Letter from Wyatt & Nolting to Phillips Lee Goldsborough, 1913

J. В. NOEL WYATT ФМ. G. rfbLTING WYATT • & • NOLTING • ARCHITECTS KEYSER • BUILDING • • BALTIMORE TELEPHONE ST. PAUL 2287 Baltimore, April 23, 1913. Hon. Phillips Lee Goldsborough, Annapolis, Maryland. Dear Sir:- Following Mr. Bolting's conversation with you on last Tuesday morning, in the matter of the award of the competition for the State Normal School, we heg to lay before you and the Commis¬ sion the facts as given you in our conversation. We were, as you know, invited in this competition under the Pro¬ gram, which, while submitting a tentative suggestion for the grouping of the buildings, also stated that this scheme was not final or oblig¬ atory and that "the Commission holds itself open to receive and care¬ fully consider any scheme that may be submitted". Under a careful study of the Program, and due consideration of the site, our firm decided that a scheme differing from the tentative suggestion was the better solution of the problem, and therefore sub¬ mitted a scheme of a group of buildings, in which the Administration and Science buildings were placed on the top of the knoll, with the dormitories grouped in proximity thereto, on the north side of the hill, with the Athletic Field on the lower ground. The award in this competition was made to Messrs. Parker, Thomas and Rice of Boston. Although we felt, after an examination of the schemes submitted, that our solution was the best one, we had no criticism of the award to make . It came to our attention however, through a statement in the pub¬ lic press on Tuesday, April 15th., that, after more mature considera¬ tion and inspection of the site, the Commission had decided to place the Administration Building on the highest point of the site - a prac¬ tical acceptance of the solution as submitted by ourselves. An examination of the schemes, now on exhibition at the Peabody Institute, will show that of all submitted ours was the only one of¬ fered with the Administration Building on top of the hill, with all the buildings grouped together in one complete scheme, instead of in a scattered group as submitted by the other competitors. we beg therefore to ask the Commission, through you, whether, if on more mature consideration of the site, the group plan, as submitted by the successful competitor, has been abandoned and the solution as suggest¬ ed by ourselves adopted, it is not a fact that our general scheme is the one now finally adopted by the CommissionV This question is asked after due consideration, and is based on the following thoughts. 1