St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-16
Capitol Commission Not Sat-
isfied With Any Of the
Designs
SUBMITTED BY ARCHITECTS
Open Letter Issued Announce
ing the Rejection Of ALI
Plans,
AND GIVING THE REASONS.
New Competition to Be Held
Without Delay--Five Pre-
miums Awarded.

The state capitol commission an
nounces that it is pleased with none
of the designs submitted by the COM
peting architects for a new state
house. It therefore rejects all, and
says it will proceed without delay
to hold a second competition. pur-
suant to the provisions of the act
recently passed by the legislature
and approved March 9, 1895.
The commission arrived at this
conclusion at a meeting held April
II, but it was not made public until
last night, when a carefully worded
letter was issued to all architects
the rejection of the same, and giving
partial reasons therefor.
In this letter the commission re-
GREETED it's Inability to reach any
other conclusion, and this was ar
rived at after patient and careful
consideration of the entire question.
Five premiums of $500 each were
awarded in accordance with the
promise in instructions to Archi-
tects," and these premiums are dis
tributed amongst architects in St.
Paul, Denver, st. Louis, Minneapolis
and Duluth, Herman Kretz & Co.
being the st. Paul firm.
The letter issued by the commits
sion is as follows:
THE LETTER.
ST. PAUL, Mimi, April II, 1895.
10 all architects who submitted de-
signs for the new capitol building for
the state of Minnesota, in the competi-
ton held Oct. 9, 1894:
Gentlemen: At a. meeting of the
board of state capitol commissioners.
held this day, the following resolutions
were adopted. viz:
whereas, The competition opened by
this board Oct. 9. 1894, has not re-
suited in the submission, by any of the
competing architects, of design that
the board approves, as design for the
new capitol building for the state of
Minnesota; therefore,
Resolved, That all of the designs
which have been submitted in said COM
petition be, and the same are hereby
rejected; and also
Resolved, That this board will pro-
ceed, without delay, to hold a second
competition, under and pursuant to
the provisions of the act recently pass
ed by the legislature of this state. and
approved March 8, 1885, amending the
act of 1893, under which this board has
heretofore been acting; and further
Resolved, That the following pre-
miums are hereby awarded to archi-
tects who have submitted designs in
the first competition, viz: e' - 3ae'rl
Wendell & Humphreys, of Denver.
Soi.........- ........................ $500
Herman Kretz & Co., of st. Paul.
MINI. ...-..-... ...................... 500
George R. Mann, of ST Louis, Mo-. 500
w. II. Dennis. Minneapolis, Mimi. 500
Radcliffe & Willoughby, of Duluth.
NlhL. ............-- ..-.............. 500
1t is, perhaps, unnecessary for us to
add anything to the above and vet a
few words of explanation may not be
amiss.
MUCH MISUNDERSTAND
has arisen concerning the report of the
Two experts who were called by the
BOARD TO assist them in judging the
several designs. In many competitions
heretofore held, the decision and
award of the experts has been final and
conclusive, but under the law govern
ing our action, no such power was
given them, and their report was sim
ply advisory.
Two Of the designs to which they
award positions, place the legislative
rooms on the first or main floor of
the building, and, while we do NOT
question this arrangement, from a
purely architectural standpoint. we are
unanimous in disappearing it, from a
practical point of view, especially in
our state. where biennial sessions are
held, limited to ninety days each. No
satisfactory change in these designs ie
feasible.
Many other designs contemplated
buildings which the board, after cara
ful investigation, are satisfied could
not be erected, except at a cost largely
In excess of the appropriation at our
disposal, and while possessing merit
we were compelled to reject them.
Without going into unnecessary de-
talis, 1t Is sufficient to say that the
final action taken this day has been
reached after careful and patient con-
slderat1on of the entire question, al
though, for many reasons, we
REGRET OUR INABILITY
to reach different conclusion.
Large buildings of this character ara
not an every day occurrence. Thew
neceSSitate careful stl,dv in +bo;
original conception; they require sew
eral years in construction, during
which period many changes in the
management may occur; and should
not be commenced until the most i'm
portant element-the design and lrs
autnor- are. in all respects. wholly
satisfactory to those upon whom al,
responsibility for the success or failure
OF so important an undertaking must
OF necessity, rest. Much education for
all concerned grows out of an imnor-
tant open competition, such as the
one we have just held. Public ex-
hib1tion Of all the designs for two
weeks, which our law required. (and
Will require, in the second comment.
tion), provokes a healthy criticism nv
both professional men and others. tho
erect OF which cannot fail to he of
practical benefit to the architectural
profession in general, while every
member of our board is quite free to
admit that he has received much vol.
liable education from the inyestiea-
tons and discussions that have fol.
lowed the holding of this competition
We have awarded all of the nrerni-