The Washington times., 1904-03-02
Architects Fees.
The Views Regarding Them Entertain
ed by Some Congressman.


ed by Some Congressman.
The attempt made in the Senate the
other day to place a limit upon the
profits" which it was thought arch
fleets might make out of the construc-
ton of public buildings disclosed a
singular lack of familiarity on the
part of those who debated the subject
with the work entailed in the prepa-
ration of building plans. To the av-
orage member of Congress who sees
his services to the State offset by
paltry $4,000 a year, the proposition
to pay an architect ) per cent upon
$5,000.000 building appears mon
strous, if not absurd More thar like
~ he thinks that the pretty and at
tractive sketch plans of the public
building which his energy and perse-
verance secured to his home town. and
which in due course of time appeared,
accompanied by the customary conf
ments, more or less fiattering, in the
newspaper organ which voices the
great mans views, constitute the be-
ginning and the end of an architects
work.
This Is neither the place nor a fit
ting occasion to enumerate the va
rious duties that devolve upon an
architect in these days of sanitary inn
provements, electrical devices, and
fireproof construction. But we ven
ture to say that if some of the Sena-
tors or members of the House who so
loudly protest against a per cent
commission were to visit the offices of
firm of architects engaged in pre-
pairing the plans of a great building
and saw there an army of clerks, dc
signers, craftsmen, computers, and
experts, legal, electrical, sanitary,
etc, at work on proposition involv-
ing no greater outlay Of money thar
the Government seems willing to de-
vote TO the construction of new
building in this city, they might posi-
bly, be induced to revise their opinion.
The corporations which have erect
ed stupendous structures in the great
cities of this country are not in the
habit, we take it, Of wasting their
money. Yet none of them, we make
bold TO say, ever paid an architects
fee below the standard fixed by the
American Institute of Architects, to-
wit, per cent on the cost of the work
executed from drawings and specifi-
cations furnished by the architects.
Is it reasonable to suppose that the
Government can secure better terms
for work of the same grade? Senator
| DRYDEN, who has had dealings with
the largest and most important archi
tects in this country, and, therefore,
speaks with authority, declared that
the most wasteful, the most extrava-
CANT thing that can be done IN connee-
ton with erecting a great building is
20 employ 4 cheap architect. Every
man, he asserted, who mas had exper-
IIence, knows that an architect with an
organization sIillful in drawing
plans, skillful in preparing speci6ca-
tons, sldllful in laying the project be-
! fore the contractors for bids, can
make vast difference in the result as
far as cost Is concerned. A poor
architect, in short, is a very extrava-
giant expenditure. And no architect
of established reputation would wish
TO undertake to do work which can
not be done, as IT ought to be done, at
a figure at which the gUtter-snipes Of
the profession may be willing 10
take it.
The Office Of the Supervising Arch
itect is all right, so long as it con
fines itself to the duties implied in the
title Of its chief. That chief never
has been. and never will be. for OBJ
vious reasons, an architect of the frs
rank. You cannot secure the services
of n great architect for $4,000 a year
Not even the Government can do that
But it can secure, through the Super.
!. vising Architects office, an effectiv,