Real  Estate   Record





AND BUILDERS^ GUIDE.





YoL. XXI.





NEW YORK, SATUEDAY, JUNE 22, 1878.





No. 536.





Published W«el:ly by





TERMS.
ONE YEAR, in advance....SlO.OO.

Communications should be addressed to

C.   W.   .SWKKT,

No.s.  ."ilB ASO :A7  ibtOADWAV.





OWNERS, ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS.
In no other city would one naturallj' look for
the exhibition of private orders for building iu
greater number than hi the citj- of New York.
Yet probablj'' in no city does the ratio of private
orders to Speculative enferpri.ses fall so low as in
our own city. With an abundance of eligible and
accessible land, with a perplexing a.ssorttiient autl
variety of building material, with architectural
and mechanical taleut of the highest order and
ready to be proffered iu tho greatest profusiou,
there is still a lack of disposition ou the part of
private owners to embark in building schemes. If
we except from the calculation projections made
by public corporations, banks, insurance com¬
panies and other stock concerns, the percentage of
private ordei-s in the annual building projection
would not exceed ten per cent, in number or
t%venty per cent, iu value.

If we cast about for the cause of this lack of
enterprise on the part of private capitalists, the
least experienced person in building affairs may
readily assign it. It may be attributed primai-ily
if not wholly to the ill-organized, not to .'ay dis¬
organized condition of the building trade.

It would be an astonishment to those who do
not know, as it is a mortification to those who do
know, how few building establishments there are
in tliis city organized and equipped according to
a true mercantile standard with respect to system,
ability and solvency. The private order busmess
of this city is practically monopolized by a few
old and leading concerns, whoses names aro a suf¬
ficient guarantee for tho faithful performance of
work; and yet scarcely any of these concerns are
able to execute 'their work independent of an
architect's superintendence aud dictation. When
an owner, actuated by a spirit of frugality or par¬
simony, seeks to cheapen the cost of construction,
by accepting bids from persons of doubtful sol¬
vency, the experiment is pretty apt to prove a
costly failure. A repetition of these experiences
tends to confirm the monopoly already enjoyed
by more substantial firms, and they 'in turn find
it to their interest to cater to tho whims, preju¬
dices and interests of the architectm-al profession.
The ordinary routine of procedure in a private
projection of building, is, for the owner first to
select his architect to whom he explains his pm^-
poses, and from whom he expects to derive his
whole initiation and instruction in the mysteries
of builtling. The architect is accustomed to take
possession of the job, and, we might say, of the
owner for the time being. Architects much pre¬
fer to have an absolute engagement made at the
start, and to receive a liberal retainer or promise
of one as an earnest of the client's good faith.





This is diguilied and prof&ssional, and give.s the
architect that autocratic control over the whnli'
undertaking which is so indispensable to the true
conception of his calling. The avenage owner,
however, is too canny and wary to fall blindly
aud artlessly into the professional trap which may
be set for him. He is curious, imiuisitive, cate¬
chetical, deniiuitls a great deal of advance infor¬
mation, is not chary tibotit tusking for sketch plans
tuul for multiplied estimates of cost before com¬
mitting himself absolutely to a contract. Prob¬
ably the experience of every architect's ofilce in
this city is, that out of a hundred sketch plans
prepared and submitted to clients, not more than
ten are ever executed. Young architects have
to be .satisfied with superintending tho execution
of one out of twenty to liftj'.

Ther* is souie inherent difliculty, either physical
or mental, encountered in  architects  methods,
ways or means which proves fatally obstructive
to private projection of building.   Practical ex¬
perience   with   work  thus  undertaken   usuallj-
proves dissua.sive of further efforts.    It is no uii-
couiuiou event for tho actual eost to niaterially
exceed the architect's estimate.   Tho architect's
fee itself forms no inconsiderable portion of the
cost of building; aud where this fee takes the
form of a fixed percentage of the cost, there is
presented an irresistible temptation to lay on the
'expense in the  name of improving  the work.
The readiness with which architects lend them¬
selves to tbe suggestion of costly improvements
aud expensive alterations of work has a discourag¬
ing effect upon the mind of the untutored owner.
There is a suspicion prevalent among experienced
owners and a well established tradition among
mechanics that some architects are in the habit
of receiving commissions from sub-contractoi^s.
It isneedles.s to .say that such a practice is totally
inconsistent witti the relations sustained by tho
architect to his client, and is fatally injurious to
the proper prosecution of the work.     Besides,
architects are apt to be tibsurdly and excessively
theoretical and artistic—in a wonl, unpractical.
Plans and designs that can be worked out readily
enough with pencil and ruler are awkward, com¬
plicated and almost impossible of execution with
bricks and mortar and   .scantling.     Mechanics
are frequently bewildered with fanciful plottings
and sketchings of the architect's assistants, and
find themselves too often involved in a net, from
whose meshes the architect alone can extricate
them.   Such sei"vices ai-e apt to afford the founda¬
tion for the exaction  of  a  fee to  which  the
mechanic is quick to respond as the readiest out¬
let from his difliculties.

In ordinary private jobs the architect and
builder are apt to pull in contrary directions, and
the innocent and unsophisticated owner stands
appalled with the conflict of ojiinion.

Owners iiaturaUy seek to make a judicious in¬
vestment of their capital, whether it may bo
large or small in amount. Tho conventional
method of conducting building operations makes
it to the interest of the architect to lay out as
great a sum as possible, while the builder, if he is
tied up in a contract, is anxious to give as little as
may be consistent w^ith a fair interpretation of
tho contract. The common result is dissatisfac¬
tion, sometimes law suits, with more or less pro¬
tracted and expensive issues.





In this statement we have simply presented a
common experience. We have uo purpose of de¬
crying ono profe.s.sioii or exalting another. We
observe this phenomenon in the growth of the
city, that it is dependent upon public and private
corporations tuid speculative builders; that pri-
vtite order work appears in a far smaller volume
than might reti.sonably be expected. We are
seeking to explore not only the cause but a reme¬
dy for this contlitiou. l-'roni circuiiist£inces, which
we will not stop to explain, we believe the future
growth of this city will be largely dependent upou
the enterprise of privato ownei^s. It will promote
the physical growth of the city to devise some
metms whereby private capital may lind a ready
and satisfactory outlet in real estate improve¬
ments. The prevailing and established method
has not been productive of beneficial or adequate
results. There is another method, an efficient and
reliable oue we believe, but now in its infancy,
which is destined to surpass any other that has
ever been tried for enlisting the interest of private
owners in building enteriirises.

American capitalists are of a practical turn of
mind. They know nothing of the traditions and
customs of professional life abroad, and have no
undue respect for pretensions of them in this
country. It is not to be expected that a gentle¬
man who desires to procure an elegant aud
modern suit of clothes should firet select his de¬
signer, and from ti sp'ecially prepared model have
the needed garments wrought and fitted under the
supei'vision of his chosen artist. He simply goes
to Rock, Bell, Laws, or any other first-class tailor,
describes his want and leaves his order. Or, if
he desii^es an elaborate and costly piece of cabinet
work, it is not the custom to firet seek tm expert
draughtsman or modeler, but to apply directly to
tiie manufacturers of cabinet work, to Marcotte,
Herter. Pottier, Schasty, and select from their
patterns, or adopt a design specially improvised
bj' their employed artists.

These are unimportant matters compared with
the erection of a building, but they are artistic
aud creative, just as the building business is. In¬
stead of fostering or penietuating discordant
immobile and unsatisfactory offices, such as the
separate functions of architect and builder are
apt to be, we believe it is in the line of progress,
and in unison with the inevitable elevation and
advancement of the building trade to inculcate
and require that builders should thoroughly equip
themselves with the science as well as the technics
of their calling, and should acquire such mastery
of the principles of their business as will enable
them to design, plot out, and executo the ordinary
products of their trade.

We are aware that heretofore the builder and
mechanic have ranked as inferior to the architect,
just as the ai-chitect is esteemed to be the pro¬
fessional inferior of the civil engineer. But
callings and professions in this country at least
are not necessarily potrefactions, their functions
are exchangeable. A competent,conscientious and
pains-taking buildor may easily become an archi¬
tect or civil engineer, and, we may say, more
naturally and easily than the professional man
may bscome a master mechtxnic. It is inconsis¬
tent with the aspiring aud ambitious temper of
American mechanics that they shouhibe satiilled
to remain mere automatons of traiueil profes-