The Building Committee chooses site, appoints adviser, selects architect, defines scope of the library, is final arbiter of everything, with appeal to the full board. Every point which remains in dispute after conference among all the advisers, should be formulated in definite questions, with clear reasons pro and con, and submitted to the committee. Except in a very small library, where one of the trustees is virtual director in default of a skilled librarian, the building committee can serve best by keeping their minds free for such decision, if called for, on such presentation. The advocates, if unanimous, should receive unanimous approval; if divided, the committee must decide on the weight of the arguments presented.
The local librarian will have to run the library after it is built, and if he has sufficient sense and experience to know what he wants, he ought to have his choice in any possible alternatives.
The library adviser, as he has the wider range of experience, should carry great weight with the local librarian, the architect, and the committee. He can often point out more than one satisfactory way to reach a desired end. When he and the librarian agree after discussion, as they generally will, the architect should have very strong convictions before opposing them.
The architect, on points of construction, is supreme. Neither librarian or adviser will want to oppose him here, although both may be able to advise. When the plan is fixed, they must confide to him its clothing in architectural form, and its execution. During planning it is wise to consult him at every step, for his training, his experience, his genius, will improve on many ideas, and will show ways of overcoming many obstacles. Before he gets through, indeed, he will get to be very much interested, and become something of an expert himself in library science.
But the architect and librarian should not disagree. When a point of difference arises, as it may, talk it over amicably, patiently, thoroughly. The aim of all should be, to build a good working library. When all the reasons are presented (here is where the librarian or library adviser should be a clear and persuasive advocate), the architect may come to see the matter in the same light. If not, he has got to present more powerful arguments. Perhaps he can show the librarian how he can gain his end in a more correct architectural way. If they still disagree, each side will be ready to present its reasons to the building committee, with odds in favor of the librarian. Champneys (an architect)[142] acknowledges that “architects should not be considered competent arbiters on questions of library administration.” But, if it is a structural question, or a question of taste, the architect’s advice ought to be preferred.
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]”