The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-09-23

N'S'iuhN 'ndt nndcr no circum-
stances could he take part in n com.
petition where the rules were opnosad
10 those laid down by the American In.
| stitute Of Architects
George 3. Post &. Sons of Seu Yort
ana Henry j. Schlacks OF Chicago arc
two other firms who are said ~ bsvo
made similar announcements. II is fur.
ther stated positively that none OF tbe
members Of the American Institute can
or will take part
The Utah association will hold IT'S
next regular meeting on the first Tues
day in October, when the mater will
be agaIn taken M. At the last meeting
In the present month the following COM
inunicatlon was ordered sent to the can.
ltol commission. An answer is ernnrt .
ed 10 TINS before the next meeting:
salt Lake City. Utah. Sept. 6. iaI,
10 he Gtah state Capitol Commission.
rentIemen-We. resident architects y,
the state and members of the Utah As
soGlation OF Architects. have made a dc .
tnil@d examination of the proeronon,a
which you have prepared for the arcbt-
tectural competition OF our nev stat.
capitol and We arc pleased 10 notice rho
care winch you have exercised In the
preparation OF the same for n certstniv
was no small task 10 bring the REQUIRE
mcnts OF IN" various Gepa rrmcnts OF the
state government into such clear and
with equal painstaking care and zeal on
the part Of the competing architects the
result VIII be highly creditable TO your
commission and eminently satisfactory
10 our commonwealth.
In this connection. however We bag
TO say that We as archltects feel that as
tne programme stands now. some OF the
Ideals for which the renutahle roen,bnre
Of the profession have stood for Years
arc not Incorporated In the programme
and knowing this we Will refrain from
participating In the competition rather
than face almost certain d!sappointnent
The competition code OF the American
institute of Architects and that OF The
Titan Association OF Architects arc iaen-
tical and are the result OF many years
or ondeavor 10 find a system advapta-
geous 10 the public and at the same time
sufficiently attractive 10 architects OF
standing 10 secure their cooperation.
Objections Stated,
The essential points in which your pro-
posed programme differs from these
Ideals are as follows:
First-It does not provide that a pro
lessional adviser or jury will be retained
TO assist In the Judgment OF the designs
ana In estimating the cost OF their exc
cutlon. Experience has proven that
professional adviser Is ndIspensabl bic on
account Of the great number Of tech
ntcal and aesthetical features which nee
essariIy enter into problem so complex
as the one under consideration. As his
r!tc implies. III" services of the profes-
slonal adviser are merely advisory and
explanatory.
Sccond-The programme assures moth
Ing tangible 10 the competing architects.
lnasmuch as Il permits the rejection OF
all the designs without any compensation
With conventional pro-
SratnrlH iRe participants IN this compe-
niion VIII include many representative
men OF the profession and it is incon-
relyablo that highly creditable design
VIII not be offered,
ThlFl-ThG
.Ide Tor the substantial prizes invariably
offered to limited number of the com
peutors who have submitted especially
mcritorious designs. In, view Of the fact
upon each competitor and that
without doubt several OF the designs
WIZ be FOUND almost as meritorious as
the selected design. IL Is manifes,ly un
fa'r that the authors Of the said de-
signs reap no substantial benefit wha ,so-
aYcr for their high standing in the com
petition. A failure To offer prizes VIII,
undoubtedly, deter many competen.
architects from competing much 10 tho
disadvantage OF the state.
Fourlh-Tha programme requires that
The drawings he signed by their author.
Inasmuch as the commission Will pass
ln the competency Of all applicants be
.nrc they arc permitted to compete and
nasmuch AS the designs VIII naturally |
oc Judged solely upon their merits no
oog1'nl reason can exist for requiring
them 10 he signed.
Fifth-CompetItors should bc limited
10 drawings definite In number scale, |
md rendering and devoid Of any mark |
ending To Identify the author. Otherwise |
he competition is liable TO develop into |
! picture display rather than an eNhtbi- |
ion OF carefully studied general designs |
Zach competitor striving TO overwhclm |
he commission with the greatest ava |
anchc OF elaborate specimens Of drafts |
showing catchy but premature |
,nd useless detail.
Tho above subject matter was discussed |
and unanimously approved At the reGu- |
ar monthly meeting OF The Utah Associ- |
alton OF Architects. which comprises |
practically all tho members Of the pro-
'cssion In the state.
In conclusion wish 70 say that Ne. |
rs residents and frceholders OF the state |
who have tho best interests OF our com |
nonwealth a, heart. and as architects |
Who are anxious 10 secure n capitol to |
which the people Of our state and our |
can point with pride. We lir- ,
gently petition YOU 10 make the above |
mentioned points part OF vour other |
wise very complete and creditab'c pro- |
sramwc Very respectfully.
Utah Association OF Architects
LEWIS r CANNON President