PUB 5 2024-2025 ISSUE 3 MHTN Architects A Century of Innovation and Moving Forward LEGENDS Brenda Scheer, FAIA
amscowindows.com ASPIRE Architectural software tools features • on-the-fly building requirements window validation • real-time window price budget estimations • real-time window specifications validations architectinfo@amscowindows.com for more info
Reflexion is a publication of the Utah Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. www.aia.org/utah AIA Utah 280 S. 400 W., Ste. 150 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 President Whitney Ward, AIA, LEED AP BD+C President-Elect Clio Rayner, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Secretary Natalie Shutt-Banks, AIA Treasurer Libby Haslam, AIA Editor Frances Pruyn, CPSM Staff Executive Director Angie Harris Roberts Programs & Office Manager Joe Mangum ©2025 AIA Utah | The newsLINK Group LLC. All rights reserved. Reflexion is published quarterly by The newsLINK Group LLC for AIA Utah and is the official publication for this association. The information contained in this publication is intended to provide general information for review, consideration and education. The contents do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you need legal advice or assistance, it is strongly recommended that you contact an attorney as to your circumstances. The statements and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the AIA Utah, its board of directors or the publisher. Likewise, the appearance of advertisements within this publication does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service advertised. Reflexion is a collective work, and as such, some articles are submitted by authors who are independent of the AIA Utah. While AIA Utah encourages a first-print policy, in cases where this is not possible, every effort has been made to comply with any known reprint guidelines or restrictions. Content may not be reproduced or reprinted without prior written permission. For further information, please contact the publisher at (855) 747-4003. 4 Executive Director’s Message AIA Utah’s Dedication to You 5 Member Spotlight Courtney Haddick 8 VBFA + BNA Is Now RESOLUT 10 Legends Brenda Scheer, FAIA 14 The Architectural Profession in Utah 17 Exploring the Use of Carbon Black in Cement 18 2025 AIA Events 19 Register Today! AIA Utah Golf Tournament 20 2025 Legislative Recap 22 UCFA Returns 23 MHTN Architects A Century of Innovation and Moving Forward 26 Bird-Friendly Windows: Efficient Budgeting CONTENTS 3
AIA Utah’s Dedication to You BY ANGIE HARRIS ROBERTS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIA UTAH AIA National recently revamped their Core Member Services (CMS). As stated in the most recent iteration, “… CMS lays the groundwork for component excellence by ensuring that all members receive a consistent level of service and that each component thrives as a nonprofit corporate entity.” AIA Utah provides a link on our website to CMS 4.0 under the Resources tab. It is important for our members to understand the benefits the components are expected to deliver to them. Briefly, the benefits fall under six categories: • Advocacy • Communications and Outreach • Education • Finance and Operations • Governance • Membership AIA Utah has worked diligently on our financials over the last few years to ensure we are following best practices, offering value to members and strengthening the long-term stability of our component. We also want to be transparent with you, our members, about the board’s commitment to this particular deliverable. AIA Utah strives to tie our money to the mission and goals of the component while also following the guidelines established in our by-laws and operating policies. Annually, the board of directors and executive director review the services offered to members, the financial impact of our investments into programs desired by members and project the financial health of the component. This includes the following actions: • Adopt an annual budget showing, in detail, the anticipated income and expenditures of the component for the succeeding year. This is typically done at our November Board meeting. • In order to compensate for inflation and provide stability to AIA Utah’s long-term financial stability, AIA Utah will raise member dues each year by the CPI. This policy is in our operating policies, which means it is strongly suggested while also allowing the board to consider a different increase based on the needs of members and the component. • At the end of the year, the board invests 80% of realized revenue into reserves. • File an IRS 990. • Maintain directors and officers and general liability insurance policies for the component. On a monthly basis, board leadership and officers review all financial reports with the executive director. The executive director works closely with the treasurer and accounting firm to ensure accurate financials. In addition, this arrangement allows for a separation of duties and regular reviews of financial records and transactions. Here are the new initiatives we’ve established and are working on now to improve AIA Utah’s finances and operations: 1. Diversified revenue through a strong sponsorship program and increased allied memberships. 2. Invested a portion of our reserve funds so that our money is generating revenue for improved member benefits. 3. Created a five-year plan to ensure the future of the component. 4. Created a membership committee chaired by the past president. This group not only focuses on improving the member experience but also works with the executive director to recruit and retain members. As members, I hope you recognize the dedication and respect our board of directors and staff have for this component and our membership. We look forward to seeing you at upcoming events and encourage you to reach out with any questions or concerns. Angie 4 REFLEXION
Time is valuable; why AIA? There are two AIA groups that I make time for because I find them to be not only an engaging use of my time but also something where input from practicing professionals is incredibly important. The first is the national AIA Documents Committee (the group responsible for drafting and maintaining the AIA suite of contract documents). To say the AIA documents are industry standard is an understatement, and maintaining those documents is no small task. The committee is made up of 35 men and women serving 10-year appointed terms, and we work year-round to review and update existing documents and publish new documents in response to industry needs. These documents give our industry a reliable baseline for contract negotiations and project documentation not only for AIA member architects but for the entire industry. They are vetted by practicing professionals, court-tested and overall reflections of AEC industry standards. Even clients and large firms with their own manuscript agreements rely on the AIA documents as a reference for model language that transcends disciplinary bias. I continue to be impressed by the dedication and professionalism of my fellow committee members as we work to maintain the legacy of the AIA Contract Documents, and I am grateful for the opportunity MEMBER SPOTLIGHT Courtney Haddick 5
to collaborate on a weekly basis with some of the most intelligent and humble architects I know. More recently, I joined the Utah DOPL Architect and Landscape Architect licensing board and subsequently became engaged with the AIA Utah Government Affairs Committee. I have seen the heavy lift that our local AIA Chapter carries across the board. The many committees, task forces, subcommittees and initiatives require significant time and passion from individual members. There is much work to be done, and the strength of the AIA comes when individual members with varying strengths and technical backgrounds come together to collaborate and get work done. Looking specifically at the Government Affairs Committee, Shawn leads the group in tracking an overwhelming amount of legislation each session, that all impact our professional community in different ways. Having individual members who bring niche subject matter expertise to the table strengthens the committee as a whole. In serving on the state licensing board, I personally have really been “getting into the weeds” lately on understanding our architect licensing act and rules. In the case of this legislative session, my technical knowledge from that work on the licensing board became helpful in the context of certain specific bills and led to my first engagement with this committee. I am looking forward to continuing to stay involved and contributing where I can! Favorite Utah space (includes built or natural): Bryce Canyon. It takes my breath away every time we visit. Favorite book: “The Count of Monte Cristo” by Alexandre Dumas. Mantra: My mantra is “brave, not perfect.” This is the title of a book by Reshma Saujani, who gave a keynote speech at an AIA Women’s Leadership Summit I attended in San Jose several years ago. Her underlying point is not particularly novel in itself. Many others have written and spoken about similar concepts — Brene Brown has written several books with similar themes, that famous quote by Wayne Gretzky about “missing 100% of the shots you don’t take” gets at the same point, and the list goes on — but the way Saujani phrased it really struck a nerve and has stuck with me ever since. Studies show that women in professional fields (and many young professionals in general, regardless of gender) tend to avoid trying new things unless they are absolutely sure that they understand how to do that thing well. The prospect of doing it adequately isn’t enough — if they are going to try something, they want to really excel at it. They are constantly chasing that “A+” grade when the task is complete. There is overwhelming social pressure, especially in the age of social media, to be “perfect.” This pressure seeps into all aspects of our lives, especially our work. Many of us would rather stay in our comfort zone where we know we are “doing it right” or “doing it well.” Saujani talks about how, while the academic world may reward those straight As and a 4.0 GPA, the real world doesn’t really measure perfection. Instead, the world rewards growth, and meaningful growth requires bravery. Perfection is subjective anyway, and more importantly, perfection does not equal excellence. In many ways, that pursuit of perfection in work often ends up impeding excellence because perfecting something often leads to a bigger problem: stagnation. That long-term stagnation in your comfort zone, although it may feel safe for a while because you have mastered one particular task or one particular role on a project, eventually leads to monotony. Our industry is limitless in an individual’s potential for growth. We have to keep going, even if (when) you get a few things wrong along the way. That’s how you learn, and you have to keep going. In this profession, you should never, ever stop learning. Now there is an opposite end of this spectrum as well, and the cycle of constantly chasing a higher mountain to climb can be just as problematic in its own ways. The part of this mantra that I try to fall back on is that intimidation and self-doubt should not be the thing to stop me from something I am genuinely interested in trying. All that to say, my mantra and my reminder for young professionals, especially women in our field, is do not try to be perfect. Try to be brave. Our industry is limitless in an individual’s potential for growth. 6 REFLEXION
Toris roof and floor deck ceiling systems create modern, visually unobstructed spans up to 30 feet while superior acoustics and hanging features begin a long list of added benefits. Contact EPIC to see how Toris can impact your next project. Architectural Roof and Floor Deck Ceiling Systems Toris® 877-696-3742 epicmetals.com Product: Toris 4A Ivins City Hall — Ivins, Utah Architect: VCBO Architecture — St. George, Utah
VBFA (originally Van Boerum and Frank Associates) and BNA (originally Becherer Nielsen Associates) are two powerhouse local engineering firms that virtually every Utah architecture firm has worked with at some point, either separately or in a combination, as engineering consultants for their projects. They are mainstay Utah firms that are known for providing consistent, reliable mechanical/electrical (VBFA) and electrical (BNA) engineering design services for a myriad of different project types and a wide range of owners. They are now one firm: RESOLUT. On March 24, 2025, this fully integrated engineering practice launched their new corporate brand as a firm that provides mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and acoustical engineering as well as security, audiovisual, architectural lighting design, controls, fire protection, procurement and commissioning. The 210-person engineering firm has self-sustaining offices in Murray, Logan and St. George, Utah, as well as Spokane, Washington, and Tempe, Arizona. Additionally, and impressively, the organization has contracts to provide engineering services in far-flung places across the globe: from Utah and Nevada to Saudi Arabia, Fiji, Ghana and Dubai. Their very diverse portfolio includes healthcare, higher education, corporate offices, K-12, civic spaces, military installations, churches, temples, municipalities, sports and entertainment, and a remarkable number of water parks. This broad field of experience, and wide range of services, allows them to pivot when specific markets encounter the inevitable downturn. Both VBFA and BNA were formed in 1972: 53 years ago. They flourished and grew as independent mechanical and electrical engineering firms, respectively. And, not surprisingly, engineers from VBFA and BNA have worked together for those 53 years on many of the same projects in the Intermountain West and for the same clients in other locations, some of which are pictured in this article. Creating an engineering firm with this combination of services has been discussed by different generations of VBFA and BNA leaders since the 1980s. It was just never the right time to marry firms until now. Jeff Watkins (VBFA) and Brian Hicks (BNA) are leading the consolidation effort. Hicks said, “We have dated for decades; we have had a long courtship.” Both companies dabbled in other specialties, hoping to develop a more comprehensive engineering package to offer clients. “It took the right leadership at the right time, saying, ‘I think we can accomplish more together than on our own.” VBFA + BNA Is Now RESOLUT Abravanel Hall Delta Center Hockey Remodel Hale Centre Huntsman Cancer Institute WCSD Career Tech High School 8 REFLEXION
Because it is a marriage of equals, it was never a matter of one firm just absorbing another. It meant creating unified business practices and culture. Watkins, Hicks and their leadership teams started talking seriously roughly about a year ago how to develop a more balanced, combined firm. Hicks said that the first hurdle was setting the egos aside. The leaders of both firms had to acknowledge that “there may be others that do something better than we do. Let’s learn and apply it.” They assembled the leadership of both companies, floated the aspirations and set the goals. “Once you say, ‘I want what is best for the team,’ then you can create a climate where the sky is the limit. We created a leadership team that is ‘hungry, humble and smart’ and determined that we would be much stronger together than apart.” 1 + 1 would equal 3. Having a full-service MEP+ firm allows the design team to consult with each other easily and often. Their vision was to create something that is different from what they were before — something that is unique and best for their clients, who can contract for everything on the menu or for a la carte services. The complete merger committee needed full buy-in. Fortunately, there were already a lot of commonalities beyond their mutual portfolios. Both cultures were very similar, and they liked each other. Critically, both firms were employee-owned (ESOP — Employee Stock Ownership Plan). Their business models and views of success were very similar; with an ESOP, when the firm succeeds, everyone succeeds. The committee treated the merger like a complicated engineering project. They agreed that this would be more than just a merger on paper, but a fully integrated team. They wanted a professional services company that could grow and provide something new in their existing markets and that could compete in new markets. Watkins said that he was very emotional when he announced the merger to the employees. “It is a big change for all of us. There is a lot of weight on a lot of shoulders. Seeing the excitement was very satisfying.” Once the merger was revealed in-house, the team began mixing the two sets of employees, saying, “We want them to be friends, not just co-workers.” They had parties, ping pong tournaments and trunk or treats. They tied quilts for Primary Children’s Hospital and found ways to give back to the community. Physically, they are moving around some of the technical staff, mixing up the disciplines and encouraging them to talk with each other — to integrate. Nevertheless, meshing two very established businesses is challenging. There are so many details and practices to be considered. There is the way you actually do the work: dividing projects into workstreams, assigning leadership, agreeing on shared nomenclature and styles, agreeing on compatible software systems, and common management processes and quality control systems. Then there is the business side: compensation packages, financial systems, payroll processes, PLT packages, cell phones, HR and physical facilities have to be aligned. And then promotion and messaging: marketing plans, sale targets, CRM and branding must be congruent and consistent. The committee knew from their own project experiences that taking great advice from savvy, knowledgeable consultants is the best avenue to success. They applied what they have learned from architects: Get a lot of smart people at the table, then trust them to do their work. Their primary advisor is Bellview Consultants, a business consulting firm. There are also attorneys involved and a valuation company. They had to hire a new ESOP trustee that would represent the new company. They have a branding consultant, a graphics consultant and a management consultant. “Employees are our assets. If they are successful, we are successful. We want to watch them grow, as we had the opportunity to grow,” said Watkins. “Jeff and I both see ourselves as temporary stewards of the company until the next generation takes the reins. It is a core value in an ESOP company. It is not what Jeff wants and what Brian wants. It is what is best for the entire organization — there is a magnitude of responsibility in that.” Ultimately, says Hicks, “We are obsessed with making our clients succeed. We want them to win. If our clients are happy, we will be happy because they will come back to us. We absolutely love what we do.” Lehi High School Spanish Fork Fire Station 62 9
LEGENDS INTERVIEWED BY FRAN PRUYN, CPSM As part of our ongoing series of interviews with architectural legends, we are proud to present this interview with Brenda Scheer, FAIA. It was a pleasure to interview her and to learn more about her fascinating career in developing urban planning and design programs in the state of Utah when there had previously been nothing. She truly is a role model for women architects. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. When did you decide to become an architect? After I’d already started college. I grew up in Oklahoma, and there were no architects anywhere near where I lived. I had no idea that was a viable profession for a woman. My dad always said, “You can be whatever you want to be,” which for a woman in the ‘50s and ‘60s was kind of unusual. So, I decided to be an engineer. I went to Rice University and was an engineer for about a semester. I had a friend who was an architecture student, and she would carry around triangles and had drawings. And I thought, “That’s what I want.” They accepted me in the architecture school — they don’t usually let people in without portfolios, but I’d already passed muster as an engineering student. Architecture school was very difficult. I was in a class of 25 people, and there were three women. I started school in 1971. It was especially difficult for women because they were harassed. We were harassed by fellow students; we were harassed by the faculty. Of the three women that started with me, I was the only one who finished. What did that harassment look like? One is outright harassment. You stand up in front of juries for a review, which is very tense and very difficult. The professor would make fun of my miniskirt, the way I was standing or what I wore. Another form of harassment was that they just didn’t give me any attention. I had professors who didn’t believe that women should be in architecture school. They wouldn’t come to your desk and give you a critique. When they did come over, they would just stare and turn away. The fact that I hadn’t worked Photo: Centre City, Terre Haute, Indiana, with David Scheer Brenda Scheer FAIA 10 REFLEXION
construction in the summer or that I didn’t know how to draft were things that played against me all the time. I didn’t learn how to draft because they wouldn’t let me take a drafting class when I was in the eighth grade. I had to take homemaking. There were these obstacles at every turn. After a while, it became a challenge: “I’m going to show those guys. I am going to be what they think I cannot be.” I graduated in 1977. I got my master’s degree. I had done an internship in Philadelphia with a firm that did urban design. I was very interested in urban design, and so I primarily worked in nonprofit planning organizations in Houston. I later worked in real estate development for a couple of years and then moved to Boston with my husband. He had a big job, and I was a housewife for two or three years because my daughter was a baby. I was not happy doing that. I really wanted to work. I wanted meaningful work outside of the home. And again, people would tell me, “Okay, you haven’t worked in a while. Why would we give you a job? What do you know how to do? Can you do door schedules?” I hadn’t had any experience doing that sort of regular architecture. Eventually, I went to work for the city of Boston. It was a really interesting job, working in the neighborhoods of Boston doing neighborhood development. We would go into a small neighborhood, into their business district, work with people, give them loans and do design work for their facades. It was also my first opportunity to be the boss because they hired me to run this small department of six people. It was exciting for me. We got some state grants. I had a great staff — mostly people from Harvard and MIT. It was great to be in the mix with wonderful people during a very volatile time when neighborhood development was a difficult subject in Boston. After a few years, I applied for a fellowship at Harvard, the Loeb Fellowship, which is a well-known honor that includes a year of study at Harvard. They select about eight or nine people a year. It changed my ability to see and understand myself. It was great to be with the Loeb Fellows, many of whom went on to great things, and to have the experience of being at the Harvard Graduate School of Design with its incredible faculty. It made me understand architecture in a completely different light. I learned about architecture as a field of ideas, a field of philosophy and an expansive revelation about human life. It helped me become an academically minded person — to see architecture more broadly and as an important cultural touchstone. And because it really changed my perspective, I decided, “Wow, it would be so great to be a professor. I think I have a lot of knowledge, things to give and a 15-year record of working in the field.” I went to the dean of the Harvard Graduate School, who had been a professor of mine back at Rice, and said, “I want to be a professor.” He didn’t laugh or anything, he said, “Sure, I have these three jobs on my desk, which one do you want to do?” He just called up the people, and I got interviews. I knew nothing about academic interviews. They called me and said, “Want to come interview?” I said, “Sure, how about tomorrow? I’ll fly out tomorrow” (because this is the way business does business). Academics don’t do it that way. They have a three- or four-day interview where you have to talk to every single person on the faculty individually, and then you have to talk to the students as a group. You have to talk to the alumni as a group. You have to talk to the donors as a group. And you have to give a talk. When I landed at the airport, the professor who met me said, “We’re so looking forward to your talk.” I’m like, “What talk?” This was not the time when you could go to your computer and pull up whatever you were doing. This was a time when you needed to have your slides all prepared. I had nothing. So, when I was talking to the graduate students, I told them my dilemma and they said, “Well, we have your portfolio here. Let us make some overhead projector slides.” And they did. I did the interview, and they offered me the job that day, which in academia, is unheard of. I found out later it was really late in the season, and schools were desperate for people for the next year. I was the only woman again, and it was an advantage to be interviewing as an urban designer. So, I went to the University of Cincinnati. I was a professor of urban planning, which was a very good position to be in. Schools of Architecture can be hard on you, but my experience as a planning professor was great. Everyone helped me and mentored me. The students were terrific. I had great experiences. I began to write. I worked with people to write two books, and I wrote a lot of articles. I met my partner, and we established a practice in architecture. I was able to finally Corryville Recreation Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, with David Scheer Eight tiny houses on typical Salt Lake City lot. Utah Design Arts Award Urban Design plan for Carmel, Indiana 11
do a few buildings and work on many urban design projects around Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. I became a more experienced professor. After about 12 years, I was ready for a leadership position. I interviewed at the University of Utah for the dean position, which was unusual because I hadn’t been a department chair, but it felt really right to be there. My experience as an urban planner was one of the things that made me a good candidate for dean. It was a small department: There were 12 faculty members and 180 students, and it was in a giant building. Faculty and students were spread out. As soon as I came, I wanted to build an urban planning program. It turned out there was an urban planning degree program in geography with one professor. With his blessing, we moved that program and renamed the Graduate School of Architecture to the College of Architecture and Planning, which was very pretentious because it really wasn’t that yet. The urban planning program blossomed over the next five or six years and gained national recognition. The architecture faculty was really supportive. They taught some of the classes and sat on all the hiring committees. We hired some of the best urban planning professors in the country. It was a very collaborative experience for everybody. The department had been very well run by Bill Miller, who had lots of great connections with local architects. But, beyond the architectural community, it was largely unseen in the general community. I encouraged the faculty to become more involved beyond the architectural community, such as the art community and the planning community. I sat on the board of five or six organizations like Envision Utah and Art Space and encouraged the faculty to do the same. They were on the Preservation Utah Board, the UTA Board, the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and so forth. We reached out and became much more widely known in the community. We also encouraged the students to get involved. We emphasized architecture as something that has a tremendous contribution to make in the community. How long were you at the University of Utah? Nineteen years. I was dean for 11 years. I continued on in the faculty for another eight years. The place had changed tremendously. We went from 12 to 25 faculty members. We had 184 students, and now I think they have 700 students. We added the Master of Urban Planning, a Bachelor of Urban Ecology, a historic preservation certificate and the Real Estate Development Program in partnership with the business school. The most important addition probably was the Multidisciplinary Design Program. This is one of the great accomplishments in my life — introducing all of these interesting programs, trying to make them work together, turning the college into a real college with multiple departments and giving students in Utah the opportunity to do things that they had never had the opportunity to do. Many of the urban planners that I work with today were products of the U’s Urban Planning Program. I am so proud of them because they have the chance to have those extremely meaningful jobs. Many go almost straight from their master’s degree into being the town planner. Utah had no resources like that before I became dean, and the faculty and I put that program together. Likewise, for the design program, there was a tremendous demand for it. Now, it turns students away in droves. It’s something that captured everyone’s attention since the rise of the internet and social media. The design program was also developed to be a community resource. One of the first projects that we did was designing a prosthetic for people in places without access to high-tech prosthetics; so, we did low-tech prosthetic limbs. We had partnerships with the medical school, with the business school and with economics. We had some really good leaders coming up, and so I stepped down as dean after 11 years and went back to the faculty. I did a lot more writing, got back to my research work and focused on my community volunteer work. I also did some travel and taught in South Korea in a program we had at the U. Then you retired? I’m retired now, but I’m not really retired. I’m still on the board of several organizations. I have been writing. I have published a number of papers. I organized a big international conference. City Centre, Terre Haute, Indiana, with David Scheer Diagram of urban elements, from ”The Epistemology of Urban Morphology” 12 REFLEXION
I’m part of a research group internationally. I have been very involved in the Salt Lake City Planning Commission for seven years now and have been chair. I’ve been in the Utah Women’s Forum and continue to be involved in the Girl Scouts of Utah. I get a lot of personal travel in, and that’s exciting, too. What are you most proud of? I’m really most proud of my children. I have two beautiful daughters, and they are both accomplished in their own ways. I’m proud that they think of me as an accomplished mom. I think I set a tone for them that said, like my dad said to me, “You can be what you want to be.” That doesn’t mean that you have to be in charge of everything. It means that you can be what you want to be, which I think is a very important message to send to women. I’m proud that I was able to be a role model for women architects in Utah. We started out not having a lot of architecture students who were women. Dean Miller had worked hard on that issue, but it still, I think, helped to have a role model in place there. I was a very visible architect in the city as somebody who was leading the school. I’m also proud of what I accomplished at the university: the number of programs that were introduced and increasing the ability of students to study lots of new, different things. It’s important not only for the students, it’s also important for the state of Utah to have those resources available. I’m proud of my research work. I have done a lot of research on urban morphology, which is the study of the history of cities. I’ve written 40 or 50 papers, I’ve done three books, and I have written a great article about Salt Lake City. Locally, people don’t know much about this part of my work, but internationally, that’s how I am known. A lot of my work is groundbreaking, theoretical and highly cited. That’s the academic measure that people use. Any disappointments? I would have liked to have been an architect in the sense of being able to design buildings. I did a little bit of it, but I did it in partnership with people who really did most of the work. I regret that I didn’t have that chance. I never thought I was very good at design until much later in my career when I actually found out that I was really good at design. Going back to my initial introduction to architecture school, where I was actually discouraged, I never realized that I could do that. How has architecture evolved since you began practicing? I think the evolution of practice has been really devoted to more and more computer-aided activities, which is kind of disappointing — not that it’s not great to have computers. It does cut out some of the grunt work. On the other hand, I’ve never noticed that it’s actually taken less time to do anything. Hopefully, it’s more accurate and more collaborative. Unfortunately, I think computer drawing has influenced architecture schools and the profession. Students don’t really know how to draw anymore or think with their hands as much because they’re going instantly from some little diagram right into the computer. The computer makes everything look beautiful, and everyone expects their drawing to be beautiful right from the very beginning. I remember going to a conference not too long ago. A person was showing the urban design work of her students, and I said, “It’s very clear to me that your students know how to design an infographic, but do they know how to design a street?” The infographics were amazing; everything you could possibly want to know about that area was beautifully and graphically presented. I think we lose something when everything has to be perfect immediately when you can’t just rip and tear up a model or sketch something a hundred times. Maybe we’ll be coming back to that more because the computer now allows you to sketch in it. I carry around an iPad and a pencil that I can sketch in, so even I don’t carry around a sketchbook anymore. It is the desire to be perfect right out of the bag that I think hurts the architect and the development of a design. So, I don’t think we see as much creativity as we could in architecture. Advice for young architects? I think the best advice I can give is to travel, to go to concerts, to get out of the architecture mindset and into the cultural mindset, so you are not just stuck doing architecture things in architecture courses. Go to the museum, look at art, talk about art and read all kinds of different things. So, I think the biggest advice I can give to architecture students is to aspire to be the Renaissance person. Bath House, Woodlawn, Ohio, with David Scheer Plan for the redevelopment of Fairborn, Ohio, with David Scheer Plan for redevelopment of central Bucharest, competition entry 13
The Architectural Profession in Utah BY PETER L. GOSS, PH.D. Peter Goss, Ph.D., an incredible historian, passed away on March 7, 2025. He impacted the lives of numerous individuals and left a lasting impression on the architectural community. He will be greatly missed. Today’s architect is most likely a graduate of an accredited, university-based architectural program. He or she has acquired a first professional degree, either a Bachelor or a Master of Architecture, has interned for at least three years with a registered architect and has passed a registration examination administered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The development of these professional standards evolved over many decades. More than a century ago, in what was then Utah Territory, the development of design at the local level usually became the responsibility of a person in the building trades. This was common throughout the nation. A number of those tradespersons who were called upon to design specific buildings eventually expanded their design services and became known as architect-builders. These designers were joined by what is referred to as the amateur architect, often a person of some education or erudition who was fortunate enough to have access to books of design and to clients willing to engage him or her, either as a favor or for a fee. A notable 18th-century amateur architect of Virginia was none other than Thomas Jefferson. His home, Monticello, as well as his quadrangle at the University of Virginia display his familiarity with Roman Classicism primarily drawn from his famous collection of architectural books. Professionally trained architects, or persons who derived their sole income from the design of buildings, appeared in the United States in the 19th century. They may have been the product of a formal apprenticeship with another “architect” or architect-builder, they may have studied abroad in a professional school such as the French Ecole des Beaux Arts (where they no doubt also apprenticed with an architect), or by the latter half of the century, they may have secured an architectural education in a department of architecture attached to a major public or private American institution of higher learning. The first attempt to organize architects by profession began in the late 1850s with the establishment of the American Institute of Architects. Statewide chapters or local societies of the American Institute of Architects were eventually established as the number of architects increased. One outcome of the professionalism movement was the licensing of architects on a state-by-state basis in the latter half of the 19th century. The development of the architectural profession in Utah followed the national pattern, albeit in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. The building of “Zion” in Utah required a large number of buildings and designers. The colonizing efforts of Brigham Young included attracting numerous trades- and crafts-people and also created a great need for the design of buildings. In addition to building entire communities — which included residential, civic and commercial architecture — a number of different types of religious buildings were needed to satisfy the specific requirements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) Temples and tabernacles built in selected early communities joined chapels, found in every LDS community, as well as specialized buildings such as tithing barns and bishop’s storehouses. Many of the early tradespersons who designed to suit the needs of their particular community have gone unrecognized. Luckily, a few have been documented. Some of their well-crafted stone houses and outbuildings still stand and are appreciated by those for whom they still provide shelter. Those individuals who eventually left their careers in the building trades to become architect-builders were usually found in larger population centers. A number of them worked in the service of the LDS church, designing temples, tabernacles, chapels and the houses of general authorities. Notable architect-builders for the LDS Church include Truman Angell Sr., who worked on the Salt Lake Temple and other buildings on that temple block, and William Folsom, who was most well-known for his design of the Manti Temple. Travel was a major source of architectural inspiration and exposure for these designers, as was the reliance upon trade journals and published books of designs. Utah’s remoteness, despite the transcontinental railroad, made training in architectural skills difficult to come by for those wishing to learn how to design. Young persons willing to apprentice in Utah State Hospital, Richard K. A. Kletting 14 REFLEXION
an office needed skills in drawing, drafting, mathematics and technical classes before they even could apply. One popular method of obtaining those much-needed skills was to enroll in correspondence classes. One of the most popular correspondence schools in the country was the International Correspondence School (ICS) of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Its curriculum included a wide variety of professional fields, and its programs were popular in both the urban and rural communities of Utah. Davis County’s most notable late 19th-century architect-builder, William Allen, took a series of ICS classes in 1897. He later went on to become a licensed architect in 1911. Architects Taylor Woolley and Hyrum Pope also studied via ICS in the early years of this century. Those armed with the rudimentary skills received their practical experience as apprentices in architects’ and engineers’ offices in Salt Lake City, Ogden and Logan. Late 19th-century architects Richard K. A. Kletting and Walter E. Ware trained several generations of architects in their Salt Lake City offices. However, a more steady and lucrative training ground for young designers was in the shops of the West’s railroads. In Utah, the Oregon Short Line was a major employer of young draftspersons. When these apprentices reached their maturity as architects, it was not uncommon for them to receive commissions from railroad employees. With one exception, formally trained architects were rare in the late 19th and early 20th century Utah. The exception, Joseph Don Carlos Young (1855-1938), the last surviving son of Brigham Young, was the first architect in Utah to receive a formal education. He majored in civil engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, from 1875 to 1879. After graduating, he engaged in railroading and engineering and was a two-term Utah territorial legislator before turning to architecture. In 1887, he succeeded Truman Angell Sr. as LDS Church architect and remained in that position for 50 years. During 1888-89, he taught mechanical and architectural drafting in the Department of Fine Arts at the University of Utah. Young was succeeded in this teaching role by William Ward, a stonecarver and sculptor, who turned architect after his return to Utah in 1888. In 1906, Young practiced in partnership with his son, Don Carlos Young Jr. — a partnership that continued until 1915. Joseph Don Carlos Young was also an exception to the late 19th-century architectural community since it was comprised of mostly non-LDS, or “Gentile,” architects from outside Utah Territory. Two of the most respected and most prolific of these professional Gentile architects were Richard K. A. Kletting and Walter E. Ware. Kletting, the son of a German railroad builder, spent his early years in railroad camps. As a young man, during summers, he learned stonecutting, and at 16, he became a junior draftsman in the engineering office of the German railroad. After additional drafting work in a city engineer’s office, he went to Paris to work for a large construction firm. He immigrated to the United States in 1883, visited a number of cities on his trek west, and settled in Salt Lake City, where he was immediately employed. Two years after his arrival, he advertised his profession in the “Salt Lake City Directory for 1885.” He designed large commercial buildings, church buildings for the LDS Church, and schools and residences. His most notable achievement was winning the design competition for the Utah State Capitol Building in 1912. Kletting, somewhat of a loner, was best known for his teaching. Aside from training a large number of Utah’s future architects in his office, he also taught math and other subjects in his home. He was also credited with cataloging the book collection of the Salt Lake City Public Library. He was an avid conservationist, concerned about Utah’s public lands and watershed areas. His interest in conservation was recognized in 1964 when a 12,000-foot peak in the Uinta Mountains was named in his honor. Walter E. Ware, like his colleague, was also associated in his early years with the railroad. His father was an inventor and expert in steam shovel operations who had befriended Sidney Dillon of the Union Pacific railroad. After completing high school, Ware went to work in an architect’s office and later in Union Pacific drafting offices. He eventually designed a number of buildings for Union Pacific. Ware opened an office in Salt Lake City in 1891 and practiced architecture for nearly 60 years, from 1891 to 1949. His early work was residential architecture. However, the scope of his practice changed as did the nature of the designs as he took on various partners. One of his longest partnerships was with Alberto O. Treganza, a Californian influenced by Craftsman architecture and the Midwest’s Prairie School style. His last major partnership, from 1938 to 1949, was with Floyd McClanahan. Kletting and Ware share the title “Dean of Utah Architecture.” Both were known for the wide range of their commissions, their professional ethics and the desire to impart their knowledge to future generations of Utah architects. Both were honored in November 1939 for their professional achievements at a lavish banquet at the Hotel Utah sponsored by fellow architects. Walter Ware also was honored as the first Fellow of the Utah Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Thomas Kearns residence, Neu Hansen 15
The next generation of architects, many of whom were trained in the offices of these and other Gentile architects, included a number of Utah’s native sons and recent converts to the LDS Church. Among the most notable was Taylor Woolley, who, after working briefly for Ware and Treganza, apprenticed in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Oak Park studio. He was invited in 1909 to join Wright in Fiesole, Italy, where he worked on the architect’s famous Wasmuth Portfolio, a lithographic record of Wright’s notable designs. The need for a professional organization of architects in Utah coincided with a state-imposed registration procedure for the profession. The earliest roster of architects is dated June 1911 and consisted of a large number of well-known architect-builders and architects. The majority came from Salt Lake City; however, a number also represented such cities as Provo, Logan and Ogden. The earliest professional organization — the Utah Association of Architects — was established in 1911. In 1919, the professional community was invited to the “Institute of Utah Architects” first annual dinner at the Newhouse Hotel, hosted by President Walter E. Ware. It is unclear whether this was simply a renaming of the earlier organization or a new professional group. In 1921, Utah received its charter for the Utah Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). The chapter’s territory included all of Utah as well as 32 counties of Idaho. Its 15 members, all of whom were members of the earlier professional organizations, were simultaneously members of the AIA. Membership grew very slowly in the 1920s, and very few of the members were Idaho architects. The membership dipped in the 1930s and early 1940s due to the Great Depression and war years. By the end of the 1940s, membership nearly tripled, no doubt due to the postwar economic recovery. In 1942, Salt Lake architect Raymond J. Ashton was designated as the second fellow of the Utah chapter, and the following year he was nominated president of the national AIA at its annual meeting in Cincinnati. In the 1920s, numerous firms with a new generation of architects were established; however, many of these would be reorganized during the Depression years. One firm among several that successfully survived the late 1920s and 1930s was that of Carl W. Scott and George W. Welch. One of their notable achievements in the 1920s was the planning and design of an entire new community for the Utah Copper Company. Copperton, on the west side of the Salt Lake valley, represents the 1920s version of the company town, complete with schools, recreation facilities and stuccoed masonry houses highlighted with copper decorative motifs. Scott and Welch went on to design schools, libraries and public buildings throughout Utah as a result of the New Deal’s W.P.A. program. A formal architectural education for Utahns still remained a problem through the 1930s and early 1940s. No Utah institution of higher learning offered a professional architecture program. Some aspiring architects took the engineering curriculum at the University of Utah, followed by an apprenticeship in a local architectural firm; others left the state for architectural programs at such institutions as the University of California at Berkeley or the University of Oregon. Many others undertook the long road of the office apprenticeship and spent a decade or more in the drafting rooms of various firms before gaining eligibility for registration. Architect and educator Roger Bailey’s founding of the Department of Architecture at the University of Utah in 1949 helped solve the problem. Bailey was inculcated with the Beaux Arts approach to design at Cornell University. Upon graduation, he spent several years working in various New York architectural firms. In 1922, he won the prestigious Paris Prize Competition and immediately headed for Paris. He remained in Europe for three years, during which time he traveled extensively on the continent. After additional work in New York offices, he joined the faculty of the School of Architecture at the University of Michigan, where he claimed his real education in architecture took place. While traveling west with his wife during the summer of 1948, he happened to stop at the University of Utah and inquire of President A. Ray Olpin why the university did not have an architectural program. Less than half a year later, he was engaged in building such a program for 45 students who had registered to take architectural classes in the basement of the university’s Park Building. The first graduates of the program entered the practice of architecture during the 1950s. Roger Bailey’s untiring efforts to provide a quality education for future architects in the Intermountain West is a benchmark in the history of the profession and simultaneously marks the culmination of the first century of the practice of architecture in Utah. 1. Peter L. Goss, “Architecture at the Turn of the Century,” Utah Historical Quarterly 54 (Winter, 1986); and Peter L. Goss, “Toward an Architectural Tradition,” Utah Historical Quarterly 43 (Summer 1975). This article by Peter L. Goss, Ph.D., is reprinted courtesy of the University of Utah Press. This article was printed in a hardcover book published by the University of Utah Press in 1994. Original book edited by Allen Kent Powell and slightly edited for clarification for this publication. Originally published by: University of Utah Press J. Willard Marriott Library 295 S. 1500 E., Ste. 5400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 16 REFLEXION
thenewslinkgroup.orgRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==