changes in the scope, the magnitude and the character such as can hardly be appreciated even when studied in detail.
Let us consider first the change in the attitude of the public toward architecture. An architect is dependent on his clients for all of his expression. He cannot, like a painter, create a work of art and then exhibit it to the public, but he must first find someone who is willing to spend money on a chance that the architectural result may be worth while. But with the plenteous supply of money now available, we find, especially in New York City, a willingness on the part of our clients to spend to an extent which would have been called reckless extravagance in the early years of this century, but which now is accepted as a matter of course. There are numerous cases of purely commercial buildings in which hundreds of thousands
of dollars have been expended just for beauty, and the public realizes as never before that beauty in architecture is an asset, that a good looking building, a successful architectural design rents better, sells better and wears better than one in which the artistic element is subordinate to the so-called practical requirements. This has vastly enlarged the field of the architect as well as increased his individual opportunities. When a client is willing to spend three or four hundred thousand dollars just for bronze finish of the entrance to an office building and is willing to have that work carried out not by the lowest bidder but by the highest, it shows a state of mind which is very promising for the artistic development of our calling. Mere expenditure of money, of course, is not the architect’s aim, but without such expenditure we do not have the opportunities which we can see as possibilities, and though it is far from being a fact that all expensive buildings are good architecturally, it is true in many cases that the liberality of a client permitting the architect to expend money on work of pure beauty is repaid in increased dividends besides contributing to the real art fabric of the country.
The practice of architecture as a profession and the attitude of the architects themselves thereto have changed to meet the largely increased opportunities. Probably never before in the world’s history have architects had the responsibility and the success that have marked the last decade. Probably nowhere else in the world has commercial architecture risen so high as an art, a business and science, and as most of this development is within the scope of one generation, it is inevitable that the theories of practice and the methods of turning out work in an architect’s office have been modified very profoundly. It was not so very long ago that an architect in reputable practice was supposed to sit in his office calmly, or impatiently, waiting for a job to be handed him on a silver platter. Perhaps there are occasions like that still, but they are not sufficiently numerous to constitute a precedent. The bulk of the work which has been executed during the last ten or fifteen years lies in the categories of hotels, office buildings, theatres, warehouses, factories, business premises and garages. Probably ninety per cent of the work which comes to an architect’s office, except domestic work, is in one or the other of these categories, and nearly all of the buildings of any importance which have been launched of late years have been what we call promoted jobs, that is to say, enterprises in which the control is by stock ownership, the money invested being represented either by mortgages or by preferred stock, neither of which has a voice in the management, the real ownership being held by the common stockholders who put no money in but have all the control. It has followed, then, that if an architect is to have his share of such work, his chance of success is measured to a certain extent by
ˮTHE TRIBUNE” BUILDING, CHICAGO, ILL.
JOHN MEAD HOWELLS AND RAYMOND M. HOOD,
ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS
Reprinted from The American Architect of October 5, 1925
Let us consider first the change in the attitude of the public toward architecture. An architect is dependent on his clients for all of his expression. He cannot, like a painter, create a work of art and then exhibit it to the public, but he must first find someone who is willing to spend money on a chance that the architectural result may be worth while. But with the plenteous supply of money now available, we find, especially in New York City, a willingness on the part of our clients to spend to an extent which would have been called reckless extravagance in the early years of this century, but which now is accepted as a matter of course. There are numerous cases of purely commercial buildings in which hundreds of thousands
of dollars have been expended just for beauty, and the public realizes as never before that beauty in architecture is an asset, that a good looking building, a successful architectural design rents better, sells better and wears better than one in which the artistic element is subordinate to the so-called practical requirements. This has vastly enlarged the field of the architect as well as increased his individual opportunities. When a client is willing to spend three or four hundred thousand dollars just for bronze finish of the entrance to an office building and is willing to have that work carried out not by the lowest bidder but by the highest, it shows a state of mind which is very promising for the artistic development of our calling. Mere expenditure of money, of course, is not the architect’s aim, but without such expenditure we do not have the opportunities which we can see as possibilities, and though it is far from being a fact that all expensive buildings are good architecturally, it is true in many cases that the liberality of a client permitting the architect to expend money on work of pure beauty is repaid in increased dividends besides contributing to the real art fabric of the country.
The practice of architecture as a profession and the attitude of the architects themselves thereto have changed to meet the largely increased opportunities. Probably never before in the world’s history have architects had the responsibility and the success that have marked the last decade. Probably nowhere else in the world has commercial architecture risen so high as an art, a business and science, and as most of this development is within the scope of one generation, it is inevitable that the theories of practice and the methods of turning out work in an architect’s office have been modified very profoundly. It was not so very long ago that an architect in reputable practice was supposed to sit in his office calmly, or impatiently, waiting for a job to be handed him on a silver platter. Perhaps there are occasions like that still, but they are not sufficiently numerous to constitute a precedent. The bulk of the work which has been executed during the last ten or fifteen years lies in the categories of hotels, office buildings, theatres, warehouses, factories, business premises and garages. Probably ninety per cent of the work which comes to an architect’s office, except domestic work, is in one or the other of these categories, and nearly all of the buildings of any importance which have been launched of late years have been what we call promoted jobs, that is to say, enterprises in which the control is by stock ownership, the money invested being represented either by mortgages or by preferred stock, neither of which has a voice in the management, the real ownership being held by the common stockholders who put no money in but have all the control. It has followed, then, that if an architect is to have his share of such work, his chance of success is measured to a certain extent by
ˮTHE TRIBUNE” BUILDING, CHICAGO, ILL.
JOHN MEAD HOWELLS AND RAYMOND M. HOOD,
ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS
Reprinted from The American Architect of October 5, 1925