BUILDERS AND ARCHITECTS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4009, 28 May 1884, Page 4

BUILDERS AND ARCHITECTS.

[To TnE Editor or the Daily Telegraph.] <s lßj —When the plans for the Corporation offices were under discussion Councillor Faulknor stated he would vote for motto "£900," not that he expected it would be clone for the amount, but he had no doubt some builder had £200 to lose. Councillor Faulknor must be labouring under a very "wrong , impression ; builders as a rule do not tender to lose if thoy can help it. Now, Mr Editor, with your permis.sion I will show what builders have to contend against that causes them to lose one way if not another. Builders m this colony are a class of men who have not had justice done them for the amount of ability they have to bring to bear in the carrying" out of their business. A superior ability to any other profession, for instance, a merchant who knows how to buy well, and a good financer, progresses in his business. A lawyer who charges 6s for an advice, and acting , on his advice you allow him to take a case in Court for you, does lie guarantee that you shall win ? No, whether you win or lose he takes good care he gets his fee, so ho is bound to got on. A builder has to have more ability as regards practical knowledge than an architect who may draw a plan that looks well on paper, but carry out two-thirds of them as designed there would bo some queer buildings; in some the most necessary parts are left out; others are imposible to carry out for the simple reason that the ground plans, elevations, and sections do not agree. Does the architect guarantee his work ? No, it falls to the builder to rectify all the architect's errors, who as a rule lays all the blame on the builder. How often do you see irosh tenders called for ? Any one enquiring the reason has found out, on tenders being called for, that tho work will cost a third more than ho is prepared to spend, having had to borrow persons brains, for which they aro not supposed to receive any renumeration, for they are only builders. To bo a builder he has to be a clerk, financor, scholar, and a good mechanic, all of which ho has to be proficient in, for, unlike a lawyer, if he makes an error in any of these he has to stand the consequence. Let me give you an instance. An architect, in a town not a hundred miles from Napier, was instuctcd by a gentleman to prepare a plan and specifications for a dwellinghouse :uid wool-shed, also quantity, with the result that ho was ten thousand fent out. Did he have to stand the consequence? No. What if a builder was to ask that same architect for payment of half that quantity, as he had made an error, what would be his reply? Why, if he could not calculate his quantities bettor, ho would have to be at the loss of it. Builders in the colonies will never do well till the chances of profit are more evenly balanced with those of loss, and architects arc willing to allow for their errors, which is the greatest evil, for as it is the whole of the blamo is laid on the builders' shoulders, with tho result that tho proprietor refuses to pay tho builder. The architect, too, shields himself, and never cares whether the builder even gets the contract amount, as in tho case of a large public building lately erected in Napier. Some of your readers might say sue him for it. Yes, go to a lawyer, and enact tho fable of the fox and cheese. I would ask Councillor Faulknor how would he like to build a carriage according to a design at a given price, during its progress rectify errors, alter its shape, or perhaps get a little added hero and there; all sorts of obstacles put in his way by the person overlooking it, who may know something of it in theory but not in practice, and on completion, instead of getting paid for all the alterations, the proprietor struck something off the original price—would it be that he was willing to lose it, or a compulsory loss under a different name. Such has been the experience of a Builder. May 27, 1884. _____