TheAmericanArchitect
The ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
VOL. CXXY WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1924 NUMBER 2441
FINANCE and the ARCHITECT
BY EDWIN H. HEWITT, F. A. I. A. BOTH the banker and the architect have a
fciiiision to perform in the development of
Sie country, a mission requiring close cg-opertttion between these two necessary elements the Construction field. That there has not ahffiayS-Tefen this co-operative spirit in the handling of building projects is apparent on all sides. The writer confesses often to a feeling of discouragement when observing how apparently indifferent the various elements in a building project are in their attitude toward the economic aspect as well as the professional service required, whether in public or private work.
Art in the civic sense and architecture the art still require from the practitioner a knowledge of design based on tradition centuries old, governed by principles of proportion, scale and coordination of plan. The science and art of building construction have been profoundly changed and are constantly changing by reason of discoveries and innovations in engineering science, with the inevitable tendency to increasing complexity m building requirements. To cope with these ever expanding responsibilities the overburdened architect has been forced to create organizations able to handle the multitudinous and intricate problems involved in correct architectural practice.
The necessity of being the designer and the co-ordinator of the arts and sciences involved in the production of modern buildings calls into play a high degree of executive ability, as well as loyal team play on the part of the expert assistants necessary to the efficient functioning of the architect’s office. This wide experience should assuredly fit the competent architect to be a most essential economic factor in all building operations.
The problems involved in the advancing of credit and the determination of those factors controlling the establishing of credit, demand also a keen sense of responsibility and are largely, individual, both from the standpoint of the lender
and of the borrower. When weighing the advantages or disadvantages of a project to be financed, even though the project has been designed by the engineer and architect in a sound manner, bankers will differ. To one the project may seem perfectly feasible from his individual viewpoint, and to the other’s judgment may lack something, possibly selling value. After all, those underwriting issues of securities for building projects of one kind or another must always bear in mind the possibility of absorption on the part of the buying public. One might as well recognize at once that this must be a factor in the individual attitude on the part of the banker.
For the purposes of this discussion only broad generalities need be used. Nevertheless, and admitting the sins of commission and omission on the part of the architectural profession, the architects of ability of this country have proven again and again their right to be considered an essential element in the building industry. It would be tedious to labor this point. The writer insists that these very qualities admittedly required in a thorough study of a given problem, where talent in design, economic study, engineering science and the ability to co-ordinate in a masterly manner all the complex requirements of modern buildings are from time to time glaringly absent in buildings otherwise ably handled as far as details of financing are concerned.
The observing architect may therefore be pardoned for calling attention to this paradoxical aspect to be observed in certain building operations which come to his notice.
There seems to be a difference of point of view
on the part of those financing a municipal or private building project on one hand, or the building of a revenue producing plant like a hydroelectric development project on the other. Even architects are approached from time to time by hopeful bond salesmen with offerings of securities representing these two varieties of building proj
(Copyright, 1924, The Architectural & Building Press, Inc.)
The ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
VOL. CXXY WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1924 NUMBER 2441
FINANCE and the ARCHITECT
BY EDWIN H. HEWITT, F. A. I. A. BOTH the banker and the architect have a
fciiiision to perform in the development of
Sie country, a mission requiring close cg-opertttion between these two necessary elements the Construction field. That there has not ahffiayS-Tefen this co-operative spirit in the handling of building projects is apparent on all sides. The writer confesses often to a feeling of discouragement when observing how apparently indifferent the various elements in a building project are in their attitude toward the economic aspect as well as the professional service required, whether in public or private work.
Art in the civic sense and architecture the art still require from the practitioner a knowledge of design based on tradition centuries old, governed by principles of proportion, scale and coordination of plan. The science and art of building construction have been profoundly changed and are constantly changing by reason of discoveries and innovations in engineering science, with the inevitable tendency to increasing complexity m building requirements. To cope with these ever expanding responsibilities the overburdened architect has been forced to create organizations able to handle the multitudinous and intricate problems involved in correct architectural practice.
The necessity of being the designer and the co-ordinator of the arts and sciences involved in the production of modern buildings calls into play a high degree of executive ability, as well as loyal team play on the part of the expert assistants necessary to the efficient functioning of the architect’s office. This wide experience should assuredly fit the competent architect to be a most essential economic factor in all building operations.
The problems involved in the advancing of credit and the determination of those factors controlling the establishing of credit, demand also a keen sense of responsibility and are largely, individual, both from the standpoint of the lender
and of the borrower. When weighing the advantages or disadvantages of a project to be financed, even though the project has been designed by the engineer and architect in a sound manner, bankers will differ. To one the project may seem perfectly feasible from his individual viewpoint, and to the other’s judgment may lack something, possibly selling value. After all, those underwriting issues of securities for building projects of one kind or another must always bear in mind the possibility of absorption on the part of the buying public. One might as well recognize at once that this must be a factor in the individual attitude on the part of the banker.
For the purposes of this discussion only broad generalities need be used. Nevertheless, and admitting the sins of commission and omission on the part of the architectural profession, the architects of ability of this country have proven again and again their right to be considered an essential element in the building industry. It would be tedious to labor this point. The writer insists that these very qualities admittedly required in a thorough study of a given problem, where talent in design, economic study, engineering science and the ability to co-ordinate in a masterly manner all the complex requirements of modern buildings are from time to time glaringly absent in buildings otherwise ably handled as far as details of financing are concerned.
The observing architect may therefore be pardoned for calling attention to this paradoxical aspect to be observed in certain building operations which come to his notice.
There seems to be a difference of point of view
on the part of those financing a municipal or private building project on one hand, or the building of a revenue producing plant like a hydroelectric development project on the other. Even architects are approached from time to time by hopeful bond salesmen with offerings of securities representing these two varieties of building proj
(Copyright, 1924, The Architectural & Building Press, Inc.)