Mr. Editor. - Dear Sir: Can you give me any information in regard to an octagon cottage or villa? Have you ever seen one? How does it answer the expectations of the occupant? And where is it? are three questions I would much like to have answered. In Vol. 4, p. 516, May, 1850, of the Horticulturist, I find a plan that seems to combine almost everything that taste and convenience can desire; and to such a degree, that I am perplexed to understand why houses of this kind are not common with us. Is there some difficulty not apparent in the plan? And will any one let us into the secret? I have heard the remark, "that no man who builds one octagon house will ever build another," but the reason of it I cannot learn. Respectfully yours, M. P., Sing Sing, N.Y.

Our correspondent wishes us to give him some light upon the subject of octagon houses, and the reason for the remark, that "no one who has built an octagon house will ever build another." The objections to this description of house are three: 1. The poor architectural appearance. 2. The inconvenience of the "conveniences." 3. That the superior cheapness of this description of house is not so great as it has been made out to be. Mr. Page, the author of the plan which will be found in the May (1850) number of this magazine, has, however, in dealing with this form of house, made the best that can possibly, we think, be made of it. He has shown great taste and knowledge of the "agremens" coveted by an American family of average wealth, and, if possible, greater ingenuity in packing these within the smallest possible compass; and the rustic Italian forma into which he has cast the exterior, are the most suitable which could have been selected, making, out of the ungraceful general outline imposed upon him by the plan, quite a tolerable picture.

Imagine, however, that octangular prism, a magnified copy of the little wooden parallelopipeds used in teaching children solid geometry, dropped into the middle of any sweet, natural landscape, with its careless graces, and flowing lines of river, mountain, and tree. Would not the very trees, with their grand and lovely irregularity of spray and mass, seem to stare upon it and laugh with all their leaves at it I One would think no one retired from business, and with an eye to economy, would wish to build such a copy of a pill-box, or, rather, of an eight-sided bottle, which Mr. Page's observatory (a great convenience internally, and rather an improvement to the appearance) supplies with the appropriate stopper 1

The pyramid harmonizes with the dead level of the Egyptian sands, or of the plain of Waterloo, but even this, the most pleasing of simple geometric forms, would seem ill at ease on an American hillside, and much more so the octangular prism. The only way to soften the abrupt perpendicularity of this form, and carry its lines gradually into those of the landscape, would be to throw out (as Palladio has done in the Villa di Capri, which is of this form), on four of the eight sides a portico (or other toing), of about a story and three-quarters in height, and carry them down to the ground lines by flights of steps; but then, this would destroy the only beauty of the plan, its cheapness 1 Another difficulty of the appearance is, that chimney-tops, an ornament to any other building, become a terrible thing in this, as the draftsman has not failed to perceive, but has judiciously shaded them dark, and put a dark tree behind each, so that they are hardly noticeable. As to the second part, the conveniences, they are certainly many and good in Mr. Page's plans, but the mistake is in supposing that these conveniences, obtained, as they are, at a less cost than in the square plan, are yet equal, in every respect, to those obtained in that plan.

It will be found to be a great mistake to expect the same accommodation in a 15 by 19.8 room, with the corners cut off, as in one finished square. The furniture is comparatively crowded in such a room. Imagine, for instance, a lady at the piano in the "sitting-room;" her position will be thrown much further from the long partition, and more toward the middle of the room, than if the piano were placed in the corner of a square-room of that size. The same crowding will take place in the chambers, in which, by the way, all the beds are drawn too small by one-third at least. Again, the glass "vestibule" is thrown out of the side of the house as a porch would be in a square house, but, though outside of the building, it is not a porch, and if a porch were wanted, one would have to be built extra. It is not even a "vestibule" proper, being the only space between the parlor door and outer air. This is to be considered in estimating the alleged superior cheapness of this over the square plan. Look, again, at the " boudoir." This appears to have what would be in a square house, a bay window, outside of, and extra to the size of the room. Here it constitutes half the room, which is thus half outside the octagon.

A defect in this mode of planning is placing the kitchen so near the living-rooms. This could be obviated just as in a square house, by making a back-building, but then this would darken one side of the octagon, besides destroying its symmetry, its only pretension to beauty being that, as Mr. Page says, it looks equally well (?) on all sides. Then, when we look at the pitiful narrow passages, the multiplicity of corners (each of which, as every mechanic knows, increases the expense), the skew angles, and the cutting of joists and rafters necessary for the octagon, we shall find the supposed cheapness gradually melting away, and be convinced that he who buys a small saving at the expense of such a hot, crowded, and eccentric house, will be decidedly "sold" in the bargain.

In a square house of the same length and breadth, and similar accommodation, all the rooms are larger and more convenient. Of course, a square house, with rooms no larger than those of the octagon, would be less than it in length and breadth, and, consequently, as cheap, or cheaper.

An Octagon House #1

Why inquire, Mr. M. P. of Sing Sing, N. Y, about such an absurdity? I would as soon undertake to live in a tee-to-tum, or an anchored balloon as in a house that has every side and corner alike, and no front and rear approaches. Have all the world been simpletons for the past six thousand years and upwards, that they never adopted octagon houses? Your remarks, Mr. Editor, are to the point, bat "the play is not worth the candle".