handsome, in effect a sham? Was it overladen with arbitrary enrichments that had little or no relation to structure and were mainly or only designed for display? Did it sacrifice the necessities of the interior to merely æsthetic considerations? And these processes of appreciation which we have acquired the habit of applying to buildings of the past, we have but to bring to bear upon the buildings of the present. For the architecture of to-day is true or false, good or bad, reasonable and admirable, not because it does or does not conform to such and such types, but because it succeeds or fails in meeting the practical and æsthetic requirements of to-day.