THE ARCHITECTS' BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 187, 7 August 1913, Page 6

THE ARCHITECTS' BILL.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN ? INCREASED COST OF BUILDING. ilr. George Baildon, president of the Auckland Builders' Association, asked to-day by a representative of the "Auckland Star" for some explanation of the objection taken to the Architects' Bill now before Parliament, stated that the ■provisions bt the bill would be. considered at the next meeting of the association. He added: "Until it has been before us I do not care to express any opinion upon the proposed bill. Judj;i*n<? by the discussion in the House, there appears to be an impressio-n that anyone is going to he prohibited from drawing a plan for a job over £50. Now. I have read the bill throngh, but it did not strike mc as meaning that. We will, however go through the pro* isions of the bill carefully at our next meeting. Speaking not as the president of the associa.tion, I may say that so far I have only one or two clauses to which I would take exception."

Other builders when interviewed had no hesitation in expressing their strong opposition to the bill. One said that at the present time there is a £20,000 job going on in this city, where no architect is employed. Another builder stated that he liad done fully £30,000 worth of work in Auckland this winter, without any architect's designing or supervision, and he added that there had not been the slightest dispute.

"If this bill becomes law." remarked a builder, "it means adding to the co6t of working men's homes, and, of course, higher rents follow as a natural consequence. Ido not think, however, that there is the slightest chance of Parliament passing the bill without certain amendments. You see, a very large proportion of dwelling-houses are built according to plans in the possession of contractors, and there is really no need whatever for the expense of an architect's supervision of the work of construction. As I understand the measure, a -builder would require to employ an architect if he only wanted to make an addition "to his own bous?. If that is correct, of course, there is bound to be a lot of opposition to the passing of the bill." CHRISTCrTURCH BUIL/DERS PROTEST. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. The Architects' Bill, against which so many objections have been raised by local bodies on account of its arbitrary provisions, is to be stremi-ously fought by builders, who >cc in it an attempt to form a close corporation which would effectively stifle builders' business in many directions.

•' It appears from this bill that it is ' proposed to incorporate the present members of the Institute of Architects j ■ and give them supreme control a3 to j' who are to be allowed to act :is archi- j tects in the future." said Mr T. L. Flaus, | ■ a Christchurch builder. "It is also pro- | posed that after the bill comes into force it shall be a criminal offence for any person to do architectural work unless he is registered by the Institute. I believe I am well within the mark when 1 say that, for every domestic building ] erected in the city in accordance with the plane and specifications prepared by an architect, there, are at least ten in which the builder himself prepares the plans. The simple fact of the matter seems to be 'that the architects, having failed in open competition to secure a large proportion of the building work, are now seeking to rapture it by Act of Parliament, and to make mc. and others like mc. cease to carry on business in the way we h'lvo been doing in the past at a much lower cost than would be I the case if an architect waa employed. | It peertip absurd that a body of men who have associated themselves loget'lver under the mime of the Ken- Zealand Insti- | tute of Architects should have, the | audacity to ask Parliament to make \ them a corporation with the arbitrary j ! powers conferred by the proposed Act, I I and all directed towards their own ad- \ ' vnncement and tlio creation of a mono-I ; poiy." ! j "For every twenty-one houses built' in Chriritchnrch in the -last three years,"! he added, " t believe. twe,nty of them | I have been birilt by builders employed by i I the owners exclusively, lac man who '* I will suffer most by the bill is the work- ' in.2 man. who has saved about £100 and wants to spend £fiO of it on furni- i i ture and pay a deposit on a home. Un- j der the Act liis iMO would have to fro Ito pay an tirehit"Ct\s fees, which consist of 5 per cent from the owner. 2A per cent i from the builder, and probably commis- , sion on some of th? material, and pick- I 1 inrrs " I