PRIVATE ARCHITECTS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 46, 18 November 1926, Page 8

PRIVATE ARCHITECTS

THEIR LEGITIMATE SPHERE OF WORK-

Sir—ln vour leading article of November 10 entitled "Private Architects and Government Works,’’ you commence bystating that “there is a good deal to be said for both sides” in regard to the claim of the architectural profession for a share of tho architectural work for public schools and hospitals. Your article, however, beyond generalities, does not really put the case for .the profession. Indeed, its very title might tend to create a wrong impression. The profession did not ask to.be allowed to undertake what are legitimately Governinent works” (although there would be nothing wrong « m ? k * n V u °n * quest): it simply asked to bo allowed, without interference or competition from Government Departments lo carry out buildings for corporate bodies such as education and hospital boards, as >n the past. School and hospital buildings are not in all cases wholly financed, and hospitals are only partially- so by the Government; they are not Govern buildings, lhe contention of the institute was that the boards controlling them should be allowed to make then own arrangements for the erection of buildings—within definite limits of expenditure approved by the Government from time to time. One of the difficulties in connection with which tho institute finds the work of its members jeopardised is the statement by the Government, that the cost to the Public Works Department ot preparation of plans and specifications for buildings is only 1 per cent, ot the cost of the building as against the architect’s charge of 4 per cent, lor work up to that stage. Taken at face value this statement would appear incontestable. The Minister of Eancation stated that it was based on . figures of actual cost carefully ascertained in the DeP!s TheStatement of the’institute, however, was also based on the figures o the Department. In the Public Morks Statement, 1924, it is announced (p. n) that the cost of such services in connection with the Department amounted in that year to 5.67 per cent, of the total cost of works constructed—the Government Architect’s Branch not being separately indicated, although the cost of the buildings erected was put down at £19’,739. That this proportion is not less’ in tho Government Architect s Branch, but probably greater wi 1 be generally accepted by those, who know how much more detail is involved in architectural than purely engineering services, particularly in regard to the large amount of alterations and additions to existing buildings. . This proportion of 5.67 per cent, is tor “supervision and engineering, and is said to include “engineering, accountancy, correspondence, stores control, ana administration generally of works in progress, and also engineering investigation of works proposed or contemplated, which may or may not result in expenditure.” , That these costs (though above the figures of the Hon. Minister of Education) have been due to a careful study of economy in the Public Works Department is obvious from the table of comparative costs covering a number of years in which tho proportion'has been reduced from 7.06 per cent, in 1913 to the figure of 5.67 per cent, in 1924. In any case, as economy is the aim, it will be clear that 5.67 per cent, would not lie an over-estimate of tho cost. This charge of course does not include cost of rent, lighting, etc., of the departmental buildings used by the staff, so that when a reasonable figure is estimated for such charges (which the outside architect pays out of his receipts) the total cost of these services is probably more than 6J per cent.—the architect’s reasonable and legitimate fee for the designs, specifications, and supervision of erection of buildings. It should also bo realised that 1 per cent, on X 192.739— tho amount of work executed in 1924—amounts to only .£1927, whereas the salaries alone of draughtsmen of the Government Architect’s Branch amounted in. 1924 to £433o—over 2} per cent, on tho total—and that was only the sum of bare salaries earned for tho preparation of drawings. It did not include the costs of clerical work, stationery, rent and lighting, as well as the salaries and travelling expenses of tho. engineers employed to inspect the buildings. These figures are given to show that the institute had sound facts on which to base its contention. No figures have been given since. Why do not the figures tally? Your leader suggests that eventually “tho country will insist on a superior style of architecture for all our public buildings.’’ This inference seems te be that good architecture' is something rather apart from economy. Good buildings should efficiently fulfill their function in their planning, design, construction and equipment; if they do not they are not economical. Efficiency and economy are only to bo secured by mature thought and study based on sound training. It is just as necessary and more economical to have good buildings now. It is not of necessity any more costly to build to a good but simple design than to a bad one—indeed, it is often less costly; provided, of course, that sound material and good workmanship are used in both cases. This neither the Government nor the public fully understand.

Nations have always found expression in architecture according to their greatness of thought. Where great architecture has been produced it will no found that it was not as the outcome of excessive national control, but that tho individual architect was permitted to exercise his function in his legitimate sphere, with strong encouragement. Your suggestion, therefore, that some competitive system might assist in at taining these objects appears sound; though your final remark regarding the entry of Govommont officials for compo titions is somewhat unfortunate. Government officers who entered, for such competitions would have a distinct advantage over others owing to their being more closely in touch with useful data concerning the subject of the competition. There is no doubt that something needs to he done to place architecture in this country on a surer footing. It is not to be expected that the Government should do this if it is not in the interest of the country as a whole. But the public may well expect that the Government should lead the way, especially when it is not really so much a matter of cost. Architecture as an art cannot flourish in a country where it is regarded rather as an expensive and luxurious process of adorning buildings than as the vital and essential means of securing true efficiency and economy combined with such an appearance of fitness and such beauty of expression as is possible. When tourists come here from other lands more advanced architecturally, do wo hear praises of our buildings? No. They are too polite. They make excuses for our youth as a civilised country. But should wo not be emerging from this state into one more consistent -with oar nationhood? If we should, it is for the Government to give a lead, and, show by its deeds that it regards efficiency and individuality as more valuable ti.tm any supposed small economy—no matter how well supported by figures it may appear.—l am, etc., F. E. GREENISH. November 15, 1926.