New-York tribune., 1894-01-27
THE ARCHITECTS AND THE CITY HALL.

THE ARCHITECTS AND THE CITY HALL.
To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir Apropos OF the delay in deciding upon the
plans for the CITY Hall. the appointment or the
architect the awarding Of the five prizes OF s2vo
each as 'nomnated in the bond" and the evident
desire of the Commissioners to repudiate and set
aside a fair and equitable contract. entered Into
bv and between the City Of New York and each
and every architect who accepted said contract by
submitting pans In this competition. allow me 10
That his Honor the Mayor and the Commissioners
most egregiously mistake the temper OF some OF
the architects II he or they assume or think for
moment that the architects Will quietly sit down
and allow his Honor or the Commissioners 10 evade
the lust obllga lions OF the contract-to reject all
plans or to institute second competition.
The CRY OF New-Yor. by It's duly appointed
Commissioners. has entered into specific contract
with the architects OF this country pages g. L. 5. 6
ard of the printed ''Insructons for Architects')
and the architects expect that that contract VIII
be carried out that one Of the architects OF the
selected six designs "w! be appointed architect for
the construction Of the building" and that five
equal premiums Of 5000 shall be awarded 10 the
authors OF the designs adJuuyed W 1 pr
second third. fourth. nfth and sixth best, ani
they have the right to expect that this award shal
manipulation. political or otherwise.
The question Is not as TO the competency OF me
Jury of architects or the proposed cost of the build
ing The competing architects have confidence In
he n
contract for the contract does not stipulate that
the cost IL condition or factor In the acceptance
OF the plans.
Questions 10 the availability or the site are
not "A factor in this competition or It's award Inc
architects have complied with the conditions laid
down I'm the contract II the restrictions TO site
are not best and wise. such is not the fault OF the
Jury or the competing architects. The city OF New
York is under obligations to carry out ts contract
for the erection Of the building with one OF the
architects compensate him to the full amount or
hIs commission on the building and damage Tor
loss OF fame I'm the non-erection OF the building.
While the cost OF the building IL not, as herein
| before stated, a factor In the award the author
OF this communication Will say that the design
he submitted can be built within The sum stated
In his description" accompanying his plans; and
will not exceed that cost. providing the architect
Is free To carry on the work. as In private WORK
unaffected by Tammany other interests. aside
from the rendering OF honest services and the fuii
market value OF work contracted for. - .
And apropos OF the reported Interview with Mr.
Purroy lin '"rhe Mail and Express of Saturday.
his soul In peace 10 the integrity or the aren't
tect or n possible assOclate the architects OF ths
country are neither crooks nor thieves. ana ven
ture to say that any OF the authors or the ue-
signs will contest out OF pride In his profession
any attempt at trckcry with contracts; ana aiso
venture say that any one OF SAID archite.ts Will
II called uDon to associate With himself anotner ar
chItect nominate an architect OF ungues'lonab.e
ability and integrity. The clause III the contract
bear!ng upon such a contingency is al! Wen enoush
MS a safeCuarl In some possible case, put Vrntuir
10 say that the great majority or the archec.s ~
this competition are quite equai 10 ,he ,"sn W
erecting the building without the,oaHpETTrop me re-
ferred to- '"'' "
New York. Jan. %. 1884,