THE ARCHITECT'S PLACE IN THE SYSTEMS BUILDING CONCEPT

I would like to start off with the old custom of any advocate of rationalized building industry—that of making an analogy with the system approach of the automobile industry —both to illustrate the present state of the art and the place of the architect in the picture. I quote from Galbraith's The New Industrial State: "On June 16, 1903, after some months of preparation which included negotiation of contracts for various components, the Ford Motor Company was formed for the manufacture of automobiles. The first car reached the market that October. The firm had authorized capitalization of $150,000 of which only $28,500 was for cash. Employment in 1903 averaged 125 men." In the spring of 1964 the Ford Motor Company introduced a new automobile, the Mustang. The publie was well prepared for the new vehicle. Plans carefully specified prospective output and sales. These preparations required 31/2 years of commitment to the particular car that finally emerged. Engineering and "styling" (the automotive word for design) costs were $9,000,000 and tooling up cost $50,000,000. In 1964 employment in the Ford Motor Company averaged 317,000 and assets were about six billion dollars. The building systems business is presently just about at the 1903 mark for the automobile. Even the Jesperson system, perhaps the most sophisticated as to specialized tooling and equipment, requires about $2,000,000 for a whole new plant. And building system design—the role of the architect—is still in the horse and buggy stage. The Laing Corp. in England finds