That extraordinary phenomenon, which those who read many newspapers sometimes encounter, of the inspiration of two writers following tracks so closely parallel that their effusions are word for word the same from beginning to end, was recently to be observed in the case of the New York Herald and the Pittsburgh Leader, which published on the same day an article devoted to architects or, rather, to their incomes, which held up these fortunate professional men as objects to be envied, if not by all the world, at least by journalists, many of whom have just now a way of writing about rich men or women which suggests the idea that the journalist himself was brought up in a jail, and sees nothing but the pockets of those whom he favors with his attention. The present writers, after half a column or so of rubbish about the grandeur of American buildings, furnish the New York and Pittsburgh public with the information that “there are in the city of New York at least ten architects whose annual net income is in excess of a hundred thousand dollars, while in Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis there are quite as many who can spend a like amount of money every year without overdrawing their bank accounts.” This is certainly very liberal to the architects, but what follows is even more so. “There are,” we are told, in addition to the magnates just mentioned, “hosts of comparatively small fry whose annual profits will pass the fifty-thousand-dollar mark.” If an architect whose net income is only a thousand dollars a week belongs to the “small fry,” what name would these journalists have for the remaining insignificant beings who practise architecture faithfully and skilfully, and thank Providence sincerely if their year’s work shows a profit of three thousand dollars? Yet, with a tolerably extended acquaintance in the profession, we are inclined to think that this list includes the greater part of the architects in this country. As to the architects whose usual income from their business is a hundred thousand dollars, they are pure myths. The New York-Pittsburgh authority mentions by name Mr. R. M. Hunt as one of them. As a counterpoise to this piece of information, we will mention what a worthy contractor once said to us about Mr. Hunt. The builders were not, in those days, very fond of our venerated President. He had altogether too many new ideas to suit their conservatism, which looked with horror on anything out of the common way. “The fact is,” said the contractor, in a burst of confidence, “Mr. Hunt never could get a living at all if he hadn’t a rich wife.” By averaging these two pieces of misinformation, after the manner of the commissioners of statistics, one may, perhaps, get some sort of notion of what a very able and distinguished architect in New York, seconded by skilful and devoted assistants, can make out of his business; but men so successful are extremely rare exceptions in the profession, and the “hosts” of “small fry” whose annual profits amount to fifty thousand dollars, of course, do not exist. It would be a waste of time to notice such ridiculous assertions, were it not that they do a great deal of harm to the profession and the public: to the profession by making people believe that architects are combined to extort an unreasonable compensation for their work; and to the public by spreading the idea that the profession of architecture is just the one in which their sons can become rapidly rich without much trouble. It would be a useful thing to publish here, as is done in England, the value of the estate left at their death by architects of distinction, although in many cases this is greatly increased by inheritance, by marriage, by fortunate investments or by outside employment; but, if this should be done, it would be not less useful to publish also a few true accounts of the early trials and struggles of architects. How many of them have we known who have given drawing-lessons, illustrated books, designed wall-papers, supervised laborers, delivered lyceum-lectures or written for newspapers, happy if they could earn two dollars a day while waiting for a vacancy in the “hosts” of architects with a thousand dollars a week income. How many more, who were glad of the help of their faithful young wives in eking out the living which had love for its principal ingredient. And of those who have persisted until time and opportunity have brought them a comparatively assured, though modest position, how many have found their way to it through architecture? If we are not mistaken, less than half of the trained students in architecture turned out by our technical schools are to be found in the profession six years later. The others, ascertaining, on a closer view, that their expected income of fifty thousand dollars a year is farther off than they anticipated, and that fifty thousand cents is about as much as they can expect for a good many years to come, drift away into other employments, and some of them, no doubt, will be much astonished to learn from the newspaper reporters what they have missed.
We regret very much to hear of the death of Mr. George F. Durand, Vice-President of the Canadian Society of Architects; which occurred at London, Ontario, last week. Mr. Durand was young in the profession, being only thirty-nine years old, but was very widely and favorably known among architects and the public, both in Canada and elsewhere. He was a native of London, but after spending a short time in the office of the city engineer there, he went to Albany, N.Y., where he was employed by Mr. Thomas Fuller as his chief assistant in the work on the new capitol, which was then in Mr. Fuller’s hands. When Mr. Fuller was superseded, Mr. Durand left Albany with him, and, after a year spent in Maine, with a granite company, he returned to his native city, where he soon found constant and profitable employment, having for several years built a large part of the most important structures in Western Ontario. The London Advertiser, to which we owe most of our information as to his works, offers to his relatives and friends the sincere sympathy of the public which it represents, and we are sure that the architects of the United States will join with their brethren in Canada in mourning the loss of one who, at so early an age, had conquered for himself so conspicuous a place in his laborious profession.
Some interesting experiments on concrete arches were made recently, during the construction of the new railway station at Erfurt. Some of the rooms were to be covered with concrete floors, carried on iron beams, while others, of smaller size, were intended to be spanned by arches extending from wall to wall. One of the latter, something over seven feet in width, was covered with concrete, flat on top, and forming on the underside a segmental arch, the thickness of the material at the crown of the arch being four inches, and about eleven inches at the springing. The concrete was made of “Germania” Portland cement, mixed dry with gravel, moistened as required, and well rammed on the centring; and skew-backs were cut in the brick walls at the springing line, extending two courses higher, so as to give room for the concrete to take a firm hold on the walls. Fourteen days after completion, this floor was loaded with bricks and sacks of cement to the amount of more than six hundred pounds per square foot, without suffering any injury, although, after the load was on, a workman hammered with a pick on the concrete, close to the loaded portion, so as to provoke the cracking of the arch if there had been any tendency to rupture. In the other cases, the concrete arches being turned between iron beams, the strength of the floor was limited by that of the beams, so the extreme load could not be put on; but the curious fact was established that a section of concrete flat on top, and forming a regular segmental arc beneath, was far stronger than one in which a portion of the under surface was parallel to the upper; showing, apparently, that the arched form, even with homogeneous concrete, causes the conversion of a large part of a vertical pressure into lateral thrust, reducing by so much the tendency of the load to break the concrete transversely. This observation is important theoretically as well as practically. It has been of late generally maintained that a concrete arch is not an arch at all, but a lintel, without thrust, and that the common form, flat above and arched beneath, is objectionable, as it gives least material at the centre, where a lintel is most strained. The Erfurt experiments directly contradict this view, and it remains for some students of architecture to render the profession a service by repeating them, and, at the same time, actually determining the thrust, for a given load, of arches of particular forms. Until this is done, the concrete construction, which is likely, we may hope, to become before many years the prevailing one in our cities, will be practised with difficulty and uncertainty, if not with danger. Incidentally, a trial was made of the effect of freezing on the concrete. The floor of a room arched in four bays, between iron beams, had just been finished when the weather became cold, and on the morning after its completion the thermometer stood at twenty above zero. The concrete had not been protected in any way, and the contractor was notified that it had been frozen, and must be removed. This was early in December, and it was about the first of April before the work of removal, preliminary to replacing the concrete with new material, was begun. Three bays had been wholly or partly removed when the hardness of the concrete under the workmen’s tools attracted attention, and the arch remaining intact was tested with a load of three hundred pounds per square foot, which it bore perfectly.
The question how far an architect can be held responsible in damages, in cases where the cost of work exceeds the estimates, is examined in a recent number of La Semaine des Constructeurs, and some considerations are mentioned which are new to us. According to Frémy-Ligneville, the most familiar authority on the subject, the architect incurs no responsibility whatever, either for his own estimates or those of other people, unless he intentionally and fraudulently misleads his client by a pretended estimate. In this case, as in that of any other fraud, he is liable for the results of his crime. Except under such circumstances, however, the architect’s estimate of cost is simply an expression of opinion, the correctness of which he does not guarantee, any more than a lawyer guarantees the correctness of an opinion, although important interests may depend upon it. The owner can estimate the value of the architect’s opinion, as of the lawyer’s, by the professional reputation of the man who gives it, and, if he wishes to be more secure, he can go to another architect, as he would to another lawyer, for an independent estimate. Moreover, if the owner of the projected building is still anxious that the cost should be strictly limited to the sum estimated by the architects, he can have a contract drawn by which the builder shall be obliged to complete it for that sum, and can have his plans and specifications examined by competent authority, to see if they include everything necessary. This ought to make him reasonably sure what his house will cost him, provided he does not himself make changes in the plans or specifications. If he has omitted to take this precaution, and, as his building goes on, he finds that it is likely to exceed the estimate, he has another excellent opportunity to protect himself, by ordering immediately such changes in the plans and specifications for the work yet remaining to be done as may reduce the expense to the desired amount, and by doing so he generally suffers no damage, as, if he does not get all he expected to for his money, he gets all his money will pay for.
With all these opportunities for revising and testing the correctness of an architect’s estimate, the man who neglects to avail himself of any of them, and who allows the work on his house to go on, after it has become evident that it will cost more than the estimate, has, according to M. Frémy-Ligneville, no claim against any one on account of his disappointment. Of course, the architect should be as careful in his estimates as his experience allows him to be, and any conscientious man would try not to mislead a client, but both he and his client must remember that when the tenders of the builders themselves usually vary from fifty to a hundred per cent for the same piece of work, an architect’s estimate cannot be anything more than an opinion. Moreover, the architect should not forget that, being an opinion, and not a guaranty, he is not only at liberty to modify it as much and as often as he sees fit, but is bound to do so, and to inform his client at once of the change, when fuller information, or alteration in the circumstances, shall show him that the original estimate is likely to be exceeded. If he does this frankly, although his client may be disappointed, he cannot reproach the architect with trying to deceive him, and there will probably still be time to make the changes necessary for reducing the expense to the desired point. In a case decided in Paris in July, 1855, a man was condemned to pay fifty-four thousand francs for repairs done on a house. He proved that his architect had estimated the expense at seven or eight thousand, but it was shown that the architect had subsequently informed him that it would be necessary to do more work than was at first contemplated, and that he had made inquiries about the matter, and had turned out his tenants so that the work might be done, and had paid the contractors more than the sum originally estimated; and the court thought he had no case at all against the architect.