Architectural Competitions
As to libraries, the American authorities seem unanimously opposed to competitions.
The American Institute of Architects at their 1911 convention, said: “The Institute is of the opinion that competitions are in the main of no advantage to the owner. It therefore recommends, except in cases in which competition is unavoidable, an architect be employed upon the sole basis of his fitness for the work.[143]”
“Sketches give no evidence that their author has the matured artistic ability to fulfill their promise, or that he has the technical knowledge necessary to control the design of the highly complex structure and equipment of a modern building, or that he has executive ability for large affairs or the force to compel the proper execution of contracts.
“I will add, that an architect’s established reputation and the excellence of what he has already built, are far better proofs of his ability to undertake a library, than any guess he can make in a competition. Competition descends into a guessing match as to what will please the committee.[144]”
“The whole matter of employing professional men in this way is absurd. The architect should be called in at the very commencement of the work. His opinion is as much needed in the choice of a site, and the first formation of the owner’s ideas, as in the preparation of working drawings.”—Sturgis.[145]
The practically unanimous opinions of architects and librarians who have written or spoken on building, are strongly against competition. In an excellent paper read at the Waukesha Conference by an architect, Mauran,[146] he said: “Appoint your architect. It is a popular notion among laymen that a competition will bring out ideas, but I know of only one building erected from competitive plans, without modification. Aside from the needless expense and loss of time entailed, a greater evil lies in the well-proven fact that most architects endeavor to find the board’s predilections.” (Instead of trying to work out a perfect plan.)
“Avoid the competitive method.”—E. N. Lamm.[147]
“A plan that has nothing in its favor, and everything against it.”[148]
“Of three methods, open competition, limited competition, and direct choice by the board, the last is far the simplest, and much less expensive.”—Mrs. Elmendorf.[149]
“Trustees are not likely to get what they want by competition.”—W. R. Eastman.[150]
“After the requirements have been sent out to competitors, there can be no more consultations between them and the librarian until the award is made.”[151] (This cuts out the librarian just at the critical part of planning.)
“It is not usual or advisable for buildings costing less than $75,000.”—Marvin.[152]
Out of twenty-two libraries included by Miss Marvin only two had competitions. One library[153] reports: “It was the intention of the board to choose by competition, but none of many plans submitted was satisfactory. Committee finally decided on architect and worked with him.”
“What little good there is in competitions is not to the advantage of the client, but rather to the advantage of the architect. The young men have a better chance to win, before their time. An architect directly selected grows up with the committee, educates them, and learns from them.”—Edward B. Green.[154]
“The committee had thought of having an architectural competition, but in deference to the advice of the librarian and his adviser, they selected an architect without competition, so that every step in planning, from the outset, could be discussed from the standard of the architect, as well as from that of the librarian. To this is to be attributed the success of the building.”—John Hay Library Report.[155]
If any doubt remains, after reading these quotations, I will add that all my study and experience for over thirty years, in many hundred concrete cases, have led me to the profound conviction that the surest way to spoil and stifle a library is to invite an architectural competition. I have so great confidence in the talent and genius of American architects, that I believe any one of them, true to the traditions of his profession, would take the conditions presented by librarians, and out of them, work up a library much more practical and far more beautiful than could be ensured by any method of competition.
If law, or public demand, or fear of assuming responsibility, prevent a board of trustees from choosing an architect at the outset, they should first choose an architectural adviser (see next chapter), whom they will have to pay handsomely, as well as to pay premiums and prizes for the competition (I see that the University of California laid aside $50,000 for this purpose); and have him formulate the requirements, superintend the competition, and assist in judging (“assessing” it is called in England) the results.
But I wish that he might be able to shut out from any award those competitors whose plans would exceed the prescribed cost. I remember in my callow days having gone to a friend who was a prominent architect, and proposing to prepare joint plans in a great library competition then impending. He laughed and said, “Yes, I would like to do it as a matter of study, but we will not win a prize. Ours will doubtless be a fine library inside, but there will be no librarian among the judges of award. We will have a fine exterior, but we shall try to keep within the desired cost. Some other architect will plan a larger and more florid and more expensive building, which will fascinate the public eye so much it will win the prize, and the donor will be asked for more money, which he will meekly contribute.” My friend was right. Just this result followed.
In the recent Springfield (Mass.) competition, each architect was required to submit with his plans an estimate of their cubic contents, as a basis for calculating how much they would cost. This was an excellent precaution against just this danger.
In England a competition is apparently accepted as a necessary evil.[156] I cannot find anything on the subject in Burgoyne, but the architect Champneys[157] says that the architect is in most cases selected by open competition. He adds that this “gives openings to those whose abilities would otherwise escape recognition,” and rather faintly concedes some advantage in selection.
“It is almost impossible to make instructions (in a competition) so comprehensive that an architect can be taught this very special branch of his art.”—Champneys.[158]
It should be also recognized that competitions are very costly and delay work on a library several months. What is saved by not having a competition would pay ten times the expense of getting the very best library expert.