pleted structure is necessary as a prerequisite in arranging any scheme for financing its cost. Individuals are entitled to know in advance, approximately, what obligations they are entering into. Too many architects have been slow in realizing how vital is a reliable preliminary estimate to the success of a building undertaking.
An architect’s estimate, even though correct, carries with it no financial guarantee that protects the owners or lenders in the amount of money they may be called upon to spend. The architect’s status as agent of the owner imposes upon the owner full financial responsibility for all errors of judgment or defects growing out of lack of experience or ability on the part of the architect, except in such remote cases where it can be proved that the architect had failed to exercise due diligence and care. The architect’s status is said to be not clearly enough professional, in the lay mind, to make apparent the reasonableness of this relation.
How shall the architect supplement his work, if at all, so as to overcome these apparent deficiencies ? Is it true that there is inherent danger in a financial guarantee given by a person or firm engaged to render both professional and commercial service, that in the performance of this service their judgment may be prejudiced as to the quality of workmanship and materials entering into the construction of a building by the possibility of a financial loss under their guarantee? Is there any other way out of the difficulty? As the English system of Quantity Surveys seems to afford an economical basis for estimates, would its general adoption help in the solution of this problem?
c. The Architect as a Citizen: The architect, it is said, does not understand or sympathize with the viewpoint of business, nor does business understand the professional ideals of the architect. The architect does not take sufficient interest in business, political, or civic organizations. His ability, through his peculiar training and experience, to render service in these fields is little understood. Other more aggressive interests are therefore more closely identified in the public mind with the building world. While the architect may render an excellent service to an individual client, is it not true .that he has failed signally to render the equally necessary service for which his training has fitted him to the community in which he lives? Is there not conspicuous evidence of this in the formation of organizations which deal with matters lying well within the domain of architecture and yet which are promoted and financed by laymen ? Architects have looked on these various usurpations of their functions without protest, with the result that they are quite generally excluded from participation in many plans for improvement and amelioration of living and other con
ditions. What are the particular functions of government in which the architect can be of special service by reason of his technical knowledge ? How can he make the public realize the importance of his aid in these particulars?
d. Percentage Remuneration: It is commonly said that the theory of charging for professional service on the basis of a percentage on the cost is unsound. While the cost of two buildings may be the same, the cost of rendering the architectural service for the two buildings would never be the same. A given percentage in one case might be too low and in another too high; further, the public cannot disabuse its mind of the notion that where a man’s remuneration is based upon a percentage of cost, there will be a tendency, if not actually, to attempt to increase the cost, at least to refrain from making an effort to reduce it. Has the present practice a marked influence on the extent to which the architect’s service is used? Are the substitutes satisfactory that have been suggested and are actually, to a certain extent, in practice (the cost plus fee system) ? Is there any other practical suggestion ?
e. Supervision of Construction: Architects are said to devote themselves too exclusively to the study and preparation of drawings, specifications, and contract documents, and to entrust the supervision of the works too largely to salaried employees. The owner’s active interest is in the actual construction, not in the drawing. In watching the progress of the work he is thrown into closer contact with the contractor and the salaried employee, with the result that the value of the architect’s service in connection with the actual construction seems unimportant to him. As the busy architect is already very heavily burdened, is there any practical solution of this difficulty? Would his position be better and his services more adequate if those to whom supervision of construction is entrusted were his associates or partners, rather than employees?
/. The Status of the Architect; art, profession or business? To the vast majority of people the construction of a building is distinctly a business undertaking, and the men they associate with the building business are the ones they have learned to identify with the actual operation. The public— including its governmental officials—does not associate the architect with the actual operation of building construction with the same understanding they give to engineering and construction companies. The elements of conception, study, and design are regarded as intangible and secondary things and are considered only in this light—if considered at all. Yet the architect is unwilling to diminish in any degree that part of his professional effort which makes for the esthetic ideal. Need it
An architect’s estimate, even though correct, carries with it no financial guarantee that protects the owners or lenders in the amount of money they may be called upon to spend. The architect’s status as agent of the owner imposes upon the owner full financial responsibility for all errors of judgment or defects growing out of lack of experience or ability on the part of the architect, except in such remote cases where it can be proved that the architect had failed to exercise due diligence and care. The architect’s status is said to be not clearly enough professional, in the lay mind, to make apparent the reasonableness of this relation.
How shall the architect supplement his work, if at all, so as to overcome these apparent deficiencies ? Is it true that there is inherent danger in a financial guarantee given by a person or firm engaged to render both professional and commercial service, that in the performance of this service their judgment may be prejudiced as to the quality of workmanship and materials entering into the construction of a building by the possibility of a financial loss under their guarantee? Is there any other way out of the difficulty? As the English system of Quantity Surveys seems to afford an economical basis for estimates, would its general adoption help in the solution of this problem?
c. The Architect as a Citizen: The architect, it is said, does not understand or sympathize with the viewpoint of business, nor does business understand the professional ideals of the architect. The architect does not take sufficient interest in business, political, or civic organizations. His ability, through his peculiar training and experience, to render service in these fields is little understood. Other more aggressive interests are therefore more closely identified in the public mind with the building world. While the architect may render an excellent service to an individual client, is it not true .that he has failed signally to render the equally necessary service for which his training has fitted him to the community in which he lives? Is there not conspicuous evidence of this in the formation of organizations which deal with matters lying well within the domain of architecture and yet which are promoted and financed by laymen ? Architects have looked on these various usurpations of their functions without protest, with the result that they are quite generally excluded from participation in many plans for improvement and amelioration of living and other con
ditions. What are the particular functions of government in which the architect can be of special service by reason of his technical knowledge ? How can he make the public realize the importance of his aid in these particulars?
d. Percentage Remuneration: It is commonly said that the theory of charging for professional service on the basis of a percentage on the cost is unsound. While the cost of two buildings may be the same, the cost of rendering the architectural service for the two buildings would never be the same. A given percentage in one case might be too low and in another too high; further, the public cannot disabuse its mind of the notion that where a man’s remuneration is based upon a percentage of cost, there will be a tendency, if not actually, to attempt to increase the cost, at least to refrain from making an effort to reduce it. Has the present practice a marked influence on the extent to which the architect’s service is used? Are the substitutes satisfactory that have been suggested and are actually, to a certain extent, in practice (the cost plus fee system) ? Is there any other practical suggestion ?
e. Supervision of Construction: Architects are said to devote themselves too exclusively to the study and preparation of drawings, specifications, and contract documents, and to entrust the supervision of the works too largely to salaried employees. The owner’s active interest is in the actual construction, not in the drawing. In watching the progress of the work he is thrown into closer contact with the contractor and the salaried employee, with the result that the value of the architect’s service in connection with the actual construction seems unimportant to him. As the busy architect is already very heavily burdened, is there any practical solution of this difficulty? Would his position be better and his services more adequate if those to whom supervision of construction is entrusted were his associates or partners, rather than employees?
/. The Status of the Architect; art, profession or business? To the vast majority of people the construction of a building is distinctly a business undertaking, and the men they associate with the building business are the ones they have learned to identify with the actual operation. The public— including its governmental officials—does not associate the architect with the actual operation of building construction with the same understanding they give to engineering and construction companies. The elements of conception, study, and design are regarded as intangible and secondary things and are considered only in this light—if considered at all. Yet the architect is unwilling to diminish in any degree that part of his professional effort which makes for the esthetic ideal. Need it