Omaha daily bee., 1909-03-14

There is an old saying that two heads
do better than one" signifying that 1t is
always best to take counsel with someone
else before attempting a thing of impor-
lance. This is especially true In regard to
the proper construction of a home.
Here we find three heads necessary to
properly carry out the work. The owner
and his family constitute one head to which
Is added in counsel the architect and con-
tractor. Strange to say. however, that
even when these three heads get together
the results are not always entirely salts
factory. When this proves to be the case
there is something wrong In the relation
of these three men and it usually comes
from their not having a correct understand
ing of the duties of each other. The owner
will sometimes try to do things which ought
to be left to the architect. The architect
may not be competent and the contractor
may attempt to take his place as adviser
in-chief to the owner. This too frequent
state of affairs always has but one result
an expensive home OF poor construction,
plan and design.
First, some one member of the family
should be its spokesman. This point is
often still unsettled when the architect is
engaged and causes him no end Of annoy
Rnce. When members Of the family can
not agree on certain arrangements they
invariably each try to persuade the archi-
tect to render a decision in their favor
and the embarrassment of the situation
often hampers him and prevents him from
doing his best work. The planning of the
home in most cases, however, is left to the
wife, since she must occupy 1t the most
Of anyone and IL is more closely identified
with her existence than any other men,
Der of the family. The children will some
day leave 1t to build homes Of their own
end the husband is there but little of the
time. This fact is in most cases reco gnized.
The principal difficulty then arises from
the lack Of knowledge of the wife's or
owner as to what the duties of the archi-
tect are. Some consider him us a mere
draughting machine to do their bidding
without comment. Others recognize his
superior knowledge and experience Of all
matters pertaining to building and leave
the many details OF the plan and design to
his Judgment. This is the way It should be
and the results from this method Of pro-
cedure are Invariably satisfactory to the
owner in the end provided that a good
contractor is selected to construct the
building according to a proper interpreta-
ton OF the plans. Here is where the owner
again IAhS Dy attempting 10 De MS own
contractor. but more Of this later on.
II is an architects duty to give an owner
what he wants or what he even thinks he
wants. 1t is the owner who must occupy the
home and who pays for It and he is a very
narrow minded architect who takes an ar
bitrary stand against an owner In regard
to anything that the latter wants which
does not appeal to his artistic fancy or
structural knowledge. When an owner
wants something that will not look we'll or
is not practical It is his (architeet's) duty
TO frankly inform him OF his error, giving
him sufficient reasons why, and suggest
a better arrangement as a substitute. Then
II the owner insists on having things a
certain way even II il be not the best, II
is then the duty Of the architect to give
him what he wants, make IL look as we'll
as possible under the circumstances and
II the results do not suit the owner. which
is often the case. the fault Is the owner
and not the architects. The owner who
bears in mind that the architect Is a pro-
f~essional man, a man whose advice should
be accepted as final as the legal views OF
his attorneys, and a mar whose only OBJ.
ject is TO extend his reputation by pleasing
both the owner and the observing public
and that In attempting this he serves the
owners interests as well as his own, viii
Invariably have a better home than this
man who considers his architect as merely
a convenience in the way OF laying out
the drawings.
The owner should state promptly to thu