WORK OF ARCHITECTS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 117, 13 November 1926, Page 8

WORK OF ARCHITECTS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —With reference to the report published in your issue of the 9th November, regarding the discussion which took place when a deputation from the New Zealand Institute of Architects waited upon the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, it was suggested that, as an architect's remuneration is based upon tho cost of the buildings, he is "(commissioned to design, it is in his interest to endeavour to make all building work placed in his hands as costly as. possible. As such an impression amongst the general public is liable' to do the members of my profession harm, I feel it is incumbent upon me, if you will kindly grant me the apace, to state briefly that this is not the case and the reason why. Of course it is obvious that it must be a far better project in every way for an architect to be commissioned to design a £50,000 building thau a £500 one, but to 'exceed the stipulated cost as laid down by a client, whether the. woik. is small or large, is in every way detrimental to an architect. It is essential that an architect should do all in his power to retain the good-will and recommendation of every client he acts for. His actual livelihood depends on this, and it is absolutely essential if he is to build up a large and remunerative practice, a most difficult matter to-day, when materials and labour are not all that could be desired. It is obvious therefore that the good-will of a client and his recommendation—which may be of assistance to' an architect for years after he has completed his appointment —are of very much greater value than a few extra guineas obtained from a disappointed and disillusioned client, who will, not feel inclined to recommend— rather the reverse.

Then, again, when tenders are found to be too high there is the delay in getting contracts signed up, and the extra labour in re-modelling plans and specifications in order to reduce costs, all of which means actual loss to-the architect. It is my opinion, based oil. experience, that in the majority/of cases tenders are1 foiinJ to be too high becase the jirospcctive building owner desires to g&f more than is possible for his-money—often jrx, spite f of the fact that he has been advised by his architect to this effect. I consider that this state of affairs has given' rise, more than anything else, to the impression that architects are responsible for high building costs. However, although unfortunately, comparatively few architects are in a position to build for themselves, in spite of the fact that they are supposed to earn big fees with comparative case— I suppose those who do are just as human as their clients and strive equally hard. to get moro for their money than is possible.—l am, etc. STANLEY W. FEARN.