Architect and Client.

Progress, Volume XVI, Issue 11, 1 July 1921, Page 253

Architect and Client.

By C. Reginald Ford, F.N.Z.I.A.

Introduction. In the course of the practice of his profession the writer has often wished that there were some book explaining the ordmary building procedure in New Zealand, the relations between architect and client, to which he might refer an owner about to engage in some building operation for tne first time. He has often felt that not only much loss of time, but subsequent misunderstanding and annoyance might be avoided were such a work available for ready reference. A few years since an English architect, Mr. F'. Inigo Thomas, published such a book—“ Keystones of Building ” —but this work, although valuable, refers to English practice and contains a great deal which would only serve to confuse the New Zealand reader, our conditions being in many respects so different. Mr. C. Matlack Price—the Ame rican critic whose essays upon the appreciation of architecture have laid the profession under a debt to him has a full chapter devoted to the relations between architect and client in his excellent, but (in New Zealand) expensive, work, “ The Practical Book of Architecture.” But here again it is written for other conditions than ours and, too, the book is not one likely to be readily available. The writer feels that what is required is an account of the functions and duties of the architect and the reciprocal duties of the client in such a form that it can be read with a minimum expenditure of time and also be readily available to everyone at the outset of his career as a building owner. What follows is an attempt to supply this need. It has been suggested to the writer that it is perhaps unwise to enlighten the owner or prospective client too much as to the responsibilities and, perhaps, pitfalls, ahead of him—that in this case some clients will remain in prospect only. This suggestion hardly seems worth serious rebuttal. It is always' the unknown that terrifies. The writer ventures to believe that if there is a clear understanding at the outset between client and architect as to their respective functions and duties, a build-

ing operation of even large magnitude may be conducted with as little trouble and with the same assurance of satisfaction to the parties concerned as any other ordinary business transaction. A reference to one other point seems appropriate here. It may appear in what follows that the writer is making large claims for his profession and that he regards all its members as paragons ot professional skill and knowledge. Ihe writer believes, however, that he has under- rather than over-estimated the wide range of knowledge and service required of an architect to-day. That there are wide differences in both the character and qualifications in the members of the architectural as of all other professions is obvious. Nevertheless if the client selects his architect with the same care as he would his doctor or lawyer and then treats him with equal frankness and confidence he will, in the great majority of instances, have no cause of complaint as to the value of services rendered.

What is an Architect? The very best method of making clear to the layman the principal functions performed by the architect of to-day would be to trace the history of his evolution from the leading craftsman of very early times, the artist-architect of the Renaissance, and the artisan-architect and the “ surveyor ” of later periods. But time forbids. The best we can do is to find some definition of the term “ architect ” as understood to-day and to give a brief outline of the services performed by a bearer of the honourable designation.’ The best definition of which the writer is aware is that given by the American Institute of Architects :—“ An architect is a professional person whose occupation consists of originating and supplying artistic and scientific data preliminary to and in connection with the construction of buildings, their appurtenances and decorations; in supervising the operations of contractors therefor; and in preparing contracts between the proprietors and contractors thereof.”

Architecture is at once a science and art, and its practice a profession. Every building project in which an architect is engaged involves the exercise of his functions as artist, craftsman, man of science, and both professional and business man. He has to engage in correspondence; interview clients, contractors, and various agents and suppliers of building materials; evolve schemes for many and varied planning problems; develop these problems in both scientific and artistic aspects; compute and design footings and sustaining powers; compute and design supporting columns, beams,’ etc.; investigate and select materials of construction; manage an office; prepare working drawings in detail and write specifications; estimate costs; design sanitary, heating and ventilating systems' arrange for bell and telephone wiring; design ornament and embellishment; draw up contracts; check accounts; superintend construction. This is surely a formidable list, yet it is far from complete.

In what follows the architect’s procedure with regard to drawings is fairly fully summarised, but it must be emphasised that the drawings are but the material representation of ideas. It is the trained skill, knowledge and taste involved in the formation of these ideas that matter. “No architect of any large practice can execute all the working drawings which bear his name, and yet it is by these and his sketches that he is often judged by the public, which seemingly cannot understand that such work is the most easily relegated of his duties —that an architect can only be properly estimated by his buildings.”

How an Architect Works

After receiving instructions from the client the architect's first step is the preparation of preliminary drawings for the purpose of consideration and discussion of the project with the client. These preliminary studies have been called in the past “ sketch plans,” but this term has been found to create a false impression in the mind of the layman and its use is likely to be abandoned by the profession in the future. The architect’s preliminary study is not something hurriedly dashed off in a few minutes. It is a drawing done to scale, usually in pencil, and perhaps tinted to render the understanding of it more clear to the owner. What is shown depends upon the size of the project. In the case of a house the drawing will usually be contained upon one sheet and comprise a plan of each flfcor and one elevation of the principal front, or, perhaps, a perspective view. The “scale” to which the drawing will be done will vary, but it is usually I/16th or 1 /Bth inch, viz.: each foot in length of the building will be represented on the drawing by a hne 1 /16th or 1 /Btii inch long. These preliminary drawings, however nicely prepared they may be by the architect for presentation to his client, rarely convey to the latter the thought and study which have been devoted to their production. The drawing cannot show the time which has been bestowed, for instance, upon the arrangement of a staircase in a space necessarily very limited owing to conditions of cost. It cannot show the many hours spent in an effort to- effect a workable compromise between many conflicting requirements set out by the client. This one finished sheet showing an apparently simple arrangement of lines, may, and probably does, represent a dozen or more drawings brought to a stage nearing completion and then destroyed. The preliminary drawings having been approved by the client, the architect next proceeds to prepare the “ working drawings,” that is, those drawings from which the contractor makes up his tender and from which, supplemented by other “ detail ” drawings, the building is erected. In New Zealand the working drawings are usually to a scale of £th inch, and the “ detail ” drawings to a scale of f-inch and i| inches to the foot. In the working drawings one plan is given of each floor of the

proposed building, a geometrical drawing of each front of the building, usually ‘ denominated as “ front,” “ side ” or “ back elevation,” at least one “ section ” through the building, and, according to its size, roof, foundation and other plans. Various details of the building, such as cupboards, mantelpieces, 'staircases, etc., impossible to show with the necessary exactness in the small scale drawings, are shown to a larger scale.

These working drawings differ in several respects from the preliminary drawings, they are usually drawn in Indian ink upon m thin, semi-transparent linen. These drawings never leave the architect’s office, but from them blue -prints are made by a process of printing in sunlight in a manner similar to that by which ordinary photographic prints are produced from glass or trim negatives, These blue prints are lent to the contractor for use in the actual work of erecting the building. The drawings are fully dimensioned, are “ hatched ” in varying ways or tinted to denote different materials, and usually have many explanatory notes upon them. Custom varies as to the amount of detail drawing prepared by the architect as a part of the contract drawings, that is, those working drawings which are prepaied before tenders are called and which form part of the contract. the writer has found in his practice that to do justice to both owner and contractor it is quite essential to prepare a large amount of detail at this stage. Whilst the building is in course of erection further detail drawings become necessary. Here again the practice of architects varies as to the number of these drawings supplied to the contractor. An architect who takes a pride in his work will often re-draw many of the original details simply for his own satisfaction. Perhaps in the actual structure some increase of a few inches has come about in the width of a recess for which he has designed some fitting. He will not trust the workmen to make the necessary adjustment, although this could, in all probability, be done with perfect safety as far as the average client could ever perceive, but he knows as an artist that an inch will make all the difference and he prefers to have his work at least as perfect as his knowledge permits. The -working .drawings, too, are prepared without sufficient time for that full consideration over points of design which the artist in the architect would desire. As the building takes shape the architect, considering some feature, finds that he can improve upon his- original, design in some respect, and another detail is ; drawn. It must be remembered that this kind of thing is not in the bond” and is not paid for. These detail drawings, whether those which formed part of the contract set, some of these re-drawn, or new ones prepared as the work proceeds, are further supplemented by “full size” details. These show the profiles of moulding and other features at identically the same size as the work is to be executed, and form an important part of the architect’s service to his client; indeed, the merit of a building as a piece of design depends very largely upon

them. The preparation of the full-sized details for a public building such as a library, town hall, or museum, entails an enormous amount of labour upon the architect, a labour upon which the layman naturally has never paused U> consider.

In all classes of building the actual labour involved in the preparation ot the plans which the client sees only represents a portion of the work which has been performed by the architect, apart from the hours of thought and study, drawing and re-drawmg, already referred to above. In some cases he will have filled very many pages, possibly several books, with calculations necessary to ensure the stability of the building. The results only of this latter work show upon the drawings as a series of-—to the uninitiated—simple divisions of spaces into rectangles and some notes, such as “4 — lin. rods,”-“ 2 —l2m. x 6in. R.SJ.’s,” or “6—|in. rivets,” etc. It is the knowledge of this whicn makes the architect so impatient when some uninformed person, disputing payment of a reasonable fee, says that some plan could have been drawn in a week. Perhaps it might —but after a month's work.

The drawings are, however, not complete in themselves. They are explained by a document—more or less lengthy according to the size of the project —known as the “ specification.” The specification is one of the most important instruments in the whole transaction of building. It sets forth under the various trades the work which is to be performed and the materials which are to be provided. It supplements the drawings and describes clearly what cannot be shown on them. The writing of a specification which will insure the building being carried out in accordance with the design and the intentions of the architect, is a work requiring considerable skill and a full knowledge of materials and of the various building crafts. It requires, too, the expenditure upon the part of the architect of many hours of labour.

The plans and specifications complete, the architect still has the important work of supervising the erection of the building, although, as has been implied by the foregoing, the work of supervision involves the preparation of some detail drawings. How much supervision can be required by the client ? Take a house costing, say, £2,000. For a work of this size the architect will receive as his whole fee the sum of £l3O. The house will require some six months to complete. It at once becomes clear that it is impossible for the architect to give his whole time, or anything like his whole time, to the supervision of this one work. How much of his time then can reasonably be demanded? The architect is the best judge of that. Obviously this will vary according to many differing conditions, and circumstances. The architect should, and usually does, ■ spare no effort to guard the client against defects and deficiencies in the work of contractors, but it must be remembered that the amount of

supervision which ' the architect can reasonably be called upon to render cannot always and in every case act as a perfect and absolute safeguard. During the intervals between the visits of the architect an honest contractor may make a mistake difficult to rectify without, perhaps, serious delay to the work to which the owner cannot agree or a dishonest contractor may of deliberate intent do some defective work, or build in some faulty material, and cover up the same. It may be added, however, to the credit of those engaged in the building trade that this latter is a very much rarer occurrence than is commonly supposed. The remarks of Mr. Matlack Price upon this matter of supervision are worth quoting : —“ After all, it should be remembered that the architect’s reputation is at stake, not only in the design of the house, for which he is directly responsible, but for tne contractor’s part of the work, for which he is indirectly responsible. It stands to reason, therefore, that the architect will not wittingly allow a contractor to erect a monument which will reflect upon his professional ability, and much of the client’s apprehension regarding insufficient supervision may well be allayed by this reflection.” At the same time the amount of time given by the conscientious architect to that part of his work coming under the heading of “ supervision,” even on a work of small size, would astonish the uninitiated. There are innumerable matters, small and large, referred to him for his determination. Not only do these entail visits to the building, and to the contractor’s workshops where certain portions of the work are being made, but various tradesmen engaged upon the building are constantly in and out of his office asking for instructions upon many matters of detail. For all large works the employment of a clerk of works is very advisable. For some classes of work, for 5 example, that in which reinforced concrete forms a part of the construction, his employment is absolutely essential in the interests of safety alone. In every case he acts as a check upon a possibly dishonest or incompetent contractor, or dishonest or careless workmen, and conserves the interest of the owner throughout. It must not be imagined that the clerk of works replaces the architect or renders the latter’s supervision unnecessary. The services of the designer of the work is vitally necessary throughout. He still must visit the building and exercise general supervision; from his office must still come the necessary detail drawings; his advice must still be sought—how often one unacquainted with the work of erecting a building cannot imagine. *ltis he alone who' can decide, for instance, if certain steel rods or joists are unobtainable what other may be used in their place. If the owner desires to make some change it is the architect alone 'Who can decide what other consequential changes are necessary for the safety of the structure or to conserve the design. His is still the responsibility. (To be Continued.')