be diminished in order to develop the business side of the profession? If he develops along the line of making his work of greater social service, will he not find the right ratio between art and efficiency ?
g. Advertising: Without going into the controversial question of whether advertising of a certain kind is or is not proper for professional men, or dwelling on its potential abuses or advantages, the fact seems undeniable that of all the agencies interested in a building project, the architect’s function is the least understood by the lay public.
Advertising seeks to accomplish a greater use or sale of any article or service. Such a result is attained in the business world by means of a liberal expenditure of money along recognized lines of publicity. The architect does not advertise. Between these two opposites, however, there must lie a fruitful field for study, to the end that architecture may be given a wider application and serve society in a fuller measure. It is a great pity that the architect has no way to make known to others who might need it the technical experience which he acquires in the execution of his work. Do we need to find some dignified form of publicity which would not be open to criticism as blatant and immodest? If the architect can help in so many ways to the solution of our social problem, is there a better way to make it known?
II. The Architect’s Relationship to Those
with Whom He Would Co-operate
h. The Contractor’s Function: Great changes have taken place, in recent years, in the status of the contractor in relation to building enterprises. In important W ork the contractor now, generally, sells his services on a professional basis. His remuneration is understood to be for the use of his organization and its knowledge of the building business. This changes the relation of the architect to the whole building procedure.
Some of the contractors have been quick to realize changed conditions and the desire of modern business to deal with one organization equipped to handle all phases of a building problem. There are, to be sure, some so-called “general contractors’’ who do nothing but trade on a name, have no technical knowledge of building, and live on the skill and credit of their sub-contractors. But there are also general contractors and construction companies which are composed of able men and which employ able designers and do all work from the making of drawings and specifications to the financing, building and furnishing of the structure. As against such a system, the average architectural organization dwindles in impressiveness. The services of an
architect, where a really competent contractor is selected on the basis of “confidence,” is not required in the same degree as in the older method, to watch the performance of the contractor or to safeguard the expenditures of the owner. Nor is he so frequently called upon to adjudicate disputes that may arise between the owner and the contractor over interpretations of the contract obligations. On the other hand, with incompetent so-called general contractors who sub-let everything and know nothing of building, the work and responsibility of the architect is greatly increased.
While the architect has been criticized for not giving reliable estimates backed by a responsible guarantee, the tendency in part of the contracting field is growing away from the giving of such guarantees .by the contractor. The willingness of the public to accept unguaranteed estimates from a contractor while questioning the estimate from an architect, seems to indicate a far greater reliance is placed on the contractor’s judgment as to the cost than in that of an architect. May it not be reasonable to assume that contractors, through their new conception, will do more to bring about an understanding of the professional viewpoint than architects have been able to do ? Does this not also suggest a vital reason for establishing a closer cooperation and understanding between architects, consulting specialists, and contractors, and indicate a community of interest that has hitherto been unapparent ?
Must not the architect encourage-every valuable outside aid to efficiency and yet clarify his own function as an element in building production? Can the man who creates the design also be the director or manager of the whole procedure of building or shall be he primarily the designer?
i. The Need for a More Comprehensive Service: The modern tendency of business, accentuated by the experience of the war, is to deal with larger organizations with one responsible head rather than with the several contributing factors that go to make up an. organization to produce a material result. It is said that the architect has done nothing to meet this demand, but that engineers have, to an extent, done so.
The war has brought the whole world face to face with a situation which demands that production be increased and that resources and facilities be developed to an extent far exceeding the pre-war volume. The architect is said to have done nothing to co-ordinate his work with the movement for efficiency in production. The experience of the Construction Division, the Emergency Fleet Housing Division, and the Housing Corporation have demonstrated the great advantage of intimate organized co-operation of all the factors in building
g. Advertising: Without going into the controversial question of whether advertising of a certain kind is or is not proper for professional men, or dwelling on its potential abuses or advantages, the fact seems undeniable that of all the agencies interested in a building project, the architect’s function is the least understood by the lay public.
Advertising seeks to accomplish a greater use or sale of any article or service. Such a result is attained in the business world by means of a liberal expenditure of money along recognized lines of publicity. The architect does not advertise. Between these two opposites, however, there must lie a fruitful field for study, to the end that architecture may be given a wider application and serve society in a fuller measure. It is a great pity that the architect has no way to make known to others who might need it the technical experience which he acquires in the execution of his work. Do we need to find some dignified form of publicity which would not be open to criticism as blatant and immodest? If the architect can help in so many ways to the solution of our social problem, is there a better way to make it known?
II. The Architect’s Relationship to Those
with Whom He Would Co-operate
h. The Contractor’s Function: Great changes have taken place, in recent years, in the status of the contractor in relation to building enterprises. In important W ork the contractor now, generally, sells his services on a professional basis. His remuneration is understood to be for the use of his organization and its knowledge of the building business. This changes the relation of the architect to the whole building procedure.
Some of the contractors have been quick to realize changed conditions and the desire of modern business to deal with one organization equipped to handle all phases of a building problem. There are, to be sure, some so-called “general contractors’’ who do nothing but trade on a name, have no technical knowledge of building, and live on the skill and credit of their sub-contractors. But there are also general contractors and construction companies which are composed of able men and which employ able designers and do all work from the making of drawings and specifications to the financing, building and furnishing of the structure. As against such a system, the average architectural organization dwindles in impressiveness. The services of an
architect, where a really competent contractor is selected on the basis of “confidence,” is not required in the same degree as in the older method, to watch the performance of the contractor or to safeguard the expenditures of the owner. Nor is he so frequently called upon to adjudicate disputes that may arise between the owner and the contractor over interpretations of the contract obligations. On the other hand, with incompetent so-called general contractors who sub-let everything and know nothing of building, the work and responsibility of the architect is greatly increased.
While the architect has been criticized for not giving reliable estimates backed by a responsible guarantee, the tendency in part of the contracting field is growing away from the giving of such guarantees .by the contractor. The willingness of the public to accept unguaranteed estimates from a contractor while questioning the estimate from an architect, seems to indicate a far greater reliance is placed on the contractor’s judgment as to the cost than in that of an architect. May it not be reasonable to assume that contractors, through their new conception, will do more to bring about an understanding of the professional viewpoint than architects have been able to do ? Does this not also suggest a vital reason for establishing a closer cooperation and understanding between architects, consulting specialists, and contractors, and indicate a community of interest that has hitherto been unapparent ?
Must not the architect encourage-every valuable outside aid to efficiency and yet clarify his own function as an element in building production? Can the man who creates the design also be the director or manager of the whole procedure of building or shall be he primarily the designer?
i. The Need for a More Comprehensive Service: The modern tendency of business, accentuated by the experience of the war, is to deal with larger organizations with one responsible head rather than with the several contributing factors that go to make up an. organization to produce a material result. It is said that the architect has done nothing to meet this demand, but that engineers have, to an extent, done so.
The war has brought the whole world face to face with a situation which demands that production be increased and that resources and facilities be developed to an extent far exceeding the pre-war volume. The architect is said to have done nothing to co-ordinate his work with the movement for efficiency in production. The experience of the Construction Division, the Emergency Fleet Housing Division, and the Housing Corporation have demonstrated the great advantage of intimate organized co-operation of all the factors in building