Facebook Twitter



Regarding the article "Court-complex design stirs an adversarial air" in the Aug. 2 Metro section - the air may be adversarial but the odor is distinctly sour grapes. One can only guess at the motives behind the criticism expressed.

Rep. Dave Jones' statement that "Utahns deserve a building that reflects our culture, aspirations and beliefs" leaves one believing the building in question is either a temple or a tourist attraction. This is a court complex, folks.Mike Leventhal of the Utah Heritage Foundation criticizes the design for looking "brutish." The longer I pondered this, the more I liked the idea of our court complex looking brutish - even intimidating would be OK.

Then we have the two architects, Messrs. Bliss and Ferguson. Are we a little jealous? From what I've read, neither of them was involved in the design competition, yet they are compelled to call a press conference to criticize the selection.

Finally, whose interests should take priority in the building of this complex? First, the taxpayers who deserve the best facility for the dollar. Second, the people who will work there who deserve the most efficient and functional design for the dollar. I believe the Legislature should worry about laws, not building design. The Utah Heritage Foundation should worry about old buildings, not new ones, and let the architect build monuments to themselves with private money, not my tax dollars. I believe the State Building Board is being unfairly criticized.

Linda Hansen