Читать книгу How to plan a library building for library work - Charles C. Soule - Страница 18

Table of Contents

Architecture, on the other hand, is a very mature science. It is ages old, with a voluminous literature from Vitruvius down, with many learned and skillful votaries, who have thorough technical education. Indeed, to a layman it seems a bit too much fettered by education and precedent. But it has to tackle all sorts of jobs from temples to stables, and it is very much alive to modern progress. Witness its triumphs with “skyscrapers,” steel construction, and re-enforced concrete. It has an almost encyclopedic training and can deal with all problems of itself, if required. But for perfect work it needs a very clear and thorough statement of the technical requirements of each problem. Give him full information, and any good architect can do good work.

The Century Dictionary defines Architecture as combining the requirements of (1) use and convenience, (2) constructive necessity and fitness, (3) artistic excellence.

For buildings that are more practical than decorative, the first is paramount, and it is on this point alone that the librarian is qualified to speak with authority. The other two-thirds—the larger part of the building—he must leave to the architect. If all three points are combined in the result, the architect should have two-thirds of the credit, and if his library advice has been defective, he should have the whole. And what does he get in return, on a small building, except kudos? Did you ever think how small a money reward he gets? A lawyer or a surgeon may take, in a difficult case, all the client or patient has in the bank or can borrow. But an architect, no matter how difficult his problem, and how much he has to work it out for himself with incompetent help, is limited to a percentage suggested beforehand by a schedule of fees. For instance, Miss Marvin gives views and plans of a $10,000 library at Darlington, Wis., built by Claude & Starck of Madison, which she says meets perfectly the needs of a small library with one slight exception. She reports the architects’ fee to have been $379.85. For this they had to spend time and thought on the plans, studying library science as applied to that particular problem. They had to have many sittings with librarian and board. They had to pay draftsmen for elaborating several sets of plans. They had to prepare specifications, invite, examine and allot contracts, watch all the material that was put in and all the work that was done. Were they overpaid? In fact, were they fully paid for their work unless they acted as their own draftsmen? All they really got out of the job was the satisfaction of good work done, and a certain amount of reputation, which I am glad to help by this mention.

When an architect does such good work as this, as a result of giving proper consideration to the real needs of the library, he surely ought to have credit for it, and all librarians who know about it ought to give him thanks and wide public praise.