As to the danger of such a conflict, I personally have little fear, if some care is taken in selecting the architect. I know many of the profession. All of them I believe would spurn the first temptation, as they would an open bribe. Some of them might be influenced insidiously by the second, under the guise of Pure Art. But if shown by an expert librarian, worthy of belief, that any architectural beauty would tend to cripple the work of the library, I believe that every one would yield his views promptly and willingly. Indeed, on the first point, I have known an architect to sacrifice his own interest knowingly.
See anecdote at the bottom of [p. 131] proximo.
What Contest is Likely?
Putting aside any question of such serious conflicts, are there any differences to be expected? Why not leave it all to the architect, with what information he can get from the local librarian? There are a number of points to be settled both in the interior plan and about the exterior as affected by the interior. The question, for instance, of the best size and collocation of rooms, and height of stories, for effective and economical administration. The questions of shelving and furniture, always differing somewhat from previous problems. Such questions as ornamental fireplaces and massive furniture, and ornamental as against effective lighting. Questions as to the irreducible minimum of entrance halls, passages and stairways. All these on the interior:—on the exterior, the height of the basement, the height of the front steps, the height of stories and the arrangement and shape of windows, expense of material and decoration as against more space and better facilities inside. All these questions are open to honest difference of opinion between a librarian and an architect whose motives and ends are the same. And the architect with preconceived ideas, and a bias toward architectural effect, ought to have library views explained to him by some librarian who is his equal in experience, education, ability and personality.
The conditions have bettered in recent years. “The librarian’s ideal and the architect’s ideal, years ago wide apart, are today coming closer together. Full comparison of views may lead to agreement.”—Hamlin (architect).[24]
Where Lies the Blame?
Where should the blame of bad buildings rest? Sometimes, certainly, on the architect. Perhaps he is incompetent, perhaps he has been wilful. Champneys (an architect himself) says of the English situation: “In many cases architects have wilfully sacrificed utility to æsthetic considerations.”[25] And so often in America. I have recently heard of an architect chosen to build a library with only a limited fund available, calling for twenty-five per cent more money for more expensive material, before he had begun to lay out the interior. Here the blame should rest on the architect, unless he acted under positive orders from the committee.
But the architect is not always to blame. Sometimes the librarian has not been strong enough or has not had enough experience to guide him aright. Sometimes a “faddy” librarian has led him to adopt features which the profession generally disapprove. More often the building committee have left the problem to the architect without proper instructions, or have actually instructed him to disregard librarians’ advice, and to make the building showy at any sacrifice of use.