ARCHITECT, OWNER & BUILDER BEFORE THE LAW. 1 —X.
the architect’s position when the cost exceeds the
limit :
architect to carry out employer’s wishes under CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS.----ARCHITECT IS BOUND TO KNOW THE LOCAL BUILDING REGULATIONS.
B
ESIDES serving his employer with skill and care, the architect is bound to carry out his wishes, so far as this can be
done without violating the laws, ordinances, building regulations, inspector’s directions, or other restrictions to which all citizens are subject, or the rules of sound construction. So far as the local regulations are matters of statute law, the architect is bound to know them, and would be liable to his employer for any damages which might be caused by his neglect or ignorance of them; but he is not bound to be familiar with the decisions of inspectors or referees in regard to points left indefinite by the statute. He should, however, use due diligence in seeing that any directions or decisions which may be given in regard to the work with which he is concerned are complied with, and if extra work is necessary for the purpose, and the owner is not at hand to give the necessary orders, the architect not only may, but should, give them, and the owner will be bound to pay for the work so ordered, while neglect of
exigencies of good construction paramount.
the architect to take the necessary steps, in case of such an emergency, will expose him to a claim on the part of the owner for damages if subsequent loss should be occasioned by such neglect, in the same way, the architect must not allow himself to be connected in any way with construction which he knows to be dangerous, or even doubtful, whatever may be the owner’s wishes on the subject.
architect must not consent to doubtful construc
tion, EVEN AT owner’s ORDER.
It is obvious that a physician who would consent to having one of his patients take a dose of arsenic, instead of bromide of potassium, on the ground of its being cheaper, or who even failed to protest vigorously against such a course, would be fortunate if he escaped a trial for manslaughter ; yet architects often acquiesce in very doubtful methods of construction, at the desire of owners, who frequently claim an extensive acquaintance with the art of building. For professional men, such weak compliance is very dangerous. If evil results should
follow, the owner might pursue them for having misled him into thinking that such a construction was admissible, and a jury would be sure to agree with him; and it has even been decided in France that an architect is at fault who consents to a piece of doubtful construction at the positive order of the owner.
In general, the courts, as well as people outside the courts, consider it the paramount duty of an architect to build well and strongly. It should be his care to save his employer’s money where he can, but not at the expense of the durability of the building which he constructs for him; and if unforeseen difficulties arise, he will find more favor in ordering them properly provided for, at a considerable extra expense to the owner, than in risking the loss of the money already invested, by hesitation in adopting what his superior knowledge tells him to be necessary measures.
owner’s wishes must be FOLLOWED IN AESTHETIC MATTERS.
It is very different with matters which do not relate to the construction of the building. Here, the wish of his employer is the only rule for the architect to follow, and no regard for the aesthetic welfare of the owner and his family will justify the architect in involving him in extra expense for decoration or ornament, unless, as is sometimes the case, the owner has given the architect special authority in such matters. In fact, juries are, in this country, generally quite insensible to aesthetic values, and the architect must he prepared to see the owner supported by the courts in mangling his design remorselessly, if there is anything to be gained in the way of money by doing so. In the same way, if there is any incompatibility between the owner’s idea of the style of house he wants, and the sum
WHERE LIMIT OF COST IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH EFFECT
DESIRED, LIMIT OF COST RULES.
that he is willing to pay for it, his wish in the latter respect is always assumed to be paramount, and the architect who follows the first, and fails to comply with the other, is likely to get nothing for his pains.
From misunderstandings on this point arise nearly all the troubles which an architect encounters in his private business. Very many persons have an unreasonable fear of architects, derived, undoubtedly, from the stories which are repeated from mouth to mouth about the exploits of some of the reckless and irresponsible members of the profession, and give to the one whom they consult a limit of expense ridiculously inadequate to the accommodation which they desire, on the assumption that he will be sure to exceed it. In fact, it is not unusual to hear intelligent men say that they always limit an architect to half the amount that they really intend to spend. The consequence of this is that if the architect is conscientious, he takes
CONSCIENTIOUS ARCHITECTS AT A DISADVANTAGE.
his client at his word, and produces for him a cheap, unattractive plan, which he knows can be executed for something like the sum named, but which, of course, presents only a small part of the beauties and conveniences that the owner had pictured to himself.
If he is not conscientious, or if, as more commonly happens, he knows that his client really means to spend more than the sum he specifies, he guesses at the sort of building that is actually wanted, and makes his plans accordingly; and in most instances the owner is quite satisfied with the result.
There are, however, exceptional cases, where on the one side, an irresponsible and reckless architect deludes an owner, by attractive plans and misleading estimates, into commencing an undertaking which is not completed until the man who pays the bills is half ruined; or where, on the other side, an unscrupulous owner takes advantage of an architect’s having exceeded a limit of expenditure which was meant to be exceeded, to rob him of a part or all of the money justly due him.
NECESSITY FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN OWNERS
AND ARCHITECTS.
The remedy for this unsatisfactory condition of affairs lies partly with the owners and partly with the architects, each of whom should be more frank with the other. If an owner wishes to restrict his expenditure within a certain sum, as is usually the case, he should tell the architect so, mentioning also whether he wishes to have the given amount cover the architect’s fees, the papering or other furnishing or decoration, the mosquito screens and outside windows, and, especially, the
Continued from No. 823, page 7.
the architect’s position when the cost exceeds the
limit :
architect to carry out employer’s wishes under CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS.----ARCHITECT IS BOUND TO KNOW THE LOCAL BUILDING REGULATIONS.
B
ESIDES serving his employer with skill and care, the architect is bound to carry out his wishes, so far as this can be
done without violating the laws, ordinances, building regulations, inspector’s directions, or other restrictions to which all citizens are subject, or the rules of sound construction. So far as the local regulations are matters of statute law, the architect is bound to know them, and would be liable to his employer for any damages which might be caused by his neglect or ignorance of them; but he is not bound to be familiar with the decisions of inspectors or referees in regard to points left indefinite by the statute. He should, however, use due diligence in seeing that any directions or decisions which may be given in regard to the work with which he is concerned are complied with, and if extra work is necessary for the purpose, and the owner is not at hand to give the necessary orders, the architect not only may, but should, give them, and the owner will be bound to pay for the work so ordered, while neglect of
exigencies of good construction paramount.
the architect to take the necessary steps, in case of such an emergency, will expose him to a claim on the part of the owner for damages if subsequent loss should be occasioned by such neglect, in the same way, the architect must not allow himself to be connected in any way with construction which he knows to be dangerous, or even doubtful, whatever may be the owner’s wishes on the subject.
architect must not consent to doubtful construc
tion, EVEN AT owner’s ORDER.
It is obvious that a physician who would consent to having one of his patients take a dose of arsenic, instead of bromide of potassium, on the ground of its being cheaper, or who even failed to protest vigorously against such a course, would be fortunate if he escaped a trial for manslaughter ; yet architects often acquiesce in very doubtful methods of construction, at the desire of owners, who frequently claim an extensive acquaintance with the art of building. For professional men, such weak compliance is very dangerous. If evil results should
follow, the owner might pursue them for having misled him into thinking that such a construction was admissible, and a jury would be sure to agree with him; and it has even been decided in France that an architect is at fault who consents to a piece of doubtful construction at the positive order of the owner.
In general, the courts, as well as people outside the courts, consider it the paramount duty of an architect to build well and strongly. It should be his care to save his employer’s money where he can, but not at the expense of the durability of the building which he constructs for him; and if unforeseen difficulties arise, he will find more favor in ordering them properly provided for, at a considerable extra expense to the owner, than in risking the loss of the money already invested, by hesitation in adopting what his superior knowledge tells him to be necessary measures.
owner’s wishes must be FOLLOWED IN AESTHETIC MATTERS.
It is very different with matters which do not relate to the construction of the building. Here, the wish of his employer is the only rule for the architect to follow, and no regard for the aesthetic welfare of the owner and his family will justify the architect in involving him in extra expense for decoration or ornament, unless, as is sometimes the case, the owner has given the architect special authority in such matters. In fact, juries are, in this country, generally quite insensible to aesthetic values, and the architect must he prepared to see the owner supported by the courts in mangling his design remorselessly, if there is anything to be gained in the way of money by doing so. In the same way, if there is any incompatibility between the owner’s idea of the style of house he wants, and the sum
WHERE LIMIT OF COST IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH EFFECT
DESIRED, LIMIT OF COST RULES.
that he is willing to pay for it, his wish in the latter respect is always assumed to be paramount, and the architect who follows the first, and fails to comply with the other, is likely to get nothing for his pains.
From misunderstandings on this point arise nearly all the troubles which an architect encounters in his private business. Very many persons have an unreasonable fear of architects, derived, undoubtedly, from the stories which are repeated from mouth to mouth about the exploits of some of the reckless and irresponsible members of the profession, and give to the one whom they consult a limit of expense ridiculously inadequate to the accommodation which they desire, on the assumption that he will be sure to exceed it. In fact, it is not unusual to hear intelligent men say that they always limit an architect to half the amount that they really intend to spend. The consequence of this is that if the architect is conscientious, he takes
CONSCIENTIOUS ARCHITECTS AT A DISADVANTAGE.
his client at his word, and produces for him a cheap, unattractive plan, which he knows can be executed for something like the sum named, but which, of course, presents only a small part of the beauties and conveniences that the owner had pictured to himself.
If he is not conscientious, or if, as more commonly happens, he knows that his client really means to spend more than the sum he specifies, he guesses at the sort of building that is actually wanted, and makes his plans accordingly; and in most instances the owner is quite satisfied with the result.
There are, however, exceptional cases, where on the one side, an irresponsible and reckless architect deludes an owner, by attractive plans and misleading estimates, into commencing an undertaking which is not completed until the man who pays the bills is half ruined; or where, on the other side, an unscrupulous owner takes advantage of an architect’s having exceeded a limit of expenditure which was meant to be exceeded, to rob him of a part or all of the money justly due him.
NECESSITY FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN OWNERS
AND ARCHITECTS.
The remedy for this unsatisfactory condition of affairs lies partly with the owners and partly with the architects, each of whom should be more frank with the other. If an owner wishes to restrict his expenditure within a certain sum, as is usually the case, he should tell the architect so, mentioning also whether he wishes to have the given amount cover the architect’s fees, the papering or other furnishing or decoration, the mosquito screens and outside windows, and, especially, the
Continued from No. 823, page 7.