The American Architect
Wednesday, March 5, 1919Number 2254 Architecture After the War
III. Efficiency
By C. H. Blackall, F. A. I. A.
I
F there is one word I detest it is efficiency, for it has been worked to death during the *past
few years and has come to indicate pretty nearly the elimination of everything that makes architecture worth while and a substitution therefor of a classified, indexed, mechanical something which has been imposed upon architecture and called practical when it is really the essence of impracticability if we consider the true results which we know are such as will endure. But there is no other one word which expresses just the thought I have in mind, namely, the process of correlating the forces which, when properly united, will produce true architecture. Efficiency in its proper sense does not mean an engineering structure, nor does it mean a fantastic dream of a genius, nor the plodding evolution of a business man, but it means just that balance of art, business and science toward which we are all really working.
For the purpose of this paper, in developing and carrying out this efficiency, we need consider only three relations of the architect: First, his relations to the owner, the one who makes it possible for him to build; second, his relations to the contractor, who makes it possible for his ideals to be realized; and third, his relations to the public, from whom he must draw his inspirations. It is the failure to properly recognize and consistently and fairly carry out all these relations that is due a considerable measure of the failure and loss of prestige which the architectural profession has suffered during the war, and it is the proper recognition and application of these relations which will go a long way toward reinstating the architect in the position which he would most wish to occupy.
The relation of the architect to the owner is primarily and fundamentally that of a business man, except that not having a commodity for sale he can sell only his brains and the results of his experiences. It is wholly a matter of service, and, assuming that the architect’s organization is properly
balanced, without taking up the question of how the work is divided among the individual members of the organization, there are a few things which must be insisted upon from the very start if we propose to give our client a square deal. When we have a building to do we should know our job thoroughly, not having a general, hazy idea that it will look so and so, or that it will involve such and such problems of construction, or that the bookkeeping may be worked out in a particular line, but we must know the details of what is set before us so thoroughly that we cannot be caught tripping by an inquisitive builder or make mistakes which an indignant agent or owner may call upon us to rectify. If it is an office building we should know everything that is to be known about office buildings. If it is a church we should know just what kind of church is wanted in that particular place and not try to impose a ritualistic design on a Methodist Meetinghouse, nor a pagan temple on a lot which admits only of perpendicular treatment. We should know the details down to the last screw and bolt; know what is the best thing to do and what has been done in other cases. This is not an impossible condition, given the right organization ; and when we do not know a thing we should go to work and dig it out at once. There ought to be no such thing as a specialist in architecture. Every problem should be treated as calling for the utmost architectural care in the initial steps as well as in the final elaboration of beautiful design, and it is not enough to toss off some sketches, but even from the vefy first an architectural job should be treated as something that must be mastered in advance; the program must be worked out so we know what we are doing and have a thorough reason for what we do. It may be stated as a general condition that few men are ever able to do their best all the time. Some of us can put on a spurt in one direction. Many of us can keep on a low level indefinitely, but the ideal organization which is to
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)
Wednesday, March 5, 1919Number 2254 Architecture After the War
III. Efficiency
By C. H. Blackall, F. A. I. A.
I
F there is one word I detest it is efficiency, for it has been worked to death during the *past
few years and has come to indicate pretty nearly the elimination of everything that makes architecture worth while and a substitution therefor of a classified, indexed, mechanical something which has been imposed upon architecture and called practical when it is really the essence of impracticability if we consider the true results which we know are such as will endure. But there is no other one word which expresses just the thought I have in mind, namely, the process of correlating the forces which, when properly united, will produce true architecture. Efficiency in its proper sense does not mean an engineering structure, nor does it mean a fantastic dream of a genius, nor the plodding evolution of a business man, but it means just that balance of art, business and science toward which we are all really working.
For the purpose of this paper, in developing and carrying out this efficiency, we need consider only three relations of the architect: First, his relations to the owner, the one who makes it possible for him to build; second, his relations to the contractor, who makes it possible for his ideals to be realized; and third, his relations to the public, from whom he must draw his inspirations. It is the failure to properly recognize and consistently and fairly carry out all these relations that is due a considerable measure of the failure and loss of prestige which the architectural profession has suffered during the war, and it is the proper recognition and application of these relations which will go a long way toward reinstating the architect in the position which he would most wish to occupy.
The relation of the architect to the owner is primarily and fundamentally that of a business man, except that not having a commodity for sale he can sell only his brains and the results of his experiences. It is wholly a matter of service, and, assuming that the architect’s organization is properly
balanced, without taking up the question of how the work is divided among the individual members of the organization, there are a few things which must be insisted upon from the very start if we propose to give our client a square deal. When we have a building to do we should know our job thoroughly, not having a general, hazy idea that it will look so and so, or that it will involve such and such problems of construction, or that the bookkeeping may be worked out in a particular line, but we must know the details of what is set before us so thoroughly that we cannot be caught tripping by an inquisitive builder or make mistakes which an indignant agent or owner may call upon us to rectify. If it is an office building we should know everything that is to be known about office buildings. If it is a church we should know just what kind of church is wanted in that particular place and not try to impose a ritualistic design on a Methodist Meetinghouse, nor a pagan temple on a lot which admits only of perpendicular treatment. We should know the details down to the last screw and bolt; know what is the best thing to do and what has been done in other cases. This is not an impossible condition, given the right organization ; and when we do not know a thing we should go to work and dig it out at once. There ought to be no such thing as a specialist in architecture. Every problem should be treated as calling for the utmost architectural care in the initial steps as well as in the final elaboration of beautiful design, and it is not enough to toss off some sketches, but even from the vefy first an architectural job should be treated as something that must be mastered in advance; the program must be worked out so we know what we are doing and have a thorough reason for what we do. It may be stated as a general condition that few men are ever able to do their best all the time. Some of us can put on a spurt in one direction. Many of us can keep on a low level indefinitely, but the ideal organization which is to
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)