The American Architect
Vol. CXVWednesday, March 19, 1919Number 2256
Architecture and Engineering
By Thomas Crane Young
THE preference given by the United States Government to the engineer and contractor over the architect in the conduct of building operations for war was perhaps natural, considering the netessity for haste and the fact that the army officials in charge of the preliminary organization were themselves primarily engineers. It must be admitted that in regard to rapid construction surprising results were obtained, although without the usual necessity for any consideration of cost. Whether architects could have done better or as well must always remain an open question in the absence of a comparative test under like conditions. There is, unfortunately, some ground for the criticism that the architectural profession has not kept pace with modern business developments and has given an unwise prominence to that portion of the business of building which has been designated by the critics as “Art.”
The American Institute of Architects remains today practically as organized about fifty years ago, when living conditions and business methods were as different from the present as day and night. It still attempts to govern through an inflexible Code of Ethics based upon archaic practices which are unworkable today, and, consequently, seldom closely followed.
The modern practice of engineering as applied to buildings is largely a development of the last fifteen or twenty years, and its national association is organized on a more liberal basis. Broadly speaking, it is governed from the bottom up and, is, therefore, democratic and more in harmony with the times.
The regulations established by the Institute are largely responsible for any misunderstandings regarding the position of the engineer in relation to building. The Schedule of Charges states that the architect is to be reimbursed for “the costs of the services of heating, ventilating, mechanical and electrical engineers. Although this wording is a recent modification, the code still implies as general custom permits, the separation of these engineering activities from the services to be performed by the
architect. All, or nearly all, of these specialties are necessary to any building operation of magnitude and their work must be incorporated in the general architectural plans. It is small wonder then that the owner should question the constructive ability of the architect and consider himself subject to imposition through the multiplication of fees. If the owner deals with each specialist separately he is subject to an added inconvenience and the architect loses a part of the control which he should properly exercise himself. The same may be said for continuous superintendence which also is excluded by the code from the service properly performed by the architect. The total expense for professional services often amounts to a considerable sum and forms a part of the cost of the building which must be provided for. It is unbusinesslike to leave the matter in doubt.
To avoid explanation and perhaps a disagreeable argument with an owner, or the alternative of paying for this technical advice from his own pocket, the architect in some cases seeks to cover the matter up by inserting a clause in his specifications requiring the contractor to include in his proposal an amount sufficient for the purpose, but disguised as “payment for shop drawings” or some similar expedient. To say the least, it is an unbusinesslike shifting on to the owner or contractor of responsibility which should properly be assumed by the architect. The disinclination on the part of architects frankly to face the situation has led to still worse abuses. In some cases manufacturers of building material offer to supply engineering service gratis, provided their material is specified or purchased. Of course, the cost is added to the manufacturer’s price, but the service so obtained is not likely to be the best. It is, of course, proper that the owner should pay for any necessary technical services, but it certainly would be more dignified and businesslike for it all to be included in the architect’s fee, which should be correspondingly increased.
There are always two sides to any controversy, but it is difficult to formulate a defense until a criti
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)
Vol. CXVWednesday, March 19, 1919Number 2256
Architecture and Engineering
By Thomas Crane Young
THE preference given by the United States Government to the engineer and contractor over the architect in the conduct of building operations for war was perhaps natural, considering the netessity for haste and the fact that the army officials in charge of the preliminary organization were themselves primarily engineers. It must be admitted that in regard to rapid construction surprising results were obtained, although without the usual necessity for any consideration of cost. Whether architects could have done better or as well must always remain an open question in the absence of a comparative test under like conditions. There is, unfortunately, some ground for the criticism that the architectural profession has not kept pace with modern business developments and has given an unwise prominence to that portion of the business of building which has been designated by the critics as “Art.”
The American Institute of Architects remains today practically as organized about fifty years ago, when living conditions and business methods were as different from the present as day and night. It still attempts to govern through an inflexible Code of Ethics based upon archaic practices which are unworkable today, and, consequently, seldom closely followed.
The modern practice of engineering as applied to buildings is largely a development of the last fifteen or twenty years, and its national association is organized on a more liberal basis. Broadly speaking, it is governed from the bottom up and, is, therefore, democratic and more in harmony with the times.
The regulations established by the Institute are largely responsible for any misunderstandings regarding the position of the engineer in relation to building. The Schedule of Charges states that the architect is to be reimbursed for “the costs of the services of heating, ventilating, mechanical and electrical engineers. Although this wording is a recent modification, the code still implies as general custom permits, the separation of these engineering activities from the services to be performed by the
architect. All, or nearly all, of these specialties are necessary to any building operation of magnitude and their work must be incorporated in the general architectural plans. It is small wonder then that the owner should question the constructive ability of the architect and consider himself subject to imposition through the multiplication of fees. If the owner deals with each specialist separately he is subject to an added inconvenience and the architect loses a part of the control which he should properly exercise himself. The same may be said for continuous superintendence which also is excluded by the code from the service properly performed by the architect. The total expense for professional services often amounts to a considerable sum and forms a part of the cost of the building which must be provided for. It is unbusinesslike to leave the matter in doubt.
To avoid explanation and perhaps a disagreeable argument with an owner, or the alternative of paying for this technical advice from his own pocket, the architect in some cases seeks to cover the matter up by inserting a clause in his specifications requiring the contractor to include in his proposal an amount sufficient for the purpose, but disguised as “payment for shop drawings” or some similar expedient. To say the least, it is an unbusinesslike shifting on to the owner or contractor of responsibility which should properly be assumed by the architect. The disinclination on the part of architects frankly to face the situation has led to still worse abuses. In some cases manufacturers of building material offer to supply engineering service gratis, provided their material is specified or purchased. Of course, the cost is added to the manufacturer’s price, but the service so obtained is not likely to be the best. It is, of course, proper that the owner should pay for any necessary technical services, but it certainly would be more dignified and businesslike for it all to be included in the architect’s fee, which should be correspondingly increased.
There are always two sides to any controversy, but it is difficult to formulate a defense until a criti
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)