-
Articles/Ads
Article OUR ARCHITECTURAL OHAPTER. Page 1 of 4 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Our Architectural Ohapter.
OUR ARCHITECTURAL OHAPTER .
Some commotion has been raised in the architectural community by the announcement of a competition for an orphan asylum at Sunderland . The cost is to be £ 8 , 000 , and for full drawings and specifications a premiuin of £ 20 is offered for the best designs , and £ 10 for the second best / This is bad enough , but unluckily the competitors are referred for printed conditions and instructions , not to the secretary , but to an architect at Sunderland .
The competitors therefore fear that the originators of this scheme may have made up their minds to employ some local architect , and to give him the whole profit of the transaction , leaving the various outsiders to compete for supplying him with notions for the liberal reward of thirty pounds . It can never be too strongly impressed on committees that the great inducement to architects to compete is the prospect of obtaining the direction of the works , not only because there is the customary commission—which is a higher pecuniary reward than any premium that is awarded in this case , as . '^ £ 150 ' to . £ 20—but because there is the honour and rernifatlon of
carrving the design into effect , which is a practical proof of the competency of the individual ; whereas the award of the first premium , in this com tion for instance , is a very doubtful honour ; for if Mr . A . B . Smith states that he obtained the first premium of £ 20 for the Orphan Asylum at Sunderland , he will be asked , " Who built it ? " His answer will be , "Mr . —— , of Sunderland , another architect , who was more favoured , and into
whose hands my design was put by the committee . " "Ay ! " is the quiet reflection ; "Mr . A . B . Smith was considered too young or unsafe , or not competent to be trusted with the management of the works , and so they employed a more experienced and trustworthy man . Mr . A . B . Smith may be a very clever man , but we will not employ him . "
Thus gross injustice is clone to most deserving men by gentlemen on committees , who have not the least intention of doing wrong , as is most likely the case at Sunderland ; but it is not to be wondered at that architects chafe when they find arrangements made which may be Avorked so much to their prejudice ; in other words , when they find a trap baited , within which they may be caught .
There was a discussion oil Monday week upon the stock subject of competition , at the Royal Institute of British Architects , in consequence of a paper by Mr . George Morgan , entitled " On Public Competitions for Architectural Designs . " He called attention to the unfair dealing of the government in reference to the late competitions for barracks , and for the War Office and Foreign Office . Neither the oaoer nor the discussion
led to any practical result , although Mr . J . W . Papworth , Mr . Robert Kerr , Mr . J . W . Praser , Mr . Jennings , Mr . Hussey , Mr . Digby Wyatt , Mr . Hansard , Mr . Henry Ashton , and Mr . Hesketh took part in it . It is true that architects have great grievances , but unfortunately they exact too much from the public to be successful in their demands . Thus it is by no ¦ m nans uncommonand it mav bo observed in the discussion rpfprvfx ] to ¦ _ . __ - _ _ - „
, > . „ . „ , ^ _ _ _^ v ^ „ for architects to talk gravely of the great loss of valuable time to which , they are subjected in a competition , and to put a money value on it equivalent sometimes to the whole amount of the commission . Advantage is taken of a particular case , as the barrack competition , to show that especial study must be made of military organization , of the habits of officers and soldiers , of the minutioo of barrack life ; that barracks must be
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Our Architectural Ohapter.
OUR ARCHITECTURAL OHAPTER .
Some commotion has been raised in the architectural community by the announcement of a competition for an orphan asylum at Sunderland . The cost is to be £ 8 , 000 , and for full drawings and specifications a premiuin of £ 20 is offered for the best designs , and £ 10 for the second best / This is bad enough , but unluckily the competitors are referred for printed conditions and instructions , not to the secretary , but to an architect at Sunderland .
The competitors therefore fear that the originators of this scheme may have made up their minds to employ some local architect , and to give him the whole profit of the transaction , leaving the various outsiders to compete for supplying him with notions for the liberal reward of thirty pounds . It can never be too strongly impressed on committees that the great inducement to architects to compete is the prospect of obtaining the direction of the works , not only because there is the customary commission—which is a higher pecuniary reward than any premium that is awarded in this case , as . '^ £ 150 ' to . £ 20—but because there is the honour and rernifatlon of
carrving the design into effect , which is a practical proof of the competency of the individual ; whereas the award of the first premium , in this com tion for instance , is a very doubtful honour ; for if Mr . A . B . Smith states that he obtained the first premium of £ 20 for the Orphan Asylum at Sunderland , he will be asked , " Who built it ? " His answer will be , "Mr . —— , of Sunderland , another architect , who was more favoured , and into
whose hands my design was put by the committee . " "Ay ! " is the quiet reflection ; "Mr . A . B . Smith was considered too young or unsafe , or not competent to be trusted with the management of the works , and so they employed a more experienced and trustworthy man . Mr . A . B . Smith may be a very clever man , but we will not employ him . "
Thus gross injustice is clone to most deserving men by gentlemen on committees , who have not the least intention of doing wrong , as is most likely the case at Sunderland ; but it is not to be wondered at that architects chafe when they find arrangements made which may be Avorked so much to their prejudice ; in other words , when they find a trap baited , within which they may be caught .
There was a discussion oil Monday week upon the stock subject of competition , at the Royal Institute of British Architects , in consequence of a paper by Mr . George Morgan , entitled " On Public Competitions for Architectural Designs . " He called attention to the unfair dealing of the government in reference to the late competitions for barracks , and for the War Office and Foreign Office . Neither the oaoer nor the discussion
led to any practical result , although Mr . J . W . Papworth , Mr . Robert Kerr , Mr . J . W . Praser , Mr . Jennings , Mr . Hussey , Mr . Digby Wyatt , Mr . Hansard , Mr . Henry Ashton , and Mr . Hesketh took part in it . It is true that architects have great grievances , but unfortunately they exact too much from the public to be successful in their demands . Thus it is by no ¦ m nans uncommonand it mav bo observed in the discussion rpfprvfx ] to ¦ _ . __ - _ _ - „
, > . „ . „ , ^ _ _ _^ v ^ „ for architects to talk gravely of the great loss of valuable time to which , they are subjected in a competition , and to put a money value on it equivalent sometimes to the whole amount of the commission . Advantage is taken of a particular case , as the barrack competition , to show that especial study must be made of military organization , of the habits of officers and soldiers , of the minutioo of barrack life ; that barracks must be