Conference of Architects and Builders.

Progress, Volume V, Issue 5, 1 March 1910, Page 171

Conference of Architects and Builders.

The Conference between the representatives of the New Zealand Institute of Architects and those of the Federated Builders' Association, which was held on the 16th and 17th inst. at the Town Hall committee room, was one of considerable importance to the public generally. Five years ago a similar conference was held at Timaru, and on each occasion the general conditions of building contracts were the chief subjects under discussion. At the Timaru conference the builders asked for the removal of many disabilities under which they suffered in the numerous sets of conditions in use throughout the colony, nearly every architect having his own, and practically there being no two alike. The result of the combined labours of the two bodies was a set which has been in general use since that time. As might have been expected, some of the clauses have not worked satisfactorily, especially from the owner's' point of view, and so some months ago a commit-

tee of the architects was set up by the Institute for the purpose of revising these conditions, and this month's conference was to determine upon the alterations to be made. Each clause of the present conditions was considered, and the net result is. we trust, an improved set. The main alterations, so far as we can understand them, are in the following: — In the existing clause relating to progress of works, the owners seem to have had little or no power to compel the contractor to proceed with that expedition which would ensure the work being done by the contract date. As long as there was no actual stoppage of more than ten days the builder could "snap his fingers" at the employer. Under the new conditions under certain necessary restrictions the employer may. we understand, put on men and finish the work at the contractor \s expense should there be reason to suppose that he would otherwise be "behind time," a very necessary provision, we opine, in some (but perhaps rare) cases. Another feature under the existing conditions is the questionable power which the employer has of deducting penalties for non-completion of contract by contract date, even when a reasonable extension of time has been allo-wed for extra works. The clause was dealt with very fully, and it is hoped that with the help of the legal advisers of the two bodies a new one will be drawn up in clear and binding phraseology. The number of gentlemen taking part and voting in the actual discussion were limited to ten men on each side, but other builders were allowed to be present. At the wish of both parties, the Hon C. M. Luke. M.L.C.. was asked to preside. The following is a list of the gentlemen present : The representatives of the architects were : Messrs. Wade (Auckland). Mountfort and Hurst Seager (Christchurcli). and Clere. Chatfield, Bacon, Charlesworth, Schwartz. Turnbull. and Atkins. On behalf of the builders, the following were present: Mr. S. I. Clarke (Auckland), president of the federation; Mr. William Ward (Napier), vice-president. Auckland: Messrs. W. E. Hutchison. C. Bloomfield, and J. T. Julian. Waikato: Mr. A Grayson (Auckland). Wanganui: Mr. N. Meuli. Wellington: Messrs. W. H. Bennett. W. L. Thompson, and J. Nicholson. Canterbury : Messrs. H Pearce and J. H. Maynard. South Canterbury: Mr. L. S. Humphries (Wellington). Dunedin: Messrs. G. Simpson and G. Hodges. Southland: Mr. W. Birss. The public, we feel, are much indebted to the architects for the trouble they have taken in safeguarding their interests. It is too common an impression that the controversy which has been now going on (with smouldering intervals) for some years between the Contractors' Federation and the Architects' Institute, is purely one that concerns them only, whereas it concerns the individual architect (unless he happens to be a building owner as well) very little as to whether the contracts are drawn up on an equitable basis or not, but it does concern the public, whose cause he is espousing, whereas the builder is endeavouring naturally to relieve himself of all the responsibility that he can, and to sell his goods at the highest price obtainable. No doubt in the long run the relief of undue responsibility will cheapen buildings, for the builder need not then insure against risk by putting a sum into his estimate on that account.