Monastery at Large

It’s time to change your tired old story.

In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On the Plan for Boys’ High School (1894)

The background: One of G.L. Norrman‘s most bitter public disputes — and there were several — unfolded in 1894, when plans that he and other legitimate Atlanta architects had submitted for the construction of the new Boys’ High School were passed over in favor of one designed by Golucke & Stewart, a substandard architectural firm even by Atlanta standards.

1893 Illustration of proposed Boys’ High School in Atlanta – designed by Golucke & Stewart

Norrman had been shown the winning plans by Captain J.C. Hendrix, chairman of the school building committee, and was disgusted by what he found, writing a letter of opposition to the chairman of the school board, D.A. Beattie, in which he expressed his issues with the winning plans in exacting detail.

Norrman apparently sent a copy to The Atlanta Constitution, which published the letter on September 5, 1894, in an article appropriately entitled “In Harsh Terms”.

Norrman’s remarks:

Atlanta, Ga.,
August 25, 1894

Mr. D.A. Beatie, City,

“Dear Sir:

The plans for the Boys’ High school were shown me yesterday by Captain Hendrix, and I find—

  1. That the size of the building is much larger than the plans submitted by me, which will make it cost at least $5,000 more than my plan would have cost, and yet it has not as many appointments, which shows that there is a great deal of waste space in the plan accepted.
  2. The ventilation is not as good, as only corner rooms in the accepted plan have windows on more than one side.
  3. The accepted plan being four stories, makes it very much more inconvenient, and besides makes it very dangerous in case of fire, not only on account of its extra height, but on account of the stairway running zigzag so that one flight of stair does not come over the one below; especially so with the stairway leading to the public hall. So entirely different plans will have to be made, as the fire department and building inspectors will doubtless condemn the plan on account of the great fire risk.
  4. The hall cannot be constructed without using columns to support the ceiling, and is not high enough for a gymnasium, which will make it practically useless.
  5. The design is an architectural monstrosity, and will be a lasting reflection on the judgment of the board of education. If education is of any value at all, it is to adduce such qualities and surrounding as are in conformity with good taste, and I think among well-informed people, bad taste in architecture is more offensive than unconventional manners or incorrect speaking or writing. So it is of the greatest advantage that children should have training and correct architectural forms. To debauch children’s taste is about as bad as to debauch their morals, as taste and morals can hardly be separated.

Believing that the board came to the decision without thorough examination into the designs submitted, I respectfully request that you allow me a hearing before the board. I feel sure that the result would be a reconsideration of your decision, as the plan submitted by myself should be accepted on account of less cost, superior appointment, better ventilation and greater safety in case of fire, and account of its architectural merit.

As this is a matter of high public importance, I respectfully urge this request and ask you to lay it before the board at your earliest convenience. Not having seen any other plans, what I have said refers only to the plans adopted. There may be other plans of more merit than mine.”

G.L. NORRMAN