the painter started to do that part, and have laid him off until the wood was drier; if the chimney smokes somewhere besides at the top, the architect should have foreseen that the elm tree was in the way, as it is distressing to have to sever a limb now when it seemed as if everything was peacefully adjusted; if the house burns up, it was probably defectively wired, and the professional adviser morally feels as if he should rebuild it at his own expense with the use of armored conduit instead of knob and tube.
All this is true, and the architect feels the responsibility that is put upon him and tries hard to meet it. What are the difficulties? A generation ago the market was simple. All that it was necessary to include in the specification for plastering was: “This will be a first-class job of plastering by Smith.” Smith was given the job without competition, and did it as well as he knew how, and charged accordingly. He was a man with years of experience, well known in the community, and all was well. What is to-day’s problem ? Every ingredient and every process in the plasterer’s work must be carefully described in legal phraseology because the work is generally to be figured in the open market and awarded to the low bidder unless it is obvious, or at least easily demonstrable, that he is not honorable or competent. As the successful bidder has not only figured very low, but often actually made an error in computation which gave him the contract, the temptation exists from the start to make up the deficiency somewhere, and the architect must know not only how to mix the plaster himself but how to detect inferiority at any and all stages of the work.
If things are going smoothly the next snag is the strike. This is just as likely as not to be caused by a jurisdictional dispute which has nothing to do with the owner, architect or builder, and which obstructs the work contrary to all laws of fairness. More often it is a case where the architect has to choose between serving the owner’s interest by siding with an unjust demand of the union against unorganized labor, or standing up for his own convictions and throwing the work into confusion, or becoming a walking delegate himself and acting as mediator between the contending parties.
In the old days there were no building laws. Now the architect must be a building lawyer, and in most cases he has first acted as legislator, too, and has framed the laws which govern the construction and maintenance of buildings.
Accustomed to foresight by the very essence of his work, which is the working out in advance, in his mind and on paper, of every detail of the proposed building, the architect has naturally become the advocate and promoter of that great new branch
of human activity, city planning. Here his business responsibilities have been even greater than in his own profession proper, and the scope of the work has been larger, until we find a comparatively obscure architect startling the world with a successful plan for a new capital city for a continent, and another with an equally wonderful conception of an international city or world capital.
The architect must possess, in addition to other qualities, an accurate and careful understanding of accounting and business methods. Not a dollar must be misapplied, not an item overlooked.
Salesmanship is no less important an adjunct of the architect’s equipment. When he has conceived a building in all its parts in such a way as to make a harmonious whole, one single fad of the omnipotent owner, if insisted upon, may throw the entire conception awry. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the layman who is building usually has a little knowledge of architecture. You must be able not only to explain and justify your own ideas, and tactfully dissuade him of his own fancies, but even to spell-bind him so as to keep him contented until the final day, when your finished work may justify itself. Any lack of ability in thus “selling” your product may cost you your reputation. You are aware that any judgment that he may pass upon the work before it is finished is a partial and premature one, but you also know that for him to be willing to wait until it is all over is a strong test of his faith in you, and it becomes your task to bolster up his courage and keep it unshaken.
After rehearsing such a list of requirements for an architect it becomes evident that he is more to be pitied than censured. He has something in common with the country minister who, in order to fill the requirements, must possess a discouraging assemblage of qualities, somewhat like this:
For $600 a year we must have
A devout and pious man.
A preacher of excellent ability.
A student of theology and of history. A guide, philosopher and friend, and A comforter in time of trouble, sym
pathetic and tactful.
A spellbinder and money raiser of the
first ability, and A good organizer.
A sport, popular with young people,
and ready for the game. A married man.
In short, Savonarola, Daniel Webster, Marcus Aurelius, Florence Nightingale, Pierpont Morgan, William Jennings Bryan, Buffalo Bill and Benedict all under one hat! Even Billy Sunday’s qualifications would be challenged.
All this is true, and the architect feels the responsibility that is put upon him and tries hard to meet it. What are the difficulties? A generation ago the market was simple. All that it was necessary to include in the specification for plastering was: “This will be a first-class job of plastering by Smith.” Smith was given the job without competition, and did it as well as he knew how, and charged accordingly. He was a man with years of experience, well known in the community, and all was well. What is to-day’s problem ? Every ingredient and every process in the plasterer’s work must be carefully described in legal phraseology because the work is generally to be figured in the open market and awarded to the low bidder unless it is obvious, or at least easily demonstrable, that he is not honorable or competent. As the successful bidder has not only figured very low, but often actually made an error in computation which gave him the contract, the temptation exists from the start to make up the deficiency somewhere, and the architect must know not only how to mix the plaster himself but how to detect inferiority at any and all stages of the work.
If things are going smoothly the next snag is the strike. This is just as likely as not to be caused by a jurisdictional dispute which has nothing to do with the owner, architect or builder, and which obstructs the work contrary to all laws of fairness. More often it is a case where the architect has to choose between serving the owner’s interest by siding with an unjust demand of the union against unorganized labor, or standing up for his own convictions and throwing the work into confusion, or becoming a walking delegate himself and acting as mediator between the contending parties.
In the old days there were no building laws. Now the architect must be a building lawyer, and in most cases he has first acted as legislator, too, and has framed the laws which govern the construction and maintenance of buildings.
Accustomed to foresight by the very essence of his work, which is the working out in advance, in his mind and on paper, of every detail of the proposed building, the architect has naturally become the advocate and promoter of that great new branch
of human activity, city planning. Here his business responsibilities have been even greater than in his own profession proper, and the scope of the work has been larger, until we find a comparatively obscure architect startling the world with a successful plan for a new capital city for a continent, and another with an equally wonderful conception of an international city or world capital.
The architect must possess, in addition to other qualities, an accurate and careful understanding of accounting and business methods. Not a dollar must be misapplied, not an item overlooked.
Salesmanship is no less important an adjunct of the architect’s equipment. When he has conceived a building in all its parts in such a way as to make a harmonious whole, one single fad of the omnipotent owner, if insisted upon, may throw the entire conception awry. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the layman who is building usually has a little knowledge of architecture. You must be able not only to explain and justify your own ideas, and tactfully dissuade him of his own fancies, but even to spell-bind him so as to keep him contented until the final day, when your finished work may justify itself. Any lack of ability in thus “selling” your product may cost you your reputation. You are aware that any judgment that he may pass upon the work before it is finished is a partial and premature one, but you also know that for him to be willing to wait until it is all over is a strong test of his faith in you, and it becomes your task to bolster up his courage and keep it unshaken.
After rehearsing such a list of requirements for an architect it becomes evident that he is more to be pitied than censured. He has something in common with the country minister who, in order to fill the requirements, must possess a discouraging assemblage of qualities, somewhat like this:
For $600 a year we must have
A devout and pious man.
A preacher of excellent ability.
A student of theology and of history. A guide, philosopher and friend, and A comforter in time of trouble, sym
pathetic and tactful.
A spellbinder and money raiser of the
first ability, and A good organizer.
A sport, popular with young people,
and ready for the game. A married man.
In short, Savonarola, Daniel Webster, Marcus Aurelius, Florence Nightingale, Pierpont Morgan, William Jennings Bryan, Buffalo Bill and Benedict all under one hat! Even Billy Sunday’s qualifications would be challenged.