Could've Been Better?
Regarding the convention center article (May 30), architect McCarty is quoted as saying, "It probably could have been done better, maybe we went too far. Or not far enough."
This is OUTRAGEOUS! How could the city of Knoxville and its leaders give the go-ahead for a $160 million project, and as you say in the article, "One of the most expensive public building projects in the history of the state of Tennessee," and have it not be as good as it could be? Even more amazing is the fact that the architect admits the building could have been better. This city needs leaders that recognize the importance of a project like this being the best it can be. "Probably could have been better" is not the note on which a building project should ever be completed. What was the check system to make sure the design was as good as it could be? Where is the confidence of the building's designers?
As a designer, one of the most important elements I bring to the table is confidence in my skill, knowledge, and ability. The thought of not being sure of anything, much less a project that is so unbelievably expensive, is foreign to me.
In respect to the architects, I understand the problems of working with committees. They are never easy. Committees always hamper the design process and always change the vision of the designer. It is impossible to please everyone all the time, but to get to the stage in a project when it is all but complete and say, "Gee, this could have been better," is unacceptable—especially a project with so much community impact, from the dollars invested to the way it works with the surrounding buildings, right in the center of downtown.
I am a downtown resident and pass by the new convention center several time a week. I'm looking forward to using the new facility and to the economic growth and further downtown redevelopment it should bring to our community. It appears to be well constructed, and the materials used do blend with other structures in the surrounding area. The true test of the structure will come with time. Will it look as good in 20 years as it does now. Will it work? Can we as a city maintain it?
But the biggest questions are how could it have been better, and what can be done now to get it to that point.
Todd Richesin
Knoxville
Whistling "Dixie"
If you're depending on Ear to the Ground to tell you when the injuns are a'comin', you might get surprised. Regarding "Not Whistling Dixie" (June 6):
1. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization of courteous, fair-minded gentlemen, had permission from the board of Mabry Hazen House to hold services both memorial and religious at the Bethel Cemetery. The S. C. V. donates one day a year to cleaning up the cemetery, including jobs as big as cutting trees if necessary.
2. The battle flags, once in the cemetery, are not visible to anyone except the paupers buried next door in a county graveyard that is an unholy disgrace.
3. "Dixie" was amplified by a piece of equipment not much bigger than a breadbox, connected to one microphone and a small keyboard. There were also five acoustic instruments
4. Twenty-one-gun salutes are fired in three volleys, as in any Veteran's Cemetery.
5. The Federal dead are recognized with the same respect as the Confederate dead.
6. When the "elderly neighbor" asked for a parking space to be saved (for her lawn mower's vehicle) chairs were immediately placed in the street where she indicated.
7. Gentlemen are never rude.
8. The (stated) husband of a Mabry Hazen House Board member stood outside the gate agitatedly but freely having his say, announced that he was an attorney with a branch of the United States Government, and ordered everyone to leave immediately. When the city police thankfully happened by(?) and ascertained that he was not on the board of M.H.H., they courteously asked him to leave.
9. I'm pretty sure Mark Seigel wasn't there.
10. I reiterate: this event was most certainly and only a memorial for "somebody's" ancestors, and to imply otherwise is to invoke some legal hobgoblins we'd all rather not have among us.
Now that your editorial misinformation is corrected, there's this: People, you're losing your precious and unique rights, the ones you purport to hold so dear. The freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to speak his or her mind, to hold any opinion and to protest when another human being exercises the same rights. Opinions are not illegal. Choosing to honor or like or dislike is not illegal. Protesting is not illegal. But to prevent the free speech of another is a knife in the heart of our Constitution, and we all must protect it with everything we have.
How about this little-known Amendment to our Constitution? OK, here it is: "IX—The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Just consider it your free history lesson for today.
Wallace Ashe, Jr.
Knoxville
| 
