480 THE BUILDING NEWS. JunE 14, 1872 ——— _ ~~ ~"*)"]_——EE=——====S==S=L_____==———_—————_—_____BaS=—_——_— ss ss ss ss sss
member from the Associates, one member from the Architectural Alliance, one member from the Architec- tural Association, with the addition of Mr. A. Strong, who will aid the Secretary of the Institute in ascer- taining the views of provincial architects on these mutters. That this Committee be requested to take into consideration the various papers or proposals that have been issued on this subject by the Institute, by the Alliance, and by the Association, and to base on those documents, and such other evidence as may be obtained, some clear and short conditions, which, when fully sanctioned, as hereafter described, shall be issued as a document to be generally adopted by all architects in professional competitions, That this report, when sanctioned by the Council and confirmed at a Special General Meeting of the Institute, duly convened for the purpose, be forwarded to those members residing in the provinces who have been inyited to attend this Conference ; and that the same report be submitted for approval at the next general Conference (which it is hoped the Council will convene in the month of June, 1872), so as to ensure perfect unanimity of action and Opinion amongst architects practising in this country. That this Committee shall be requested to act asa Permanent Committee, to put themselves in communi- cation with all promoters of competions, forwarding them a copy of the several conditions agreed .upon as the only terms on which architects should enter upon the competition, and publishing in the professional papers the result of this communication for the infor- mation of competitors and of the public, it being understood that this action shall not take place until after the report has been discussed and confirmed at the Conference in 1872.” In accordance with the above resolution the special Committee subsequently appointed by the Council to consider the subject of architectural competitions beg to report that they held several meetings prior to the 27th of November, 1872, on which day a series of ques- tions was transmitted to the members of the Institute, to the Architectural Association, to the Royal Institute of Ireland, to the Glasgow Institute of Architects, to the Manchester Society of Architects, to the Birming- ham, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Sheffield Architectural Societies, to the Northern and Nottingham Archi- tectural Associations, and to such other architects as appeared upon the list of names prepared for the pur- poses of the Conference. The answers received— eighty-two sets in number — were collected and scheduled, and proved of the greatest assistance to your Committee. The experience and views of the majority of the contributors appear to be as follows :— Q. 1.—What experience you have had in competi- tions, whether open or limited; in what classes of buildings ; whether at the instance of public bodies or private promoters; and whether the decisions have been arrived at with or without professional advice, A. 1.—Considerable experience of the most varied kind in both publicand private competitions, instances and results being given by name, mostly without pro- fessional advice. Q. 2.—What views you have formed of the cus- tomary management of competitions; whether you have found them to be generally conducted with fair- ness; what improvements you can suggest in such management ; and what means you would propose for securing the adoption of such improvements. A, 2.—Management “generally” and “always ” unfair, owing chiefly to the ignorance of building committees. Improvements suggested: Standing Institute Committee to assist promoters by advice; Standing advertisement of “suggestions to pro- moters ;” a table of rules; more complete information in the instructions; drawings to be less elaborate ; ultimate employment to depend on estimate being within a certain percentage of the sum named; non- adherence to instructions to exclude; professional assistance. Q. 3.—What advantages, or the reverse, you consicer have accrued to the profession by the practice of com- petition; whether in your experience it has really afforded to meritorious architects a better opportunity of advancement than they would otherwise have had ; and how far the interests of other architects of equal ability have been affected thereby. A. 3.—The advantages to the profession at large have been “ncne” and “few.” Competitions are allowed to be advantageous if conducted with fairness. The system is thought to afford untried members of the profession certain opportunities, whilst it increases knowledge and experience. The interest of other architects of equal ability often prejudicially affected. Q. 4.—Whether you have found from your own knowledge, that the selection of a successful design is determined, as a rule, by the actual practical merits of the design ; or whether by any other causes which you can mention; also whether the successful competitor has generally been employed to carry out the work, and if not, why. A. 4.—Selection not determined by merit. Causes for selection : showy drawings, false estimates, and private friends on the building committee. The successful competitor generally employed to carry oul the work. Q. 5.—What idea yen have formed of the prime cost of a competition design, in money out of pocket for clerks’ and other assistance, &c., with reference to pir- ticular cases and to the estimated cost of the buildings ; and what ought to be allowed beyond this for the architect's own time. A. 5.—Experience as to prime cost extremely various, ranging from 4 to 20 per cent., and from £2 to £500, own time not included. Q. 6.—Whether in your opinion the condition fre- quently laid down by Committees, requiring the success- ful architect to let the premium merge in his ordinary professional commission, is justified by the idea that the labour expended upon the premiated design materi- ally diminishes his subsequent labour. A. 6.—The practice of ‘‘ merging the commission ” is not justified. Q. 7.—Whether you have been engaged in competi- tions when all the competitors were paid for their designs ; or whether in cases where no premium has been offered at all (except promised employment on the proposed building); and in each such case what have been the results, and what opinion you have formed upon the merits of the system. A. 7.—Experience in cases where all competitors were paid, or where no premium except promised employment, is nearly equally divided. Opinions in the former class, that better designs were obtained, and that private friends decide the question. Opinions in the latter class, that there should always be an offer of premiums. (. 8.—What recommendations your experience leads you to make with regard to the number, character, and scale of the drawings which ought to be required to be submitted ina competition; what value you attach to a public exhibition of the designs, either before or after the selection; and what benefit you consider to accrue from the employment of a professional judge. A. 8.—Recommendations: the drawings to have the character of preliminary sketches only ; to be only as many as are strictly necessary ; no coloured drawings ; perspectives to be uniform in number and size, and etched, or in sepia, or in single tint. Scale from one- sixteenth to one-eighth. Exhibition after the award. Professional advice very desirable in order to ensure adherence to instructions, and to judge as to suitability and cost. With this material at hand, and aided by the Insti- tute report of 1839, the Report of the Architectural Association in 1849, the proceedings at the General Conference of 1871, information as to the practice in France, and a copy of the Code of Rules in general use throughout Germany since 1868, your committee continued their meetings ; and now beg to submit, as the result of their attentive deliberations, the follow- ing draft of a series of rules, which they hope may meet with the approval of the General Conference of 1872. They are deeply impressed with a sense of the great and manifold evils arising from the defective system upon which competitions have been hitherto conducted in regard not only to the private interest but also to the public reputation of the profession, and they believe that these evils might, ina great measure, be rectified by the adoption of some such Code of Rules as they now beg leave to submit for your con- sideration, CHARLES BARRY. Ropwert KERR. T. RoGER SMITH. T. H. WATSON. R. PHENE SPIERS. ALFRED STRONG, Hon. See. of Committee, May 3, 1872. The CiArRMAN asked whether the regutations should be read altogether, and discussed afterwards, or whether they should be read and discussed one by one. The latter course having been decided upon, Mr. A. Srrone, Hon. Sec. of the Committee, read as follows :— General Regulations Proposed by the Conference Com- mittee for the Conduct of Architectural Competitions.* I.—The promoters of every competition should appoint one or more [professional assessors, whose names shal] be published in the advertisements and instructions. It willbe the duty of these assessors : —(a) to advise upon the details of the instructions ; (b) to determine which of the designs conform to those instructions ; (c) to exclude all others; and (d) to advise the promoters on the relative merits of the designs admitted to the competition. This regulation was unanimously agreed to as it stands. Mr. Srrone then read the second regula- tion, which was also agreed to without discussion ; II.—Every member of the Committee of Adju- dication and every assessor must necessarily abstain from taking a part in the competition, or in the execution of the proposed work. The Secrerary next read the third regulation : II1.—The number and scale of the required draw- ings must be distinctly stated, and they should not be more in number or to a larger scale than neces- sary in order clearly to explain the design. If per- spective views be required, the instructions should be such as to ensure uniformity of size, number, mode of colouring, &e. This regulation was agreed to unanimously. next regulation proposed was : IV.—Competitors should be allowed the option of using a motto, or signing their drawings. Considerable discussion arose upon this regulation, which was eventually struck out by a large majority. The fifth regulation proposed was as follows: V.—The instructions should clearly state whether the amount proposed to be expended will be strictly limited, or may be considered as approximate only. The
- As will be seen a little further on in this report of
the Conference proceedings, this heading was subse- quently amended.
This clause also gave rise to considerable dis- cussion, and it was eventually amended by the inser- tion, after the word ‘‘whether,” of the following words: “the plans are to be marked with their authors’ names or by mottoes, and whether.” The fifth regulation, as amended and adopted, therefore reads as follows: V.—The instructions should cleariy state whether the plans are to be marked with their authors’ names or by mottoes, and whether the amount proposed to be expended will be strictly limited, or may be con- sidered as approximate only. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth regu- lations proposed by the Committee were all agreed to with but little discussion. They are as follows:— VI.—Designs ought to be excluded from competi- tion (a), if sent in after the period named (accidents in transit excepted); (b), if in violation of any of the instructions; (c), if they do not substantially give the accommodation asked for; (d), if they ex- ceed the limits of site, and (e), if the assessor (with or without the assistance of a surveyor) should determine that their probable cost will exceed by ten per cent. the intended outlay, or the estimate of the competitor. VII.—AIl submitted designs, unless excluded under rule VI., should be publicly exhibited after the final award. The report of the assessor and the decision of the Committee shall be published at the time of exhibition. VIII.—It should always be an undertaking by the parties inviting plans in competition that—subject to compliance with the conditions, especially as to a tender being obtained within ten per cent. of the competitor’s estimate—the author of the design declared to be the best is to be employed on the work if carried out, subject to any special arrangements which may be recommended by the assessors in the interest of the work. IX.—Phe first premium should not be less than one-half per cent. of the proposed outlay; it is not to be merged in the commission, but must be subse- quently increased by one-half per cent. if the pre- miated design be not carried out, or if the work be abandoned. Other premiums should be offered, the aggregate amount of which should not be less than one per cent. upon the intended outlay, divided into as many premiums as may be convenient. The above applies to works over £10,000 in value; in the case of smaller works the percentage of remu- neration should be increased. In cases of limited competition each competitor should receive some payment in order to meet his expenses. X.—Designs for which premiums have been adjudged and paid ought not thereby to become the property of the promoters. The CuarrMany, in putting the foregoing regula- tions collectively, as amended, to the meeting, re- marked that he had no doubt they would be adopted, but he wished to make a few observations. Per- sonally he had strong doubts as to the utility of competitions .as a general thing, and therefore he hoped that one result of the adoption of these rules would not be to encourage every little local board and every small vestry to entertain the impression that in any petty little school-house or work of that kind the proper thing to do was to invite a competi- tion. (Hear, hear.) Competitions might be occa-— sionally advantageous, as in the case of important national works, though even under these circum- stances their utility was doubtful; but if the idea were to go forth that the Institute had issued: these regulations with the express purpose of encouraging competitions, it would act greatly to the detriment of the profession. He therefore suggested that if the regulations were adopted, the heading which should precede them should read as follows :— ““General Regulations Adopted by the Conference Committee for the Conduct of Architectural Competitions in Cases in which Competition shall be Justified by the Extent and Importance of the Work, or by other Special Circumstances.” The Chairman's suggestion wags adopted una- nimously, as were also the foregoing regulations as: amended, and the Report of the Committee. Professor Kirr having read a tentative form of conditions for a competition which he had drawn up, votes of thanks to the Committee, Chair— man, &c., were unanimously accorded, and the meeting terminated. The further proceedings of the Conference will be reported in our next. Se ——— A. Laverton, Esq., has generously decided on erect- ing a new Literary Institution and Boy's School, ona very commanding site in Westbury, Wilts. The plans have been furnished by Mr. Stent, of War- minster, and workmen are busy levelling and pre- paring the site, which is on the side of a piece of rising ground.
