OPINION
Architecture and Freemasonry Parallel streams — similar issues Editor’s note
O
ver the past three years this magazine has published letters and opinion columns from a number of contributors whose thoughts range from the conservative to the progressive. Given that no reader has come forth with a contribution for this issue I have taken this opportunity to express some opinions of my own. Back in the early 1980s, when I held the office of Honorary Secretary of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, I had published a number of articles drawing attention to threats facing the future of the architectural profession as various ‘interlopers’ were eating away at the edges of the traditional place of the architect in the building industry. Looking back at what I wrote then I have seen parallels with the state of Freemasonry today. I have thus reproduced part of an article published by Home and Building in 1982 and followed up by linking it to the issues we now face in Freemasonry. Both the Architect and the speculative Freemasons of today can trace their lineage back to the Master Mason of Medieval times.
The Architect in the 1980s The client who wishes to procure a new building today (1980s) is faced with a multiplicity of optional paths emanating from groups all of whom claim to have found the most appropriate direction. It is little wonder that the prospective owners are a little confused as to where best to seek advice. This article explores and comments on some of the options, endeavours to explain why such alternatives have come into existence and finally seeks to determine if the differences expounded are more apparent than real. Architecture is the oldest profession in the building industry. In Medieval times the architect and master builder were one and the same. Gothic architecture of the 13th and 14th centuries was the height of craftsmanship. The principles of design and construction were inseparable and passed from master to apprentice. This 10
Rheims Cathedral — Gothic engineering and masonry at its best.
craftsmanship was extended to the limit of capabilities of the materials of the time, mostly stone. Despite the unit nature of stone the magnificent flying buttresses of the French cathedrals transmitted stresses in a way only steel and prestressed concrete could be expected to perform today. Design evolved as construction proceeded, frequently in the case of the great cathedrals for a century or more. Solutions beyond the experience of the craftsmen were sought by trial and error. If the cathedral collapsed during construction another solution was tried. Major changes, affecting the future course of building, which took place in the fifteenth century, were the invention of printing and copperplate graving. These enabled the designs of past years to be widely disseminated and copied, thus inaugurating the Renaissance, which was in effect a reversion which set the path of architectural development back 400 years. The ability to spread knowledge led to the divergence of the designer from the craftsman. The scholar who studied the orders of ancient Greece and Rome became the architect and the craftsman became the executor of the designs. Whether he was a stonemason, bricklayer or carpenter depended on the most readily available materials in the location of the construction. The separation of builder and architect widened as
the craft system dissolved into the Industrial Revolution. This same period saw the rapid development of canals and railways with the consequence that materials could be moved great distances and mixed within one building. This the need for more co-ordination knowledge led to the rise in the management role of the Master Builder. The concurrent development of more complex materials such as cast iron, steel and ferro cement allowed a greater flexibility in building design and promoted the need for specialised knowledge of small parts. Thus was born the engineer and, as technological and administrative complexity evolved, there were further spin offs into electrical and mechanical engineers and other specialist consultants all matched by a splitting of the builder’s role into a series of sub contractors. Building has become progressively more complex during the twentieth century. Think of the pre-war house with its three or four power points limited plumbing and limited kitchen. Likewise, most office buildings did not have elevators, air conditioning, fire alarms, security systems and so on. All these have given rise to specialists thus making it even more difficult for those who endeavour to manage the exercise. The industry has coped by inventing new specialists such as quantity surveyors, programmers and town planners to name but a few. The mid point of the twentieth century was reached with the architect as prime consultant, in the role of client contact, general designer and co-ordinator of specialist consultants. Likewise, the head contractor had the responsibility or basic building trades and securing and co-ordination of sub-contractors. The principal means of finding an architect was by reputation while the principal method of securing a contractor was by open tendering on a lump sum basis with a predetermined method for dealing with design variations during the progress of the works. This was an end on end process through preliminary design, sketch plans, working drawings, specifications and contract.