File:Architect and engineer (1934) (14764472705).jpg

Identifier: architectenginee11935sanf (find matches)
Title: Architect and engineer
Year: 1905 (1900s)
Authors:
Subjects: Architecture Architecture Architecture Building
Publisher: San Francisco : Architect and Engineer, Inc
Contributing Library: San Francisco Public Library
Digitizing Sponsor: San Francisco Public Library

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
tec-tural services. Twenty - five small - home designs weresubmitted by nineteen Bay area architects.The jury of award was composed of Al-bert Farr, Mark Daniels and Irving F.Morrow, with Harris Allen acting as archi-tectural advisor. The plan submitted by Earl R. MacDon- V a I y n H . Merri aid was chosen by the jury as the best de-sign—from the standpoints of arrange-ment, circulation and adaptation to the con-tour exposures and views. Mr. MacDon-alds plan was one of the most economicalschemes submitted. The jury voted honorable mention toJohn Knox Ballantine, San Francisco; Mil-ler & Warnecke, Oakland, and RolandI. Stringham, Berkeley. Other Bay area architects who submitteddesigns included: Albert J. Loubet, Theo-dore C. Bernardi, Newsom & Newsom,Henry T. Howard, Ellsworth Johnson,Confer & Anderson, Mario Corbett, Theo-dore G. Ruegg, Michael Goodman, DavidH. Horn, Chester H. Treichel. AngeloHewetson, James T. Narbett, Frederick H.Reimers and Edwin L. Snyder. ^ 43 ►
Text Appearing After Image:
MODEL OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY BRIDGE, THE DOMINATINGFEATURE OF THE COLUMBIA STEEL COMPANYS EXHIBIT ATTHE RECENT CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ^ 44 ► OCTOBER, NINETEEN THIRTY-FOUR Li cense Needed to Advertise ^ indicating that the advertiser is quaUfied ^^^v/;; to engage in the practice of architecture.._yNII SUPERIOR Court deci- Continuing, the court found:sion. Appellate Department, has recently Appellant contends that this advertise- been made in San Francisco that is of vital ment could only mislead temporarily. It is importance to the architectural profession, clear, however, that the legislature intended Judge lames G. Conlan has affirmed a judg- from the language used that such advertise-ment of the lower courts in the case of the State of California vs. Herman Steiger,who was tried and found guilty of vio-lating the statute by displaying a signindicating that the defendant was an arch-itect or qualified to engage in the practiceof architecture without first ha

Note About Images