However, from the standpoint of economy, the contract system is usually the best. With expert and available technical supervision, the day labor method cannot be excelled. In the Army, during times of peace we build for permanence and utility with due regard for symmetrical beauty of outline, both in the structures and their landscaping details. Possibly we favor the plain Doric rather than the more ornate Ionic and Corinthian styles. In war, utility rules, and delicate detail is discarded.
Structures are simply to shelter men, animals, machinery and supplies.
We follow the Romans in that practicality for storage demands large unencumbered interiors. To this we add the unit theory, this is, if one unit building, say 75 by 150 feet, is required for a certain storage capacity, then we erect a series of such units to multiply the capacity. We carry the same idea into effect with barracks. This scheme insures rail accessibility and prevents too great a destructive loss in the event of artillery or aerial bombardment. The phenomenal development of aircraft will undoubtedly force our storage building program to rely on rather small units and possibly underground development.