fications the construction which the client wishes to have undertaken. He acts as the agent of his client in making sure that the terms of the plans and contracts and specifications are made plain to the contractor both before and especially during construction, and he also acts as an impartial arbiter between the client and the contractor to determine whether or not the work is done in accordance with the landscape architect's ideas as set forth in the contract. Architect with In this work the landscape architect must coöperate † with other Coöperation professional advisers and with all concerned in bringing about the best of Landscape final result. The thing in which the client is particularly interested is other Practinot the professional dignity nor the personal opinions of any of the tioners people whom he employs, but merely the efficient completion of the work undertaken. When any designer is charged with carrying out so complex a scheme that the collaboration of another designer is necessary, the simplest arrangement is to call in this second designer as a consultant. The consultant supplies from his experience and skill information and suggestions for the consideration of the responsible designer, and looks over the whole work with a view of discovering any consideration in the design or any flaw in the execution which might have escaped the attention of the designer. The consultant is not responsible, however, for the perfect execution of the work. It is assumed that the designer is competent to do this, and he cannot be relieved of this responsibility without confusion. Where one man is incapable of undertaking the general responsibility for the whole work in this way, two or more men may share this responsibility. Under these conditions, it is essential to fix some definite delimitation of the field within which each collaborator is entirely responsible. In the case of the private estate and similar work, the only clear delimitation is a territorial one. It is important, however, that each designer should serve as a consultant on the work of the other, and that there should be fixed upon both the joint responsibility for harmonizing the work as a whole. Such coöperation means that * Cf. p. 344. † Part of the substance of this follows a paper by F. L. Olmsted, Jr., Coöperation between Architect and Landscape Architect, published in Landscape Architecture, Jan. 1912. (See REFERENCES.) Coöperation in City Planning Organization and Equipment of a Landscape Architect's Office Clerical each designer shall be informed, at least in a general way, as to what the other is doing and means to do, and that each shall consult the other sufficiently in advance of the construction of any work so that the ideas of both shall be made as far as possible effective. Such collaboration requires tact, sympathetic insight, and mutual respect in the collaborators, and some men otherwise good designers are unfortunately incapable of serving a client in this way. These two methods of coöperation among designers are much the most likely to prove successful. Of course there can be effective cooperation among the various assistants in a landscape architect's office, and some of the larger offices of architects, engineers, and landscape architects have assistants trained in these three fields. If the responsible designer is himself capable of appreciating and handling the work in its entirety, this is an excellent system of coöperation. If he is not, he is little better than a quack and an exploiter of other men's ability. The broadest field of professional activity in which the landscape architect finds himself most frequently in coöperation with practitioners from other professions is the field of city planning, where the landscape architect works in collaboration with engineer, architect, sociologist, economist, or lawyer. Here the delimitation of field cannot be territorial, but must be according to the subjects in which the various collaborators are severally skilled. It is therefore doubly important that each collaborator should appreciate the point of view of the others, and that all should have at least a sound fundamental conception of the subject of city planning as a whole. There are some landscape architects, especially among the younger men, as there are architects and engineers, who, so to speak, are their own office force; and indeed a great deal of good work is done by the man with a small practice who keeps all its details in his own mind; but for any considerable amount of professional work it is necessary that the landscape architect should have assistants, and that they should be good both in their own field and as parts of the office machine. Assistance may so frequently be found for the clerical work of an office at so low a price that a business would be small indeed which could not afford some assistance of this kind. This work is however extremely important to the efficiency of the whole organization. A man is often judged by the appearance of his letters, but the time of the landscape architect spent in checking and correcting poor work of this kind is time wasted which should be applied to better purpose. The accuracy and availability of figures and accounts, the quickness with which records and data of all kinds are available, will be an absolutely essential factor in any quickness and efficiency of performance which the office may have as a whole. It seldom happens that the same man is equally good as designer Technical and draftsman in an office and as superintendent and inspector on the office and Field Force ground, so in large offices there are usually some men who are principally indoor men, and others who are sent from job to job to see to the actual execution. This subdivision of effort is hardly possible with a small office force, and a complete separation of the two activities is not at all advisable. Considerable actual familiarity with construction is necessary to the development of an office assistant if he is to be anything more than a mere draftsman, and familiarity with design in all its phases is a great asset to a superintendent. For good work it is extremely desirable that at least one person shall be familiar with the job from its beginning to its end. Proper filing of correspondence and recording of plans in the office and proper returning and filing of reports from the representative on the ground will give at any time a general idea of the state of the work; but there are endless details which will not get so recorded, and all kinds of knowledge of personal qualifications of those concerned in the work, which can be kept only in the head of some one who has personally followed the whole progress of the job.* In a small office this person would be the landscape architect himself; in a large office this necessity is likely to give rise to the custom of intrusting some one man with a number of pieces of work under the general supervision of the landscape architect, and expecting him to take such measures as he sees fit, and direct such subordinate members of the office force as are available in handling this work. Here arises a temptation to the busy landscape architect which would usually best not be yielded to, namely, when a new piece of work comes in, to turn it over at once to some responsible man to make alternative preliminary sketches to be judged by the landscape * Cf. p. 341–342. Office Reference architect. If the landscape architect is a better critic than he is an artist, this may be his best way of working; but otherwise it would save much time and put more of the individuality of the landscape architect himself into his work, if he were to take time personally to master the general aspects of the job and himself to prepare sketches to be worked up by his office force.* Since an assistant often works on several jobs in the same day, and since it is necessary to know how much expense for assistants' time is properly chargeable to each job, it is a common custom in landscape architects' offices to pay the assistants by the hour and to have them hand in daily or weekly a time-card showing how many hours they have worked on the various jobs with which they have been concerned. There will be a certain amount of time not chargeable to the client, and this is charged to the office and becomes a part of the undifferentiated expense like heat and rent. The landscape architect files reference material for two reasons: because he cannot remember it all himself, and because, if he could, he could not spare time to explain it to his office force. The collections, then, are a sort of general office memory, and the ideal collections should work like a man's memory, giving the required information quickly and completely, no matter from what point of view it is sought. Any approach to this ideal will mean careful arrangement of the material according to some definite system, which should be as simple, and therefore as generally usable by the office force, as the mass of the data will allow. The material to be arranged is of two kinds : that pertaining to particular clients and that for general reference. Under the first head are plans, planting lists, contracts and specifications, estimate books, reports of visits, photographs, and so on. Under the second are photographs of general interest, trade catalogues including nursery catalogues, perhaps samples of materials, — brick, tile, garden pottery, and so on, - pamphlets, portfolios of plates, books, magazines, and maps. The amount of material kept in the landscape architect's office will depend to some extent on the value and availability of other collections in public libraries or similar places of reference, but most of the * Cf. p. 340-341. information wanted is wanted at once, and some collection for ready reference is almost always necessary. For a fuller discussion of this subject see The Arrangement of the Professional Collections of a Landscape Architect.* A comprehensive scheme of classification of the subject of landscape architecture which is intended for the detailed arrangement of such material in libraries, schools, and professional offices is soon to appear.† * Article by Henry V. Hubbard and Theodora Kimball in Landscape Architecture, Jan. 1913, v. 3, p. 76-89. † Prepared by same authors. |