ects. If the architect is sufficiently interested as a potential buyer he studies with due regard to security, the underlying factors controlling the safety of the investments offered. In the one case the salesman bases his principal selling talk on a convincing array of expert findings. The legal phases of the development project are covered by the report of legal talent, whose very signature spells competence and respectability. The report of the constructing engineers, the financial questions involving markets, franchises, earnings, etc., are presented over the signatures of individuals of recognized standing; but in the matter of a loan on a municipal building program (tax exempt) such reassuring facts and figures are sometimes absent and stress is laid almost exclusively on those factors concerning the credit of the municipality, its tax rate, the borrowing limitations, etc. The same amount of money oftentimes is involved in both projects. It would be quite unthinkable that the power development project should be designed on obsolete lines, be inefficient, an economic burden, if not loss, at the moment of completion. No private corporation with this kind of project in mind would employ incompetent engineers, unreliable lawyers. Indeed no financing house would look at a project without all the above elements insuring safety being handled by the most expert practitioners, but to be frank, one is forced to recognize the difference of attitude when it comes to the matter of mere buildings. Here political influence, questionable bargainings, and methods generally considered unsound from a pure business standpoint oftentimes obtain. So that it is not to be wondered that your bond salesman is unable to bring out those facts which should be used in discussing the soundness of a building project, other than the purely credit elements. In the field of private or speculative building the same disregard for competent expert advice is noticeable. There surely is as much of an economic loss in a poorly designed building in the long run as in a poorly designed power plant. Nevertheless the fact does not seem to worry the building public. It is this situation which the architect observes with wonderment. We must be forced to the conclusion that in many cases poor business judgment is used in municipal or private building projects. There seems to be an unconcern on the part of responsible parties as regards the results achieved from the proceeds of the loans, which it seems to the writer requires analysis. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that most laymen when it comes to building feel quite competent to assume responsibility and often fail to recognize that adequate professional skill is the first requisite.
Perhaps enough has been indicated in the above. The point of view which the writer desires to bring out on the whole matter might be illustrated by an anecdote, more or less characteristic. Some years ago quite a large bond issue was floated in this locality (Minneapolis) involving a municipal building operation in an adjacent state.
The writer was approached by a salesman with an issue of these bonds. For his own interest he examined into the situation sufficiently to discover that neither the bond salesman nor the house of issue seemed to have , any knowledge as to who the architectural firm was to be, if responsible designers. There seemed to be little desire to go into this question since it apparently, in their minds, was of slight importance. The questions were asked largely to develop this fact. The credit of the community was above question, there was ample margin of safety in their borrowing capacity, it was a direct civic obligation which unquestionably guaranteed the safety of the issue. A year or so later the writer happened to be in the city where the municipal project was realized as the result of this bond issue. It occurred to him to ask a citizen of this place how their municipal project had prospered. The subject did not seem to awaken any enthusiasm, and finally after pressing, the gentleman said that the building was thoroughly unsatisfactory. There was some question of difficulty of arranging proper access for the public and other matters needless to mention. The fact remained that the building was unsatisfactory. So the writer wonders whether this state of affairs isn’t after all thoroughly unbusinesslike and uneconomic. The question naturally occurs to one, how can the situation be corrected ? The answer presumably is that bankers and houses of issue should really take to heart this question of responsibility toward the public, the standards of successful architectural practice should be perfectly apparent to financial interests, even though the public is still in ignorance as to what those principles are. It would seem the part of wisdom that every municipal or private project where there is any doubt should have its results more or less guaranteed by expert criticism. While this suggested solution may not evoke enthusiasm on the part of the profession in general, the above remarks at least suggest that care in the selection of the professional assistance is required for these projects. It is as feasible in a building project to have dependable expert advice as in the case of any other engineering project. Is there not some way to bring this matter before responsible bankers in this country?