THE REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS BILL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1837, 25 August 1913, Page 4

THE REGISTRATION OF ARCHITECTS BILL.

Sir,—Tho public seem to bo very slow to realiso the far-Teaching offcct of tho Architects Bill, now before Parliament. Tho Bill is not simply a fight for supremacy between tho architect and the builder; it affects every owner of proall those about to build houses, factories, shops, etc., and all rentpayers in particular. The Institute of Architects maintain /that they are trying only to abolish the jerry-builder and the "builder architect." Then, I say, they aro going tho wrong way about it; no amount of legislation can abolish jerry-building. Obviously tho jerry-baiikler exists, liko . any other tradesman, because there is a demand for him. Ho is not a monster who preys upon society, but a commercialist who discovers what the public wants, and docs his best to satisfy them. So long as the public insist upon bavins too muoh for their money, so long will thero bo "jorry"'_ building. If tho sizes and accommodation demanded are too much, then the quality must be less. If built well and highly finished', then the houses could only be let for twice the rent obtainable. Nobody is going to build to let at a loss. Tho jerrybuilder does not cheat you; he gives you good measure for your money, and the more one sees of his work the more one wonders at his cleverness. Ho is a master of construction, or else ho could not build so well with_ such hopeless material and for the price he asks. The jerry-builder serves you well, and if he is a sinner you mu.st remember the public demands he should sin. Those who'use him should not abuse him. Jerry-building will only censo when tho public •'tasto improves aid pretonsivcr (

ness is not insisted upon • in fact, when wo attain Utopia, and the [Jublic lives under the influences of Art. Till then tho jaf rv-builder will remain; if wo abolish him to-day, wo will howl for him to-morrow, and recreate him. The Institute of Architects, then, siaem to wish that .jerry-building should bo taken from tho builder and giv'2n to tho architect.

Tho examination test woiild bo ineffectual. Tko jerry-builder in his way is a master of construction, and keeps well within the moaning of the building bv-laws, which some architects have difficulty an doing. Ho could pass any reasonable examination, on building construction, juid could probably tell his examiners tvome sound: facts that would bo now to them, and so come out with glory and) go: on building jerry-buildings as before, with tihe certificate of membership of tAp Institute in his pocket. Unbeautiful ivtructurce, buildings without any pretensions to architecture will always bo- needed for our factories and industries.. The architect would not foe needed! for such a building; tho builder who drafts plans moderately well is sufficient and economical. The employment of an architect for our inoroly utilitarian building only adds 6} per cent, on to tho cost, and we got nothing in cxchnnge. That 6.V pdr cent, for useless architects' commission would pay tho interest on, the outlay far somo considerable time. Tho Bill would', then, shift tho jerry-building from tho builder who receives no commissf.on for plans to tho certificated architect, who would havo the privilege to cliargo 6?r por cent, for it. Would not that raise our rents and the cost of a homo? Somo of the correspondents on this subject speak of the jerry-builder as if ho wore a nowly«discovered specimen, Tho architect who builds on paper only has d'one very lit-tlo for the advancement and development of tho art of architecture. The modern ofßco architect is only the satellite and imitator of the craftsman. Sir Christopher Wren was an architect builder. That pride of London, St. Paul's Cathedral, differs greatly from Wren's original drawings, and for the better. Tho building was designed by Wren on the job, while tho building §rew. Our great British cathedrals were tho work ( of craftsmen who wero artists, not architects.

The jerry-builder Las been in existwico for hundreds of years, and is tlie product of tho public's own vicious system, and until that system is dono away with by educating tho public not by legislation, will the demand for tho jerry-builder or the jerry-architect disappear. Bills similar in principle) to the present Bill have been introduced into' tho British Houso of Parliament by a minority of British F.'sli.l\B.A., but those Bills never readied a second reading.' Such British architects as undermentioned have strenuously opposed the Bills, and if our own institute does not know why, they are not true architects. A fow of tho familiar names are as follow: Sir A. Blomficld, Reginald Blomfield, W. D. Carol, Charles Ferguson, Mervyn M'Cartney, A. Beresford Pite, Geo. Bodley, A.R.A., T. G. Jackson, J. Mieklcthwaite, J. H. Middleton, G. Gilbert Scott, R. Norman Shaw, and a great many others. Many of those famous men wero ( members of tlio British Institute of Architects, but resigned to show how strongly they felt against tampering with tho perfect 'freedom and advancement of the art of architecture. —I am, otc., AIICHITECTUS, Wellington, 'August 12,- 1913.