Package Deals-





 What's New?


 Several times at the Convention in
New Orleans there was the question
"What's happened since the pack-
age deal committee last met"? This
article is partly to answer that ques-
tion and partly to present a personal
point of view on the subject.
 The "Package Deal" committee
was discharged with praise after the
Cleveland Convention. It had raised
the question, investigated the facts
and offered some solutions. It was
realized, however, that the "package
deal" is part of the larger problem of
our changing professional place; and
so the specific question was resolved
into the larger question and given to
the Committee On The Profession.
This committee has recently been
asked by the Board of the Institute
to look into the question of limiting
the architect's field or of accepting
an ever-widening service responsibil-
ity. When an architect assists the
owner in program research, market
analysis, mortgage brokerage, tax re-
search, tenant procurement, govern-
ment relations, (on and on the list is
enormous) is the architect only per-
forming his normal duties-or should


he prohibit himself from doing these
things? And more important, per-
haps, how should he be paid for such
service?
 It is evident the package dealer
must be involved in these same ques-
tions. How does he answer them? To
begin, the package dealer has no
bothersome professional ethics or
moral responsibility, which is the
same thing so he may claim he
will do all things, be all things and
solve all things. But notice carefully
where he has been most successful in
selling this "total" service. For ex-
ample, in a corporation without a
building department of its own the
harassed vice president, given the
building job as another corollary duty,
is only too glad to hand it quickly to
someone who claims he will answer
all the problems and turn a finished
project over to the corporation, so
relieving the vice president of all
management responsibility. f
 Here, I think, is the clue to' the
package dealer's appeal. He can best
operate where the owner dbes not
want the management headaches of
construction. He serves no purpose


whatsoever where the owner is direct-
ly and vitally concerned with the
building; where he is willing to as-
semble the team and manage the con-
struction project. The architect, the
contractor, and others depending
on the kind of job it is are essen-
tial parts of the team. The architect
can best serve this owner by being of
assistance in coordinating the project,
advising as to what parts of the proj-
ect require the emphasis of consulta-
tion by specialists and interpreting
the project in the design. No captive
architect, submerged in the package
dealer's organization, can have the
objective professional approach need-
ed to give the owner direct advice on
coordination, the need for specialists,
or the balanced design that is the
best interpretation of the project.
 Let me suggest, then, one direct
attack on the "package deal" prob-
lem. This is to see to it that pros-
pective owners realize that, when
hiring the "package" they are giving
up the one thing they can do best
themselves-the management of the
project and that the owner can
assemble a team wherein each indi-
vidual member can contribute his
best. Finally, the owner can use as
his best advisor you, the architect, to
arrive at functional, balanced proj-
ects that will really do the job.


By CLINTON GAMBLE, AIA
 Director, Florida Region, AIA