OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 



133 



to a landscape architect's overhead ex- 

 pense along with his office rent, and its 

 cost is recouped (with or without a the- 

 oretical but wholly negligible "profit") 

 out of his total charges to clients. The 

 same is true of the labor of draftsmen and 

 other assistants only in case the land- 

 scape architect's fixed fee covers their 

 services as well as his own (whether it 

 be a lump sum fee, or an acreage fee. or 

 a fee based on a percentage of "total 

 cost"). The cost of the services of such 

 assistants varies widely in difiFerent kinds 

 of jobs. As long as it is small relatively 

 to the charge for his personal services the 

 question of a "profit" on it is academic 

 and negligible. But it may legitimately, 

 and in the client's best interests, become 

 very large in some cases, far exceeding 

 the charge for the landscape architect's 

 own personal services. In such cases the 

 question of whether the charge for the 

 "labor" of assistants includes a substan- 

 tial profit becomes professionally im- 

 portant. 



Absolutely no hard and fast line based 

 upon the character of the work done can 

 be so drawn as to separate that which is 

 "labor" from that which is some kind of 

 high-brow-stufF distinguishable from "la- 

 bor." A landscape architect's planting 

 assistant may just as legitimately and 

 just as professionally set a plant with his 

 own hands, if that is an efficient way to 

 get the best results, as to draw plans and 

 give long explanations of how he wants 

 it done. 



In the interest of the best art we should 

 not interpose any artificial harriers tend- 

 ing to keep the landscape architect and 

 his regular trained assistants at arm's 

 length from the work. The closer the 

 personal contact and responsibility for 

 details the better for the work. 



What then is to prevent a landscape 

 architect from gradually increasing the 

 functions assumed by his employees un- 

 til they are doing a large part of the 



"labor" of a job, in any common-sense 

 i:se of the word labor? 



Nothing, except the objection previous- 

 ly raised against his habitually undertak- 

 ing executive functions at the expense of 

 his proper emphasis upon the functions 

 of design, prodded he is not making a 

 "commercial profit" on the labor of his 

 assistants. In any case where the pay of 

 his employees is likely to be more than 

 a minor item in the total which he 

 charges against his client he ought, I be- 

 lieve, to avoid charging for their work on 

 a lump sum basis ; or on any basis which 

 fixes his total compensation without re- 

 gard to the amount which he pays out to 

 his employees, and which leaves him to 

 make a considerable speculative profit or 

 loss on the transaction according to 

 whether the}- "get away" with doing only 

 a little work on the job or put in a great 

 deal of work. 



This is one of the reasons why I think 

 the method of charging an agreed lump 

 sum fee to cover professional services and 

 ex[)enses. should seldom be used where so 

 large an amount of assistants' services is 

 involved that the compensation for the 

 personal services of the landscape archi- 

 tect becomes a very minor item in his 

 total bill. 



The same objection of course holds 

 against a fee fixed by a percentage rela- 

 tion to the total cost where that fee is 

 intended to cover a large amount of as- 

 sistants' services. 



But in view of the actual custom of 

 some entirely reputable landscape archi- 

 tects, and of most architects, of charging 

 on the basis last mentioned, it would be 

 quixotic today to regard it as unprofes- 

 sional provided the practitioner who uses 

 it is scrupulously careful to confine the 

 work covered by such a fee well within 

 the customary limits of making plans and 

 other office work and occasional super- 

 vision, and to avoid anv obligation under 



