Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: v. 12, no. 281: August 2, 1873

Text version:

AND BUILDERS' GUIDE. Vol. XII. NEW YORK, SATURDAY, AUGUST 2, 1873. Ko. 281 Puhlished Weekly by THE REAL ESTATE RECORD ASSOCIATION. TERMS. One year, in advance......................g6 00 All commnnications should be addressed to Whiting BtnLDiKo, 345 and 347 Beoadwat. SPECIAL NOTICE. We must again call the atttention of builders to the improved processes in the coiiBtruction of buildings in¬ vented by Col. Derhom, of Paterson, N. J. Unfortu¬ nately, the Fire King has been making sad havoc, of late, in various parts of the countiy, and it behooves all those now charged with the erection of buildings to do all they can toward improving the same. Col. Derrom;''8 mode of constructing fire-proof work is simple and economical, and a trip to Paterson will amply repay those wdio honor the Colonel with a visit. THE OWNERSHIP OF DRAWINGS. One Tyoulcl itnagine that, 'witli all the eflPorts of architectural institutions on both sides of the Atlantic, the long-mooted question as to yvho is legal owner of the drawings which an architect prepares for his work—the architect or the employer—would long before this have been settled upon some satisfactory basis ; aud yet this vital point of architectural practice ■yvliich the oldest architect will remember being argued in his youth, appears to be as far to-day from any satisfactory conclusion as it ever was. Even now an interesting discus.siou is going on in the pages of the London Building JYeics, owing to a lecture which Mr. Roger Smith recently gave, and in which he told his hearers: " If the client asked for the drawings they should be given him; but as a rule they should not be offered to him." To this a cor¬ respondent, who signs himself " A. B.," takes vigorous exception, asserting that either the first advice is unwise or the second one is dis¬ honest ; and follows up his assertion by argu¬ ments to show that in any and every case the drawings are the exclusive property of the architect. Everything goes to prove this view of the question—the right one—whether weighed by the rules of moral right, common sense, or actual practice. It is difficult to see by w'hat well-fomided right any client can pretend'to claim the drawings which an architect makes for the purpose of carrying out any building with the erection of which he has been in¬ trusted. A man employs an architect for the benefit of his suggestions; and drawings are only the readiest medium by which an arch¬ itect finds it possible to place those suggestions before the employer, or to enable workmen to execute his ideas. If by mere words or by any sort of cabalistic art, he could, instanta- neousl}', put his employer in possession of his ideas, or enable a builder to carry out his design without illustrations, his services would be just as valuable at the completion of a structure as if he had prepared a wagon load of illustrative drawings. Drawings are simply the tools with which an architect effects his work; and when the object has been reached for which they were made, they as clearly be¬ long to him as do the tools and plant to any builder who has been employed about a struc¬ ture. When an artist has completed the paint¬ ing, he was employed to execute, or a sculptor his finished statue in marble, no one ever thinks of claiming the preliminary sketches by which the former achieved his result, or the clay model, and studies of the latter. Cases may doubtless arise in which an archi¬ tect is paid for his drawings and nothing else, but this is a matter of distinctive bargain which the architect is able, from the very start, either to agree with or to reject; and there are few architects—certainly none maintaining a proper self-respect—who wotild agree to sell their drawings as a dry-goods man sells his calico, probably to see his well-conceived no¬ tions pass into the hands of some wretched bungler, only to be caricattu'ed, and to hurt the reiputation of the designer. But those who take an opposite view of this matter ask the plausible question; " What then has an employer to show for his money in the event of the work not being executed, if the architect retains the drawings?" Clearly he w^ould not suffer any more than the man who runs up a long account with his physician for attendance and prescriptions which he never uses; or if he w^ere to employ a lawyer to work out some difficult negociation, and then, when all the elaborate writings are prepared, abandon the suit altogether. Architects, like lawyers and physicians, are paid for the time, labor, skill, and judgment whicli they devote to the services of others, and If these are not turned to proper account by clients, it is the fault of the latter. These propositions seem self-evident to all who take the trouble to look fiiirly into iheni; and yet, so unsettled is this question that Mr. Roger Smith, in his reply to the strictures of A. B., is able to tell the latter that" if he Avill give a clear decided case of its having been settled in a court of law that the drawings belong to the architect, he will render an essential service." If this question has not been decided by laAV, it is quite time that it should be, and we know of none more worthy of the attention of our institu-te of architects. BLUNDERS OE TAXATION. The investigation by the committee of the Supervisors into the great increase in the assessed valuation of property in the Twelfth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-second wards has disclosed facts whicli are worthy the attention of all tax payers. One of the most important and uncomfortable conclusions to which we are led from a review of the evidence taken, is that some at least of the gentlemen intrusted with the duty of making valuations are incap¬ able of discharging that office. It has been shown that in some instances the valuations exceed the market price of the property; and that in others where the property, yielding no revenue, is a continual drain upon the re¬ sources of the owner, it has been assessed nearlj', if not quite, up to the fancj"- prices for which it has been bought or at w'hich it is held. There are other grievances, but we be lieve those cited are ample to justify the Board of Supervisors in correcting the assessments as erroneous, and in reducing the taxation in. our upper wards. Practically this great in¬ crease in taxation is a bar to growth. It pre¬ vents the development of that portion of the city which now imperatively demands im¬ provement. There are streets to be laid out, filled in and graded, sewers to be run, all of which must lie in abeyance for j^ears, as own¬ ers will not feel able to unite in any petition for improvements which will only add assess¬ ments to an already grievous and overburden- some taxation. New York suffers peculiarly in having an undue proportion of the State taxation cast upon her shoulders. In the countiy towns of this State it is common to assess property at a third of its value or selling price, and counties which relatively are as wealthy as New York do not bear out a com¬ parison iu point of taxation. Even those cities included within the limits of counties of which towns are a portion of the subdivision, fare better than New York; and it would be well for our municipality if, instead of adding new wards, we annexed a few country towns and kept them in a state of rural independence for the purpose of maintaining a standard of local taxation wherewith to meet the aggi-es- sions of our sister counties. But the general principle of taxation in New York and throughout the State is wrong, unevenly bal¬ anced, and unfair. It is a system which needs correction, and as a starting point we call upon the Supervisors to take the initial steps in our oppressed up-town w^ards. OUR PINERIES AND OUR LUMBERMEN. A correspondent of the Syracuse, N. Y., Slavdard furnishes a communication for that paper upon "The Pineries of Michigan," which is being circulated through the press to some extent, and which the Gratiot Journal says does not contain a single element of truthful information. The article not only discloses the utter ignorance of the writer in r.!:,-!.