The editors, The American Architect:
A recent letter received by me from the manufacturers of a very important building material contains the following statement:
‘Our investigator, who was in no way connected with the - industry, called on 1000 architects in the principal cities of New York, New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and a limited number of Chicago, to ascertain their opinions in regard to -
‘A very large majority of the architects interviewed stated that - was very seldom used in residence construction because the architects HAD NO TIME TO EXPLAIN to the owner the value of - and why it should be used although these same architects stated that they would much rather have - used in the houses which they were designing.
‘At the same time they stated that they thought it a most excellent plan for the manufacturers to acquaint the prospective home builder with the advantages of - and if a client requested -
to be used in his house, they, as
architects, would be glad to specify it.
‘The investigation proved one thing which was somewhat of a surprise and that was that the majority of architects would not insist on using - if the owner objected to it on the point of price, and WOULD NOT TAKE THE
TIME to point out to him the fact that he would get a better quality material.’
In my judgment these statements constitute a very serious indictment of the architectural profession and if sustained it would not only convict the members of that profes
sion of belonging to an invertebrate species but also of failure to perform a function for which they are paid. ‘They have no time to explain to the owners!’ What in the name of heaven is the client paying for if it is not for the architect’s time and talents? Hasn’t he the time to explain the design or plan? Presumably he has, but if this correspondent is correct he simply follows along the line of least resistance on matters of construction or equipment. If such a course isn’t getting money under false pretenses it comes perilously near it.
While I do not believe the report of this investigator is entirely accurate, the existence of a condition under which such a report could be made and accepted in perfectly good faith is one that demands correction. It is certainly time that architects as a class performed all the functions for which they are paid, and certainly among these is that of explaining to the client the advantages and appropriateness of the materials specified.
It certainly would enhance the reputation of the profession if its members more generally possessed the courage of their convictions in the matter of definite specification of materials believed by them to best meet the requirements of their various problems, and then insisted on their fulfillment. In no other way is a client’s interests properly safeguarded.
Very truly yours,
F. E. DAVIDSON.
Advertising Talks—XVII
by
THE AMERICAN ARCHITECT
A recent letter received by me from the manufacturers of a very important building material contains the following statement:
‘Our investigator, who was in no way connected with the - industry, called on 1000 architects in the principal cities of New York, New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and a limited number of Chicago, to ascertain their opinions in regard to -
‘A very large majority of the architects interviewed stated that - was very seldom used in residence construction because the architects HAD NO TIME TO EXPLAIN to the owner the value of - and why it should be used although these same architects stated that they would much rather have - used in the houses which they were designing.
‘At the same time they stated that they thought it a most excellent plan for the manufacturers to acquaint the prospective home builder with the advantages of - and if a client requested -
to be used in his house, they, as
architects, would be glad to specify it.
‘The investigation proved one thing which was somewhat of a surprise and that was that the majority of architects would not insist on using - if the owner objected to it on the point of price, and WOULD NOT TAKE THE
TIME to point out to him the fact that he would get a better quality material.’
In my judgment these statements constitute a very serious indictment of the architectural profession and if sustained it would not only convict the members of that profes
sion of belonging to an invertebrate species but also of failure to perform a function for which they are paid. ‘They have no time to explain to the owners!’ What in the name of heaven is the client paying for if it is not for the architect’s time and talents? Hasn’t he the time to explain the design or plan? Presumably he has, but if this correspondent is correct he simply follows along the line of least resistance on matters of construction or equipment. If such a course isn’t getting money under false pretenses it comes perilously near it.
While I do not believe the report of this investigator is entirely accurate, the existence of a condition under which such a report could be made and accepted in perfectly good faith is one that demands correction. It is certainly time that architects as a class performed all the functions for which they are paid, and certainly among these is that of explaining to the client the advantages and appropriateness of the materials specified.
It certainly would enhance the reputation of the profession if its members more generally possessed the courage of their convictions in the matter of definite specification of materials believed by them to best meet the requirements of their various problems, and then insisted on their fulfillment. In no other way is a client’s interests properly safeguarded.
Very truly yours,
F. E. DAVIDSON.
Advertising Talks—XVII
by
THE AMERICAN ARCHITECT