The $25,000 Schoolhouse and the Competition That Smelled
A letter writer asks the school board a sharp question: if the winning architect was allowed to redraw his plans after the price came in too high, what exactly was the competition for?
Editor Tribune:
Will some one please explain an article in your paper of the 26th inst.? It shows that the board of school directors for the city have adopted certain plans for the high school building, upon the condition that the plans be changed by making the halls smaller and using different material in the partition wall, which is necessary that the cost may not exceed $25,000. The board entertained grave doubts, it seems, whether the building according to the original plans could be erected for the sum named. The successful architect conceded the position well taken, by suggesting changes to reduce the cost, and then he would guarantee, etc.
When the board refused to accept the plans as represented, did it not thereby reject the plans? Was it just and fair to other architects who had labored honestly, to allow the successful architect then to alter his plans to suit himself and the board? Suppose one of the competitive architects had said to the board — gentlemen, you see from my plans that I can draw a good picture; now just reject every plan submitted, agree to give me the job and I will draw you a plan to suit you and me also. What is the profit of competition if unfairness and partiality shall still control? Why not have refused to adopt any and let all try anew?
Suppose an architect had gone in with plans for a hundred thousand dollar building (a picture certainly much more magnificent than a twenty-four thousand dollar building) and said: "Gentlemen, I can leave off the north half of this, and then the east half of what is left, and the remainder will leave you a most splendid and imposing school building, which, according to that rule in mathematics to be taught in this self-same house, will cost you only twenty-five thousand dollars."
“What is the profit of competition if unfairness and partiality shall still control?”
Then as now, a school bond is one of the largest things a town buys, and the design contract is where trust gets tested. Olympia voters still argue over school construction budgets and whether the process was open — this 1892 letter could be read at a modern school board meeting without changing a word.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.