THE RELATIONS OF SPECIALISTS TO ARCHITECTS 
By Edgar V. Seeler. 
TN attempting to discuss the relations of 
^ specialists to architects, a difficulty at once 
presents itself in the varying factors of the pro¬ 
fessional equipment of the architect, the per¬ 
sonal qualifications of both the architect and 
the specialist, as well as in the particular work 
which the specialist is called upon to do. 
An architect of large and constant practice 
can afford to have complete or approximately 
complete provisions in his own office, for every 
department of work covered by bis practice. 
This is necessarily an expensive service to 
maintain, but the conditions are ideal for the 
execution of the best work. In such a case, 
the controlling head employs only such special¬ 
ists as assistants who will do his bidding in 
their relatively subordinate places, or whose 
independent work can be relied upon to con¬ 
form to the known traditions of the office. It 
is possible also that the designers in the more 
purely architectural departments be given a 
general oversight of the allied departments. 
Offices of this importance, however, are ex¬ 
tremely few. 
I here is a second and larger class of offices, 
in which the conditions of American practice 
warrant the maintenance of a construction 
department, equal to the special as well as 
ordinary problems of steel skeleton and heavy 
building, in addition to the necessary depart¬ 
ments of design. The constructive engineer 
is generally capable of dealing with the me¬ 
chanical problems of heating and ventilation, 
power plants and electrical installations. 
But by far the largest class is obliged to 
have not only the problems of special con¬ 
struction and mechanical engineering solved 
by specialists employed temporarily, but in 
common with the second class, also problems 
of sanitation, landscaping, interior decoration, 
models of ornament, and such other work as 
general practice implies. In this class, the 
smaller the practice the greater is the difficulty 
of securing the assent of the client to the extra 
fee which the employment of the specialist 
necessitates, and it may be added, the greater 
the difficulty of the architect to secure a satis¬ 
factory specialist. 
With the growing importance of the special¬ 
ist, the acknowledgment that he has come to 
be a necessity, emphasized by such statements 
as that in the schedule of charges endorsed by 
the American Institute of Architects, which 
provides that his services are to be paid for by 
the owner in addition to the fee paid the archi¬ 
tect, contains a germ of harm to the best in¬ 
terests of the architect, in so far as it encour¬ 
ages too great independence on the part of the 
specialist. For the prime requisite tow 7 ard 
the ultimate success of any building is that the 
architect, either in person or by a responsible 
deputy, shall be in full control of every indi¬ 
vidual item which goes to make his building 
a complete wffiole. 
It may be generally admitted that the engi¬ 
neering specialists are much more tractable as 
associates than those specialists whose work 
requires a more definite artistic sense. The 
really capable engineer has no sentiment of 
hurt pride in admitting that he knows little 
of art. 
It is also probably true, on the other hand, 
that the artist’s distaste for engineering makes 
it easier for the engineer to accomplish his pur¬ 
pose, so that in designing, the architect is more 
willing to make concessions to the engineer or 
to meet him halfway, than if the engineer pre¬ 
sumed beyond his true sphere. The architect 
comes to know after very little experience that 
heat flues, steam pipes, electric conduits, 
plumbing lines, demand space for their proper 
operation, and he allows for them, even though 
vaguely. 
Again, it must be remembered that the 
engineering expert, whatever his particular 
branch, is not always capable of determining 
just what is meant by plans, nor of seizing at 
once the particular object which the architect 
wishes to accomplish. If the engineer is lazy 
or set in his ways, he is prone not to devote any 
more time to such work than is actually neces¬ 
sary to accomplish his own results, irrespective 
of their artistic merits. 
I he architect, therefore (and this cannot be 
urged too strongly), must in self-defense exer¬ 
cise a close supervision over the work of the 
1 A paper read at the Annual Convention of the American Institute of Architects. 
82 
