New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-08-07
NEW PRISON DESIGNS.
Commissioner BdrroTs Says Archa-
tects Didn't Get Square Deal.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: I have been asked by number of architects
to explain things with reference to the recent
competition for designs for the prison at Bear
Mountain. n. Y.
First. I have been asked How is 1t that an
architect who has reputation in his pro1es-
sion either designer OF prisons or OF otner
buildings but who has obtained his work largely
through political preferment, should have oeen
designated as architect result OF this competi
ton? The charge is now openly made that MT
Bearisley obtained this job in the way he has OBJ
tanned others-by enlisting the interest OF hls
friends not by the supreme merit of his plans
In reply I have say that 1 can speak for myseiI
only and not for any of my associates, but must
earnestly protest did before the board against
the method or want of method by which this choice
was possible Ten of the designs picked out from
among the thirty-four essentially on the same
general principle; they were all based on the re-
port of the State Improvement Commission made
two years ago To distinguish their relative merits
and defects required close comparison AND care
full analysis. I. therefore. moved that we CONSIDER
separately each of principal requirements in the
printed rules and regulations by which merit was
TO be deerrnined-such as conformity to the site,
general arrangement, security adaptamnty 10
prison labor accuracy of estimates and capacity
for future extension. Taking each OF these
points in each of the ten plans proposed that we
should vote first their relative merits as 10 eacn
particular feature as a necessary preparation Tor
deciding which superior in merit as "noie-
This analysis and comparison l proposed 10 pursue
still further in relation to constructive ana en-
cheering details but much to my surprise and dis
appointment my motion did not secure even sec
ond! The majority of the members. in UNOFFICIAL
caucus had decided to force vote that afternoon
know by what process of miraculous 1ilunlina-
ton nv coea CUES arrived their conclusion nor
could understand how they could do justice to the
competing architects by utterly rejecting the only
rational method by which relative merit could ne
determined. Many thousands of dollars had peen
spent by architects in preparing for the compeuon
Every consideration of equity demanded thal they
should all be treated with the same degree OF talr
ness do not think myself that they had
'.snrare deal" for 1 cannot understand how II
would be called fair and square when careful
comparison based their respective merits was
denied to them.
Mr.. Beardsley's design though not without sec
ondary merits emitting it to consolation prize
was defective in four aspects OF capital ipor
First as to future extension; second. as to orlen-
tatior of the workshops; third, as TO the capacity
for prison labor; and, fourth. as to the limit OF
cost Unfortunately, it had no compromising ao-
va ntases to atone for these defects The cnolce
was therefore vetoed by the state architect In
spite of the conclusive arguments presented by
the state architect against Mr. BeardsIey de-
signs the ma jorty of the board. without making
anv further examination reiterated their prefer
once for No o. and I regret that the state arcnl-
+ect who was anxious to avoid a deadlock. did not
repeat his veto end force the board TO another ana
better choice. He gave notice, however thas ne
should insist on the correction Of these fundamen-
tai defects before giving his approval Of the actual
plane when the construction is begun as he Is re-
o,ired to do by law. What the state architect will
have to do for MIR. Beardsley he could have done
with less difficulty for other designs.
The board of award was appointed not to make
over defective designs but select the best plans
and the architect who showed himself most com
petent in dealing with the whole constructive PROB
Iar agree with the state architect that the
hoard did not succeed in doing either of these
things The state is the main loser thereby.
second-I am also asked to explain why 1t is
that the architects are not allowed access at Al
bany to the specifications adopted by tbs commits
sion must refer inquiries to the chairman of the
commission DR.. C. F. Howard. Without any au-
thority of law and without any authority con-
ferred By the commission. he has undertaken to
prohibit access to these specifications and esti-
mates and has given the absurd order that even
myself a commissioner, charged with the respon-
sibility of erecting this building. shall not be al
lowed to have copy, So long the matter was
in competition publicity. of course, was excluded;
now that the architect has been formally appoint
ed these specifications public documents and
copies of them should be accessible to all
This arbitrary action Of the president is lam
entable confession Of weakness. and although the
commission may correct this palpabe mistake 1t
will he hard TO dissbuse the public of the idea
that the president and some members OF the com
mission wish to keep from the knowledge of the
n,,blic things which the public ought TO know. This
commission may be threatened with lawsuit.
but it is poor policy. well poor patriotism
thought may tell IN the case against the state.
SAMUEL ]. BARROws.
New York, Aug. 6. 1908