The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-12-21
THE STATE CAPITOL SITE.

We arc surprised to gee that the
State Capitol Commission appears to be
Naveriuc with respect to the capitol
site. 1t is held by that commission
that the site now available, and on
which the people expect the capitol 10
be built. is not roomy enough, that
more ground is needed. But more
ground is needed only on the theory of
providing sort of bungalow capitol
structure which will occupy very much
moro surface than is necessary
The commission seems TO have start
ed on q wrong basis altogether IN TINS
matter of capitol construction 1t has
apparently fixed upon a style of build
ing TO be constructed, and that style of
building Is not adapted to the site
which the State owns. Now, why not,
as Tho Tribune has suggested hereto
fore. accept that site Just as il Is, and
invite architects to submit plans for q
capitol structure that will be adapted
TO that site and sufficient for all State
purposes for many decades to come
Why select 4 low. squatty style OF build
ing that will run over vast deal OF
ground, What is the objection 10 TAX
ing the capitol site Just as it Is an
asking architects to draft plans for Il
building that will fit well in that site,
be an architectural ornament to the
city, the State, and the surroundings
anil be in every WAY serviceablc 10 the
necds' 1t is quite true that bunga-
low sort of building suitable for the
Stale requirements in its capitol could
be made to occupy a great deal oil
ground. but why should such Z sort OF
building be put upi What is there cs'
pcciallv attractive about a structure
low in elevations II is quite true that
the State capitol Of Kentucky Is not
only handsome building in itself, but
shows remarkably well on the site
which il occupies, but that site Is
knoll especially adapted to that KIND
Of building. 1t lifts the structure well
up above the surrounding country anJ
shows it off to great advantage; but
precisely the reverse would be true OF
that style OF building put on our cap
ito site. There it would be over
shadowed. first, by the brow of the
mesa, and second, by the higher eleva'
tions beyond. 1T would be insignia
cant in every way, squatty and con
tcmptblc from the ARCHITECTURAL stand
point. We think that the commission
should revise its Judgment on this
should throw open the competition or
a completely free basis. so as to give
the architects an opportunity to sec
what they can do in providing build
ing suitable to the site and In every
way satisfactory TO the State.
TO change the site. as has beer
shown, would require an extra session
of the legislature. But, with an extra
session of the legislature the whole
capital question would he raised; there
would be more or less fakerv in offer:
from different cities as to what they
would give 10 have the capital locate
within their boundaries, the coustltu
tlOu would nPpu 10 uc dIlcnlcu W f'i
init Of il. but this would be counted
on; and Salt Lake would have to bit
with hard cash against all these bid:
of fakerv aud hot air. The mcaDes
capital fight that any State has seer
for many wears would at once b,
opened upon the couvcnIng of the leg
islaturc 10 change the capitol site, ant
Salt Lake would be the unenviable vic
tim of such Vaccinations as would b'
set on foot 1t looks to us as thougl
those who advocate this sort OF tblns
must be victims of emotional or tenn
porary insanity. for there is not a par
ticle of common sense in the Idea.
The only place where the shoe
pinches is as stated. that the site whlcl
VIC have is not commodious enough t.
carry the sort of capitol that the com
mission seems TO have resolved to build
But. why not, then, build capito
/ suitable TO the site! That is what w
urge. and that is what the architect
would be delighted to have chanc
TO do. Let US have some business prac
heal sense IN this matter. and get oi
with the capitol construction IN tb
same wav that good business maj
would do in case he were dealing wit
like problem for himself