In regard to your May 26 editorial, "Take long view of OSU Pauling building":

Historical preservation and a commitment to energy innovation are not at odds with each other. Are only ugly buildings energy innovative?

For me the issue is ugliness. The Corvallis Historic Resources Commission's observation that the Pauling Center "lacked architectural interest" is a diplomatic way of saying "ugly."

Did Oregon State run an ugly design competition? It is hard to believe that any self-respecting architectural firm would come up with such a design without incentive of some sort.

The issue is not trivial. Aesthetics are important. They are the face of the university to strangers. The university should try very hard to ensure that a visitor's first impression of the campus is a good one.

As for the $81,000 a month interest on construction loans: Why should Corvallis bail out Oregon State? One wonders how much coordination the university did with the Historic Commission during the process to minimize any surprises at the end. Apparently not much.

Oregon State wanted its historic district; let it live with the consequences. In the future, let it build architecturally interesting buildings that promote energy innovation.

Bill White, Corvallis