ment departments during the war. An interesting letter on the same subject, written by Mr. C. B. J. Snyder of New York, in a great part confirmed the position taken by Mr. Boyd.
The major part of the evening was devoted to topics L and M of the program. The former raised the liveliest discussion as to the best and most desirable form of architectural societies. There seemed to be a very general agreement that the proposed action of the convention in encouraging the formation of State Associations had been justified. Illinois gave very interesting reports as to the effectiveness of the State organization—how it supplemented the work of the Chapter and supported it in every way and yet had developed an independent force of its own owing to the co-operation of great numbers of architects throughout the State, who for one reason or another were not directly associated with the Institute. There were interesting reports from Kansas and Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York. Delegates of the two latter States indicated that they are even now taking steps to reorganize their existing State Associations, making them independent of the Institute so as to take in on the basis of comparatively small membership dues all those architects who are qualified to practice, but who by reason of their distance from the principal cities or for financial reasons are not now connected with any architectural society. Ohio was apparently hesitating as to the advisability of this step, but delegates from New York reported that preliminary notices had already been sent out for a meeting to be held in Utica on the 7th day of June to form a new association.
Under the last topic, M, the subject of competitions was very thoroughly debated. Prof. Laird presented an interesting resume of a statement on the subject which he had prepared for the Philadelphia Chapter. His opinion was on the whole favorable to competitions as being both the best means for selecting an architect and for getting the best architectural result. This stirred up a mighty discussion, some holding that results of competitions were rarely satisfactory either to those who participated or in the design of the structure resulting therefrom, some contending that they were a necessary evil, and others holding that they were an entirely unnecessary evil. There was no doubt that the members agreed that the principle of regulating competitions cannot be questioned; that is to say that competitions if held must conform to the code set by the Institute. One of the most interesting remarks made during the evening was that of Mr. Maurarl of St. Louis, who told of a case in which his firm had been invited to compete for an important building and had declined on the ground
that the character of the building was such that a competition could hardly elicit satisfactory results because the problem needed intimate conferences between the owners and architect. In this particular case the owners had abandoned the idea of a competition and had awarded the work to Mr. Mauran’s firm, whereupon they prepared quite a number of different schemes for the same building, developing, in other words, a series of sets of competition drawings themselves for their client’s consideration. These different sets were then presented one after the other in the order of their development, and each in turn was declared by the client to be acceptable until the last in the order of development was acknowledged to be superior to any of the others. It was evident that in this particular case no competition could have produced a result so directly the effect of the conferences that had preceded the development of the plan.
Those who were most insistent on the value of competitions were perfectly ready to acknowledge that everything lay in the wisdom of the program and the wisdom of the jury, but the critics were quick to point out that if the program were properly written; that is to say that if the professional adviser had really studied the problem so as to include within its fundamental conditions the essentials to a satisfactory solution then the program itself would solve the program. On the whole, delegates from the eastern and central sections of the country were generally of the opinion that competitions are to be discouraged, but that in any case the standards must be maintained, insisting that the programs must be carefully drawn and the jurors carefully selected, while the delegates from the West and the South, with the exception of San Francisco, clung to the competition as their only hope against deplorable public architecture. These parts of the country hold that in the last few years the competition program of the Institute has greatly helped in clearing up the situation with regard to public work, and that for a great many years to come they will wish to continue the valuable educational influence which has come through its enforcement.
Quite aside from the three main sessions of the convention devoted to the Post-War program, the subjects covered by that program were constantly brought up in the course of other debates. While delegates from some of the big cities seemed to think there was nothing very important so far in evidence as the result of the committee’s work, delegates from the rest of the country were unquestionably enthusiastic about the possibilities of this Post- War effort. The remark was common that the Institute had really thereby struck its gait and was
The major part of the evening was devoted to topics L and M of the program. The former raised the liveliest discussion as to the best and most desirable form of architectural societies. There seemed to be a very general agreement that the proposed action of the convention in encouraging the formation of State Associations had been justified. Illinois gave very interesting reports as to the effectiveness of the State organization—how it supplemented the work of the Chapter and supported it in every way and yet had developed an independent force of its own owing to the co-operation of great numbers of architects throughout the State, who for one reason or another were not directly associated with the Institute. There were interesting reports from Kansas and Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York. Delegates of the two latter States indicated that they are even now taking steps to reorganize their existing State Associations, making them independent of the Institute so as to take in on the basis of comparatively small membership dues all those architects who are qualified to practice, but who by reason of their distance from the principal cities or for financial reasons are not now connected with any architectural society. Ohio was apparently hesitating as to the advisability of this step, but delegates from New York reported that preliminary notices had already been sent out for a meeting to be held in Utica on the 7th day of June to form a new association.
Under the last topic, M, the subject of competitions was very thoroughly debated. Prof. Laird presented an interesting resume of a statement on the subject which he had prepared for the Philadelphia Chapter. His opinion was on the whole favorable to competitions as being both the best means for selecting an architect and for getting the best architectural result. This stirred up a mighty discussion, some holding that results of competitions were rarely satisfactory either to those who participated or in the design of the structure resulting therefrom, some contending that they were a necessary evil, and others holding that they were an entirely unnecessary evil. There was no doubt that the members agreed that the principle of regulating competitions cannot be questioned; that is to say that competitions if held must conform to the code set by the Institute. One of the most interesting remarks made during the evening was that of Mr. Maurarl of St. Louis, who told of a case in which his firm had been invited to compete for an important building and had declined on the ground
that the character of the building was such that a competition could hardly elicit satisfactory results because the problem needed intimate conferences between the owners and architect. In this particular case the owners had abandoned the idea of a competition and had awarded the work to Mr. Mauran’s firm, whereupon they prepared quite a number of different schemes for the same building, developing, in other words, a series of sets of competition drawings themselves for their client’s consideration. These different sets were then presented one after the other in the order of their development, and each in turn was declared by the client to be acceptable until the last in the order of development was acknowledged to be superior to any of the others. It was evident that in this particular case no competition could have produced a result so directly the effect of the conferences that had preceded the development of the plan.
Those who were most insistent on the value of competitions were perfectly ready to acknowledge that everything lay in the wisdom of the program and the wisdom of the jury, but the critics were quick to point out that if the program were properly written; that is to say that if the professional adviser had really studied the problem so as to include within its fundamental conditions the essentials to a satisfactory solution then the program itself would solve the program. On the whole, delegates from the eastern and central sections of the country were generally of the opinion that competitions are to be discouraged, but that in any case the standards must be maintained, insisting that the programs must be carefully drawn and the jurors carefully selected, while the delegates from the West and the South, with the exception of San Francisco, clung to the competition as their only hope against deplorable public architecture. These parts of the country hold that in the last few years the competition program of the Institute has greatly helped in clearing up the situation with regard to public work, and that for a great many years to come they will wish to continue the valuable educational influence which has come through its enforcement.
Quite aside from the three main sessions of the convention devoted to the Post-War program, the subjects covered by that program were constantly brought up in the course of other debates. While delegates from some of the big cities seemed to think there was nothing very important so far in evidence as the result of the committee’s work, delegates from the rest of the country were unquestionably enthusiastic about the possibilities of this Post- War effort. The remark was common that the Institute had really thereby struck its gait and was