The Sacramento State Buildings Competition
W
ILLIAM C. HAYS, A. I. A., discussing in a recent issue of The Architect and Engineer of California the various designs submitted in the Sacramento State Buildings Com
petition illustrated in this issue of the American Architect, refers to what he considers “well warranted criticism of the Institute Code” governing competitions. Specifically, and with reference to this competition, he states in part:
“This was a ‘two-stage’ competition, with ostensible ‘preliminary’ and ‘final’ stages. Actually, the ‘preliminary’ nature of the first stage was a farce— with such tragic results, from the economic standpoint, that architects, as a class, must appear to intelligent laymen to be fit subjects for immediate investigation, either by alienists on behalf of the Lunacy Commission or by the Board of Charities —both of which State bodies, by the way, are to be housed in one of the new buildings.
“In effect, the competitors (sixty-four of them, we are told, from Sacramento—by men who should ‘admit’ and not rejoice in it) were by those same ‘authorities’ caused to spend not less than fifty or sixty thousand dollars, where three-fourths of that waste could, and should, have been avoided.
“The ‘Code’ of the American Institute of Architects recognizes both ‘open’ and ‘limited’ competitions, but deprecates the former. It also provides for two classes of ‘limited competitions,’ in one type of which (b) the participants are chosen ‘from among architects who make application accompanied by evidence of their education and experience.’ In the ‘open’ form the Code contains a very serious fault in that this ‘evidence of education and experience’ shall be offered by all competitors after incurring the expense of the preliminary stage.
“The Code, by the way, states that the first stage of an ‘open’ competition is ‘open to all. Such was not the case here, for it was ‘closed’ to those Americans who could not qualify, under certain restrictions, as well as to all foreigners. In essence, would it have been less ‘open to all’ in the first stage, once any limitation is established, if the geographical limitation had been the State of California, or Modoc County—or if the ‘training and experience’ qualification had been ‘a previous condition of servitude in the office of Smith, Jones and Black’? Furthermore, the Code never, either by word or spirit, countenances such a ‘preliminary’ stage as this one was; on the contrary explicitly stating
that ‘the competitive drawings are of the slightest nature, involving only the fundamental ideas of the solution.’
“In this case, the officials, against the urgent representations of the Chapter Committees, insisted on a first stage in which, with the exception that no ‘sections’ were called for (or allowed), there were required complete ‘final’ scale drawings (even including basement plans) of both buildings, rendered on Whatman paper in India ink and identical with the final stage. The omitted sections, by the way, could easily have been done in three or four days. But their omission, far from being a help, was a positive handicap to competitors—a section being quite as essential as either plan or elevation in studying as well as in ‘setting forth the fundamental ideas of the solution.’ There was allowed more than five months’ time for this ‘preliminary’ stage.
“That the ‘preliminary’ stage was a mockery at the plain intent of the Code is evident. What then, may the words ‘least possible’ in the Code mean ? One may venture a specific suggestion that, in this case, the spirit and the letter of this phrase would have been properly met if there had been required, say, two principal floor plans of the Library and a plan of the Court floor, one elevation, one section (or two) of the Library and Courts building, at 1/16 inch scale and a block plan at 1/50 inch scale— all on white tracing paper, rendered only in sketch form and mounted at the comers or edges. With a time limit of, say, ten days, each set of drawings might be accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that they had been produced personally by the competitor, with no help other than one assistant, who had been regularly and exclusively in the employ of the principal for the continuous period of six months immediately preceding the issuance of the program. The drawings here described would be full and sufficient for any intelligent juror (and none other is qualified to serve, under any conditions) to make selection. Some worthy scheme might be overlooked ? Doubtless—as worthy schemes were overlooked, even with the conditions as they existed.
“Another potential fault: the architects in the jury formed a minority, contrary to the Institute Code, and, while the geographical distribution was wise, in general the method of final choice was fundamentally wrong, as all final selections should have been made by the competitors concerned—not
W
ILLIAM C. HAYS, A. I. A., discussing in a recent issue of The Architect and Engineer of California the various designs submitted in the Sacramento State Buildings Com
petition illustrated in this issue of the American Architect, refers to what he considers “well warranted criticism of the Institute Code” governing competitions. Specifically, and with reference to this competition, he states in part:
“This was a ‘two-stage’ competition, with ostensible ‘preliminary’ and ‘final’ stages. Actually, the ‘preliminary’ nature of the first stage was a farce— with such tragic results, from the economic standpoint, that architects, as a class, must appear to intelligent laymen to be fit subjects for immediate investigation, either by alienists on behalf of the Lunacy Commission or by the Board of Charities —both of which State bodies, by the way, are to be housed in one of the new buildings.
“In effect, the competitors (sixty-four of them, we are told, from Sacramento—by men who should ‘admit’ and not rejoice in it) were by those same ‘authorities’ caused to spend not less than fifty or sixty thousand dollars, where three-fourths of that waste could, and should, have been avoided.
“The ‘Code’ of the American Institute of Architects recognizes both ‘open’ and ‘limited’ competitions, but deprecates the former. It also provides for two classes of ‘limited competitions,’ in one type of which (b) the participants are chosen ‘from among architects who make application accompanied by evidence of their education and experience.’ In the ‘open’ form the Code contains a very serious fault in that this ‘evidence of education and experience’ shall be offered by all competitors after incurring the expense of the preliminary stage.
“The Code, by the way, states that the first stage of an ‘open’ competition is ‘open to all. Such was not the case here, for it was ‘closed’ to those Americans who could not qualify, under certain restrictions, as well as to all foreigners. In essence, would it have been less ‘open to all’ in the first stage, once any limitation is established, if the geographical limitation had been the State of California, or Modoc County—or if the ‘training and experience’ qualification had been ‘a previous condition of servitude in the office of Smith, Jones and Black’? Furthermore, the Code never, either by word or spirit, countenances such a ‘preliminary’ stage as this one was; on the contrary explicitly stating
that ‘the competitive drawings are of the slightest nature, involving only the fundamental ideas of the solution.’
“In this case, the officials, against the urgent representations of the Chapter Committees, insisted on a first stage in which, with the exception that no ‘sections’ were called for (or allowed), there were required complete ‘final’ scale drawings (even including basement plans) of both buildings, rendered on Whatman paper in India ink and identical with the final stage. The omitted sections, by the way, could easily have been done in three or four days. But their omission, far from being a help, was a positive handicap to competitors—a section being quite as essential as either plan or elevation in studying as well as in ‘setting forth the fundamental ideas of the solution.’ There was allowed more than five months’ time for this ‘preliminary’ stage.
“That the ‘preliminary’ stage was a mockery at the plain intent of the Code is evident. What then, may the words ‘least possible’ in the Code mean ? One may venture a specific suggestion that, in this case, the spirit and the letter of this phrase would have been properly met if there had been required, say, two principal floor plans of the Library and a plan of the Court floor, one elevation, one section (or two) of the Library and Courts building, at 1/16 inch scale and a block plan at 1/50 inch scale— all on white tracing paper, rendered only in sketch form and mounted at the comers or edges. With a time limit of, say, ten days, each set of drawings might be accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that they had been produced personally by the competitor, with no help other than one assistant, who had been regularly and exclusively in the employ of the principal for the continuous period of six months immediately preceding the issuance of the program. The drawings here described would be full and sufficient for any intelligent juror (and none other is qualified to serve, under any conditions) to make selection. Some worthy scheme might be overlooked ? Doubtless—as worthy schemes were overlooked, even with the conditions as they existed.
“Another potential fault: the architects in the jury formed a minority, contrary to the Institute Code, and, while the geographical distribution was wise, in general the method of final choice was fundamentally wrong, as all final selections should have been made by the competitors concerned—not