The Building an Engineering Project
No matter how beautiful a modern buildingmay be, if it does not in every way meet the living demands of our times, it is a failure. In the purely practical sense, the building must work, and it must perform this work with the highest possible economy and efficiency. Only in so far as the building fulfills this condition does it embody the spirit of our times, even though beauty be defined as an expression of function through appearance. It is the engineer, whether he call himself an architect or not, who establishes the criteria of function. It is the architect, even if he be an engineer, who so moulds the appearance of materials that they express their functional use.
Thus the planning of a modern structure must begin with an analysis of the purpose it is to serve, and the best means by which the buildingmay be made to function properly and to the end in view. As. the building more and more takes on the character of a machine, so do its design, construction and. operation become subject to the same type of rules that govern the design, construction and operation, for instance, of a machine tool or of a locomotive. To a large extent, the same sort of economic factors that control the selection of the character and capacity of the central station equipment determines the wisdom of erecting this or that type and size of building on any given ground area in any given locality. The advisability of investing the required amount of capital in the project is determined in the same manner that the probable success of the same investment in advertising, in a projected manufacturing plant, or in a proposed mining venture, is established. And in all of these considerations the probable continued usefulness of the structure for its intended purpose becomes of greater importance as the rapid strides of science bring the future nearer and nearer.
Our grandfathers built for the succeeding generations. The rate of development was slow, and a building which would generally serve the demands made upon it for a century would necessarily be of a substantial nature. But with us in a single generation, even the best we can do with all the data and facilities at our command, lags hopelessly behind the procession, and just as in the industrial plant a tool is out of date almost before it has shown signs of appreciable wear, so a building erected today is outclassed tomorrow. The writer well remembers the late Douglas Robinson, when outlining the location and property to be improved by the construction of a building some twenty years ago, ending his directions with the proviso that it must be “the cheapest thing that will hold together for fifteen years. ” When the amortization charges must be based on
so short a period as this, and with land taxes constantly increasing, it becomes obvious that construction costs must be based on a cubic foot valuation that prohibits the use of any but the cheapest materials and methods. It is no wonder that a well known builder with a tradition of firs-class construction behind him, recently remarked that we have entered the era of “near building. ”
Even the cost of carrying the required capital inactive during the period of construction has its effect in speeding up production to the point where every part of the building that, by any ingenuity of man, can be machine made must be so made. Standardized parts jammed or dragged through dies, cut to template and, so as to avoid machining, spot welded together, become necessary to the successful building, as we moderns define success. Steady is the increased comparative cost of hand fabrication. And only in hand fabricated construction can the individual taste of the designer or workman find expression. So, with ever increasing acceleration, the very erection of the building becomes a purely mechanized process. Here arises the very difficulty that, as Frederick W. Ackerman recently pointed out, (“Craftsmen — Machines — Credit — Speed, ” Journal, A. I. A., June, 1923), has led to a series of crises in the building industry occurring with increasing frequency, for, due to the tremendous demand for manufactured building materials created by this sudden development in building construction, vast industries have sprung up and, under scientific leadership, have reduced their output to pure machine products. Meanwhile the mechanization of building construction to a considerable extent, yet remains a hand process depending on a fading craftsmanship for which the required human tool is decreasing both in number and adaptability. So it appears that unless our entire economic and industrial systems, as they affect the building industry, can be radically altered, both the architect and the builder must devise ways and means to adapt themselves to this situation. If there be such a thing, a new tradition is required in the building industry— a new spirit expressed in new designs and methods modeled on those developed in our laboratories and motor-driven workshops. Just as the engineer has learned to apply the lesson of science in the production of manufactured goods, so must the architect and builder learn to apply this same lesson to the construction of buildings. Otherwise, and sooner or later science and machine industry, for their own self-protection, and to control their output, must take the helm, as indeed at the present time they are beginning to do.
The successful architect of today is the one who has learned thus to treat the building as a machine. His designs are successful because the
No matter how beautiful a modern buildingmay be, if it does not in every way meet the living demands of our times, it is a failure. In the purely practical sense, the building must work, and it must perform this work with the highest possible economy and efficiency. Only in so far as the building fulfills this condition does it embody the spirit of our times, even though beauty be defined as an expression of function through appearance. It is the engineer, whether he call himself an architect or not, who establishes the criteria of function. It is the architect, even if he be an engineer, who so moulds the appearance of materials that they express their functional use.
Thus the planning of a modern structure must begin with an analysis of the purpose it is to serve, and the best means by which the buildingmay be made to function properly and to the end in view. As. the building more and more takes on the character of a machine, so do its design, construction and. operation become subject to the same type of rules that govern the design, construction and operation, for instance, of a machine tool or of a locomotive. To a large extent, the same sort of economic factors that control the selection of the character and capacity of the central station equipment determines the wisdom of erecting this or that type and size of building on any given ground area in any given locality. The advisability of investing the required amount of capital in the project is determined in the same manner that the probable success of the same investment in advertising, in a projected manufacturing plant, or in a proposed mining venture, is established. And in all of these considerations the probable continued usefulness of the structure for its intended purpose becomes of greater importance as the rapid strides of science bring the future nearer and nearer.
Our grandfathers built for the succeeding generations. The rate of development was slow, and a building which would generally serve the demands made upon it for a century would necessarily be of a substantial nature. But with us in a single generation, even the best we can do with all the data and facilities at our command, lags hopelessly behind the procession, and just as in the industrial plant a tool is out of date almost before it has shown signs of appreciable wear, so a building erected today is outclassed tomorrow. The writer well remembers the late Douglas Robinson, when outlining the location and property to be improved by the construction of a building some twenty years ago, ending his directions with the proviso that it must be “the cheapest thing that will hold together for fifteen years. ” When the amortization charges must be based on
so short a period as this, and with land taxes constantly increasing, it becomes obvious that construction costs must be based on a cubic foot valuation that prohibits the use of any but the cheapest materials and methods. It is no wonder that a well known builder with a tradition of firs-class construction behind him, recently remarked that we have entered the era of “near building. ”
Even the cost of carrying the required capital inactive during the period of construction has its effect in speeding up production to the point where every part of the building that, by any ingenuity of man, can be machine made must be so made. Standardized parts jammed or dragged through dies, cut to template and, so as to avoid machining, spot welded together, become necessary to the successful building, as we moderns define success. Steady is the increased comparative cost of hand fabrication. And only in hand fabricated construction can the individual taste of the designer or workman find expression. So, with ever increasing acceleration, the very erection of the building becomes a purely mechanized process. Here arises the very difficulty that, as Frederick W. Ackerman recently pointed out, (“Craftsmen — Machines — Credit — Speed, ” Journal, A. I. A., June, 1923), has led to a series of crises in the building industry occurring with increasing frequency, for, due to the tremendous demand for manufactured building materials created by this sudden development in building construction, vast industries have sprung up and, under scientific leadership, have reduced their output to pure machine products. Meanwhile the mechanization of building construction to a considerable extent, yet remains a hand process depending on a fading craftsmanship for which the required human tool is decreasing both in number and adaptability. So it appears that unless our entire economic and industrial systems, as they affect the building industry, can be radically altered, both the architect and the builder must devise ways and means to adapt themselves to this situation. If there be such a thing, a new tradition is required in the building industry— a new spirit expressed in new designs and methods modeled on those developed in our laboratories and motor-driven workshops. Just as the engineer has learned to apply the lesson of science in the production of manufactured goods, so must the architect and builder learn to apply this same lesson to the construction of buildings. Otherwise, and sooner or later science and machine industry, for their own self-protection, and to control their output, must take the helm, as indeed at the present time they are beginning to do.
The successful architect of today is the one who has learned thus to treat the building as a machine. His designs are successful because the