Money that should have been spent on better waterproofing and higher quality HVAC systems was spent to make the building "publishable" and a feather in Scogin's cap.
no offense, but what the fuck are you talking about? i am tired of people thinking that somehow architects are responsible for shittily built buildings. you really think that that monies were redirected to the publishable rather than the details of the building and making it weatherproof? really? was the roof covered with plywood and metal grates? what the fuck?
i mean seriously, have you any clue? crappy mechanical system that, because this project was publically bid, was probably adequate during design, then most likely got dicked down to the bare minimum, and now the architect is to blame. where pray tell are the responsibilities of the owner/client and the builder? the builder probably got punch listed like hell and then complained to the city about the architect making them fix this and that, and if they had to they wouldn't make money. if the builder was forced, then they probably threatened to sue the city, blah, blah, blah....this is architecture not rocket science.
Nowhere in the article does it state that the mechanical or programmatic failings are the reason for this proposal - it's clear that it is more an obstacle to a potentially profitable development that will replace a non-tax generating public building with a Crate and Barrel.
I'm not surprised...Atlanta is the type of city that likes new things that look old, regardless of how inappropriate or ridiculous looking it is.
Take Atlantic Station for example...they are building a freaking Roman arch there for goodness sakes! People thing this is great architecture.
Here is a You Tube video of it...
Skip ahead to the 50 second mark for the good stuff...
also...check out what passes for 'modern' architecture in the background...Novare group stamps another identical twelve/metropolis/plaza/viewpoint green glass condo building into our city!
you people really don't understand the first thing about economics
the library system really doesn't have the money to fix the problems inherent in the original construction -- if they did, they would have done so years ago.
sure, it would be cheaper to fix the building than build a new one - if they had the money - they don't.
This proposal gives the library system the money to get a new building and capture considerable value for their land, which they can use for other purposes.
ahh ... no ... I'm just a practicing architect, just like most of the others here.
but I do understand an income statement and a balance sheet ... and I do understand that economic forces that we can't control seem to have more influence over architecture than do the rantings we make here.
in my view, the seeds of this building's destruction were made when the architect made the original choices about where to allocate funds in the original design.
you can bitch all you want about an neanderthal county board or an unenlightened populace or a community controlled by developer interests. but, somewhere in this diatribe, we as architects have to accept responsibility for our own decisions, and the implications of those decisions, and not try to sluff those off to others. only then will we begin to earn the respect and trust of our clients and our community.
it's not enough to just say "this is a neat design and it must be preserved"
last time i checked, public libraries are not generally charged with the responsibility of generating the revenue to maintain their own buildings. the reason library systems have no money is because towns and cities keep bending over for developers by giving tax incentives and selling public land at a fraction of its true value. city coffers have literally been drained to the point where municipalities cannot provide basic services like keeping a roof over their library collections.
4arch, touche! and there we have it folks, nail hit on head! architects accept their own decisions, what they can't do is fabricate a building without public confidence and adequate government oversight. perhaps when this new facility is built the developer will be resonsible for the maintenance and upkeep? perhaps given the current public thinking on the building it might look like a prison?
Great point, 4arch. There was a program on Fresh Air recently, an author whose name I don't feel like looking for right now, who was arguing that the "free market" is by now almost completely financed by tax-incentives to large developers (rarely to small companies). For example, the millions and millions funneled into large stadium projects have left city parks programs - the ones that actually reach inner-city neighborhoods and the poor - lacking any program money.
As I look at kissy-face's images, though, I'm tending to think if Atlanta wants to drown in a sea of EIFS they can go right ahead - what a craphole. And I thought Indy was bad!
Is it possible that Atlanta feels the way about old-looking stuff because they have none of their own? The city is old, but since it was burned, it has none of the physical legacy of its past. Maybe thats what they are trying to achieve with their EIFS arches and such. The feeling of past.
LB, I can't believe you just called my old city a "craphole", it really was nice at one point, I swear.
(and still is depending on what part of the city you're in)
What I find interesting is this developer wants to build this mega development in Buckhead while we're in a historic drought phase. I don't see any rainwater collection on his bullshit buildings either.
Wasn't the famous Chicago fire more recent than Sherman's torching of Atlanta? They seemed to have recovered nicely. San Francisco with it's earthquake disaster too, for that matter.
I just read that Atlanta is going to allow people to irrigate their lawns again, even though the drought is entering a 2nd year. IMO that's more a much dumber move than razing some building.
While it's true that Lanier and Hartwell are running below full level, the vast majority of the reservoirs are at, or above, full. So, where's that water coming from -- desalination plants?
And, as your article states, this isn't just Atlanta's problem -- it's regional in nature and the solutions will be regional in origin.
Atlanta's the economic engine for that entire region...you guys may not like that vitality, but I'll take Atlanta any day over Detroit, Cleveland, LA, NYC. etc.
so, power companies are diseminating the truth? look dig, it's be reported in the news, and while USA Today is hardly the bastion of truth, i would have to say there are probably numerous articles pointing to a drought in GA.
"Drought ... what drought? You guys aren't really interested in letting the facts get in the way of a good argument, are you?"
wow...just wow. you live there right? have you not seen lake lanier? you guys have a huge freaking problem, not on your doorstep, but moved right in and sleeping on the sofa, and yet you still don't see it?
Atlanta may be a big economy but it's doomed to failure unless the water issues are solved. Hate to say it but I'll take Detroit w/water over Atlanta w/out.
Don't the problems arise in the summer when more water is being used, it rains less, etc. And the reserves, coupled with lack of rainfall, can't keep up with demand?
Ok folks, I've put together something I may send to the Atlanta Biz Journal and I want some thoughts on it.
Word count so far: 515
As a long time resident of Atlanta and a former student in Buckhead I became intimately aware of the odd structure perched off Buckhead Ave. I found The Buckhead Branch Library by Scogin-Elam daringly ugly at first, yet over 4 years of formal studies has taught me to find the beauty in a building others may find unwieldy and disturbing. At this point, we’ve all heard the news that the building is on the chopping block. Here, in my mind is why this may cost Mr. Carter, the developer, more in the long term than he may care to imagine.
Let us start with the cold math. The developer is offering the Library $24 million to buy the land it currently sits on. The developer then states that a meager sum of $5 million taken from the $24 million will fund the new library in one of his mixed use towers. This means the county makes out with $19 million, a profit of eighty percent. From a financial standpoint this sounds like the developer is going to bear the bulk of the burden of this library relocation, hopefully to get his money back in rent and the library makes out like a bandit. I imagine this is a win-win scenario for all right?
Well, I’m not so sure of that because what is the reason people put up with living in a 2000 square foot condo in Buckhead for the same price they could live in a 4000 square foot mansion in Alpharetta? The answer is culture and a sense of urbanity that is hard to find in our fair city these days. You won’t find the nightlife, restaurants and stores that make Buckhead special outside of Buckhead and you won’t find a library that looks like the Buckhead library anywhere else in the world. The Buckhead Culture is Brand Buckhead and that is the reason people move there. Brand Buckhead is a brand you won’t find anywhere else in the South, let alone the city. I think the real reason why Mr. Carter and Mr. Lowe, the commissioner, want this building gone is that they think it is ugly, plain and simple, and will not fit in with the new scheme aesthetically. Yet, if Mr. Carter and Mr. Lowe need any proof that preserving culture leads to a highly marketable asset they need look no further than Buckhead itself, let alone to the world of art where paintings once regarded as too ugly and abstract can frequently sell on auction blocks for millions given a long enough period to sink in. The bottom line is, avant-garde culture sells to avant-garde clientele and I can imagine if the library was refurbished and put at the center of Mr. Carter’s new vision for Buckhead then he would see a far greater return on his money in the long run than just giving $18 million away to the county. We cannot simply let cultural gems like the Buckhead Branch library become fodder for the short-sighted development schemes, lest we sow the seeds of Brand Buckhead’s own destruction.
Streets of Buckhead really needs less parking garage and more MARTA station. Otherwise, where are all those scale figures walking around in the renderings going to come from?
As far a the library goes, Apurimac is right on. Good letter. The reason places like Atlantic Station suck (whether they fail or not) is because they feel generic. Gradual, individual development of lots is the best way to avoid genera...that's how real urban richness comes about.
In some ways, it's not the removal of the library that bothers me, but the fact that it would be replaced with cookie cutter architecture. Build something else if you want, just don't pigeon-hole that site into the trite Streets of Buckhead aesthetic.
Great points. Especially since your target audience is developers etc, i like how you focus on the idea of a Buckhead brand and how the removal of this library will lower the brand effect/price...
interesting discussion(s). water shortages seem to be a problem in north america now and in near future. lake mead apparently even has 50% chance of going to zero in the next few decades 'less regional behaviour changes.
the library is not a favorite for me, personally, but it is interesting and clearly better than average. tearing it down only makes sense to the developer, in spite of above comments about functional/mechanical deficiencies. if the place were to be replaced by something better (for the public) maybe there would be some validity to that point of view, but it sounds more likely that the public will get something much less intelligent.
shock-value does not equate with good in architecture. no real architect would suggest that, so i don't think this is about striving to save a building merely for its ability to work as spectacle. that it is memorable is not a bad thing. so was/is much of the work of the beaux-arts, the rennaisance, or any other style one chooses to stand in a pulpit for. whether this is a cultural touching point equivalent to st peters or st pauls i would find hard to credit....but it is definitely about being somewhere. My suspicion is that its replacement would be more about being nowhere. or to be more correct, it would be about being nowhere with a parking garage.
much as i like dirty realism in achitecture, that image is just painful. give up an impressive work of architecture, slightly flawed though it may be, for a no-name building? makes little sense, except as capitulation to money...
don't have much time, but would like to offer some (hopefully) constructive thoughts/observations:
a lot of the development community agrees in the need for a 'buckhead brand' - problem is, they see it more as georgetown than scogin elam.
the root problem in saving the building is that: the developer has offered a pretty generous amount of money and no one on that side is suggesting getting rid of a library. 'just' moving it and rebuilding. they would probably agree with your core argument, disagree about the aesthetic value of the library, and suggest a new one could better reflect their vision of a 'true' buckhead character. (which, in their opinion, would not be avant-garde - boot that stuff down the street to midtown...).
(the above is NOT my opinion personally - i'm trying to toughen up the argument you've laid out).
ben carter does not want the library gone on primarily aesthetic grounds - he's going to put in yet another tower and make yet another 30m+, after all is said and done. he's using the aesthetics as a weapon to galvanize support for his bid. which brings us to...
i'd argue the prime value of the building has to be established on it's cultural merit. any economics argument fails. any discussion about the aesthetics has to hinge on it being established as one of the most significant buildings, in america (not just atlanta), in the last 25 years or so. anything less is going to lose, i think. also, the other prime argument is protesting the casual demolition and sale of public buildings/land for the first development proposal that comes along. it does happen every day, but maybe this is the case that tries to stand up and say that whole premise is suspect.
i have some ideas about what to do if it looks like the cause is lost (and salvage something good out of this kind of mess)- have to get to that later. got to pay the bills...
Let me throw an idea out there and see what people think:
What if Fulton County took the money for the library, told Ben Carter to screw himself in terms of putting the library in one of his towers (aka a Barnes & Noble).
Then how 'bout fulton County hold a design competition for a new library on another site, or let Scogin/Elam have another go at it. I think the East Andrews (still very pedestrian friendly) area would be a perfect alternative to this site right around the corner.
I think the main Overall problem here is that Developers have WAY TOO MUCH influence on Atlanta's Urban Fabric. This would be a way to counter this nasty development. This could be an oppurtunity to try an bring back that "pedestrian feel" of Buckhead.
Thanks for the points all, I'm already making revisions.
Bluesman, I think you have a good point but to me it would cost the county more than $24 million to build a new library that is as aesthetically on par with its current building. The "$5 million" for the new space in the tower sounds like a mercy issue to me. Why should the developer save the library at all? He'll make way more money with a retail outlet in its stead like a Barnes & Noble. He's only doing this to prevent the public outcry that befalls the demolishing of a library.
If I were the developer and my soul interest was short-term profit, I'd hand the library a check for the market value of their land and tell them to GTFO. I'm sure the commisioner would only be too happy to accept.
If my interest was long-term profit, I'd keep the library, rehabilitate it and build my development around it, try to foster similar avant-garde thinking in my new structures and attract a clientele far more sophisticated and subsequently wealthy than new-money suburbanites.
also its shell and core most likely. then the developer will call you everytime a new tenant is on the hook to send you plans that you already sent to them five times.
I strongly believe that the Buckhead Branch Library should be an important contributor to the vibrancy sought by the developers of the Streets of Buckhead project. They have argued that the library would be a gap in that experience but I strongly believe vibrancy results from a juxtaposition of styles that a city can only accumulate over time. Our most vulnerable contributors to this patina seem to be those that have barely emerged from the era of their conception, in this case a bold library design representing the deconstructivist viewpoints of the mid-late eighties. When I've seen vibrancy in our city it is in those rare instances when moments of history find adjacency: the mingling of the up-and-coming and the down-and-out along Ponce de Leon Avenue, the new modern homes sprouting like flowers among the dusty bungalows of Kirkwood and the Old Fourth Ward, the galleries and coffee shops tucked into the re-tooled warehouses of the westside and the progressive and engaging commentary on the commercial fabric of Buckhead that is found in the design of that district's library. These rare opportunities are endangered further by developers like Ben Carter who would rather wipe away the barely old than to see the potential vibrancy in thoughtfully co-existing with a young and inspired predecessor.
Apu, you might mention something about the inherent conflict of interest in a developer providing the public with a public building... $5million makes nothing, nowhere near enough for a decent library, and where would it be in the developer's interest to provide adequate space / base building design for a quality library?
The less library he builds, the more rent he gets. The cheaper library the county builds, the more money they get -- if they truly want to help the public as they claim, then they should be thinking about how to build a quality building, not how to save money from the get-go for other unknown things! This kind of thinking, from the start, leads only to inadequate city services & more kickbacks for cheap developers. There is absolutely zero in the equation for the public. Nobody likes to get stiffed on their tax dollars, since they have already paid them out.
Why on earth would any town give up a library building created solely for the purpose of working as a library building in order to get some leftover crap space that is so bad the developer can't use it for anything else? The base building will be designed for the rental units, not for the library; the library will have to be squeezed into some kind of awkward build-out box that was never intended for a public building. That's the kind of move a city makes when it hits rock-bottom. Why would Atlanta want to characterize itself that way in today's day and age? (Right when tons of people are flooding back into cities and looking for true urban cores and quality buildings?)
David Hamilton an Atlanta architect had an OP-Ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
He has much the same take as many of us.
"Replacement of a truly world-class and public piece of architecture with more shopping, parking and luxury living seemed to indicate that the city no longer held a place for the quirky, the experimental or frankly even the interesting things that make a culturally vibrant community.
For all the opinions about the Buckhead Library, it is a nationally and internationally recognized work of art and architecture that has appeared in a multitude of journals and other publications on architecture."
Scogin-Elam Atlanta Library to be demolished!!!
no offense, but what the fuck are you talking about? i am tired of people thinking that somehow architects are responsible for shittily built buildings. you really think that that monies were redirected to the publishable rather than the details of the building and making it weatherproof? really? was the roof covered with plywood and metal grates? what the fuck?
i mean seriously, have you any clue? crappy mechanical system that, because this project was publically bid, was probably adequate during design, then most likely got dicked down to the bare minimum, and now the architect is to blame. where pray tell are the responsibilities of the owner/client and the builder? the builder probably got punch listed like hell and then complained to the city about the architect making them fix this and that, and if they had to they wouldn't make money. if the builder was forced, then they probably threatened to sue the city, blah, blah, blah....this is architecture not rocket science.
- yet again, you make an erudite and persuasive argument.
i'm totally convinced
THANKS! i always look for your approval!
BINGO! We have a winner!
I'm not surprised...Atlanta is the type of city that likes new things that look old, regardless of how inappropriate or ridiculous looking it is.
Take Atlantic Station for example...they are building a freaking Roman arch there for goodness sakes! People thing this is great architecture.
Here is a You Tube video of it...
Skip ahead to the 50 second mark for the good stuff...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4tvy2HbPJY
also...check out what passes for 'modern' architecture in the background...Novare group stamps another identical twelve/metropolis/plaza/viewpoint green glass condo building into our city!
Janosh and Beta...
Great points.
Whatever the failings of the building fixing those couldn't be more expensive then building a new one, right?
And Kissy...
I can't believe they are building a faux-Roman Arch.
Hilariously tacky move...Huzzah!
I mean is that all they could think of when designing an entrance to a public plazza or park...
Oh, and the hits keep coming!
Someone needs to just nuke Atlantic station and be done with it.
you people really don't understand the first thing about economics
the library system really doesn't have the money to fix the problems inherent in the original construction -- if they did, they would have done so years ago.
sure, it would be cheaper to fix the building than build a new one - if they had the money - they don't.
This proposal gives the library system the money to get a new building and capture considerable value for their land, which they can use for other purposes.
AHH! you're a developer then?
ahh ... no ... I'm just a practicing architect, just like most of the others here.
but I do understand an income statement and a balance sheet ... and I do understand that economic forces that we can't control seem to have more influence over architecture than do the rantings we make here.
in my view, the seeds of this building's destruction were made when the architect made the original choices about where to allocate funds in the original design.
you can bitch all you want about an neanderthal county board or an unenlightened populace or a community controlled by developer interests. but, somewhere in this diatribe, we as architects have to accept responsibility for our own decisions, and the implications of those decisions, and not try to sluff those off to others. only then will we begin to earn the respect and trust of our clients and our community.
it's not enough to just say "this is a neat design and it must be preserved"
digger:
last time i checked, public libraries are not generally charged with the responsibility of generating the revenue to maintain their own buildings. the reason library systems have no money is because towns and cities keep bending over for developers by giving tax incentives and selling public land at a fraction of its true value. city coffers have literally been drained to the point where municipalities cannot provide basic services like keeping a roof over their library collections.
4arch, touche! and there we have it folks, nail hit on head! architects accept their own decisions, what they can't do is fabricate a building without public confidence and adequate government oversight. perhaps when this new facility is built the developer will be resonsible for the maintenance and upkeep? perhaps given the current public thinking on the building it might look like a prison?
Great point, 4arch. There was a program on Fresh Air recently, an author whose name I don't feel like looking for right now, who was arguing that the "free market" is by now almost completely financed by tax-incentives to large developers (rarely to small companies). For example, the millions and millions funneled into large stadium projects have left city parks programs - the ones that actually reach inner-city neighborhoods and the poor - lacking any program money.
As I look at kissy-face's images, though, I'm tending to think if Atlanta wants to drown in a sea of EIFS they can go right ahead - what a craphole. And I thought Indy was bad!
Man, Liberty Bell is Fired up!!!!!!!!
Is it possible that Atlanta feels the way about old-looking stuff because they have none of their own? The city is old, but since it was burned, it has none of the physical legacy of its past. Maybe thats what they are trying to achieve with their EIFS arches and such. The feeling of past.
LB, I can't believe you just called my old city a "craphole", it really was nice at one point, I swear.
(and still is depending on what part of the city you're in)
What I find interesting is this developer wants to build this mega development in Buckhead while we're in a historic drought phase. I don't see any rainwater collection on his bullshit buildings either.
Wasn't the famous Chicago fire more recent than Sherman's torching of Atlanta? They seemed to have recovered nicely. San Francisco with it's earthquake disaster too, for that matter.
atlanta is too fucking humid
and new york is too fucking bleak, how's LA? Smoggy?
I just read that Atlanta is going to allow people to irrigate their lawns again, even though the drought is entering a 2nd year. IMO that's more a much dumber move than razing some building.
Drought ... what drought? You guys aren't really interested in letting the facts get in the way of a good argument, are you?
Look at the lake levels in and around Atlanta: Current Lake Levels
While it's true that Lanier and Hartwell are running below full level, the vast majority of the reservoirs are at, or above, full. So, where's that water coming from -- desalination plants?
And, as your article states, this isn't just Atlanta's problem -- it's regional in nature and the solutions will be regional in origin.
Atlanta's the economic engine for that entire region...you guys may not like that vitality, but I'll take Atlanta any day over Detroit, Cleveland, LA, NYC. etc.
so, power companies are diseminating the truth? look dig, it's be reported in the news, and while USA Today is hardly the bastion of truth, i would have to say there are probably numerous articles pointing to a drought in GA.
atlanta? over NYC? i guess the crack levels are pretty high down there too?
take the money and run
wow...just wow. you live there right? have you not seen lake lanier? you guys have a huge freaking problem, not on your doorstep, but moved right in and sleeping on the sofa, and yet you still don't see it?
Atlanta may be a big economy but it's doomed to failure unless the water issues are solved. Hate to say it but I'll take Detroit w/water over Atlanta w/out.
aquapura ... did you even look at the link ?
Don't the problems arise in the summer when more water is being used, it rains less, etc. And the reserves, coupled with lack of rainfall, can't keep up with demand?
Sorry, but aren't we trying to save/demolish a building here?
yeah...take that drought to another thread.
Ok folks, I've put together something I may send to the Atlanta Biz Journal and I want some thoughts on it.
Word count so far: 515
As a long time resident of Atlanta and a former student in Buckhead I became intimately aware of the odd structure perched off Buckhead Ave. I found The Buckhead Branch Library by Scogin-Elam daringly ugly at first, yet over 4 years of formal studies has taught me to find the beauty in a building others may find unwieldy and disturbing. At this point, we’ve all heard the news that the building is on the chopping block. Here, in my mind is why this may cost Mr. Carter, the developer, more in the long term than he may care to imagine.
Let us start with the cold math. The developer is offering the Library $24 million to buy the land it currently sits on. The developer then states that a meager sum of $5 million taken from the $24 million will fund the new library in one of his mixed use towers. This means the county makes out with $19 million, a profit of eighty percent. From a financial standpoint this sounds like the developer is going to bear the bulk of the burden of this library relocation, hopefully to get his money back in rent and the library makes out like a bandit. I imagine this is a win-win scenario for all right?
Well, I’m not so sure of that because what is the reason people put up with living in a 2000 square foot condo in Buckhead for the same price they could live in a 4000 square foot mansion in Alpharetta? The answer is culture and a sense of urbanity that is hard to find in our fair city these days. You won’t find the nightlife, restaurants and stores that make Buckhead special outside of Buckhead and you won’t find a library that looks like the Buckhead library anywhere else in the world. The Buckhead Culture is Brand Buckhead and that is the reason people move there. Brand Buckhead is a brand you won’t find anywhere else in the South, let alone the city. I think the real reason why Mr. Carter and Mr. Lowe, the commissioner, want this building gone is that they think it is ugly, plain and simple, and will not fit in with the new scheme aesthetically. Yet, if Mr. Carter and Mr. Lowe need any proof that preserving culture leads to a highly marketable asset they need look no further than Buckhead itself, let alone to the world of art where paintings once regarded as too ugly and abstract can frequently sell on auction blocks for millions given a long enough period to sink in. The bottom line is, avant-garde culture sells to avant-garde clientele and I can imagine if the library was refurbished and put at the center of Mr. Carter’s new vision for Buckhead then he would see a far greater return on his money in the long run than just giving $18 million away to the county. We cannot simply let cultural gems like the Buckhead Branch library become fodder for the short-sighted development schemes, lest we sow the seeds of Brand Buckhead’s own destruction.
Streets of Buckhead really needs less parking garage and more MARTA station. Otherwise, where are all those scale figures walking around in the renderings going to come from?
As far a the library goes, Apurimac is right on. Good letter. The reason places like Atlantic Station suck (whether they fail or not) is because they feel generic. Gradual, individual development of lots is the best way to avoid genera...that's how real urban richness comes about.
In some ways, it's not the removal of the library that bothers me, but the fact that it would be replaced with cookie cutter architecture. Build something else if you want, just don't pigeon-hole that site into the trite Streets of Buckhead aesthetic.
Apurimac.
Great points. Especially since your target audience is developers etc, i like how you focus on the idea of a Buckhead brand and how the removal of this library will lower the brand effect/price...
Branding is everything these days.
interesting discussion(s). water shortages seem to be a problem in north america now and in near future. lake mead apparently even has 50% chance of going to zero in the next few decades 'less regional behaviour changes.
the library is not a favorite for me, personally, but it is interesting and clearly better than average. tearing it down only makes sense to the developer, in spite of above comments about functional/mechanical deficiencies. if the place were to be replaced by something better (for the public) maybe there would be some validity to that point of view, but it sounds more likely that the public will get something much less intelligent.
shock-value does not equate with good in architecture. no real architect would suggest that, so i don't think this is about striving to save a building merely for its ability to work as spectacle. that it is memorable is not a bad thing. so was/is much of the work of the beaux-arts, the rennaisance, or any other style one chooses to stand in a pulpit for. whether this is a cultural touching point equivalent to st peters or st pauls i would find hard to credit....but it is definitely about being somewhere. My suspicion is that its replacement would be more about being nowhere. or to be more correct, it would be about being nowhere with a parking garage.
much as i like dirty realism in achitecture, that image is just painful. give up an impressive work of architecture, slightly flawed though it may be, for a no-name building? makes little sense, except as capitulation to money...
apu,
don't have much time, but would like to offer some (hopefully) constructive thoughts/observations:
a lot of the development community agrees in the need for a 'buckhead brand' - problem is, they see it more as georgetown than scogin elam.
the root problem in saving the building is that: the developer has offered a pretty generous amount of money and no one on that side is suggesting getting rid of a library. 'just' moving it and rebuilding. they would probably agree with your core argument, disagree about the aesthetic value of the library, and suggest a new one could better reflect their vision of a 'true' buckhead character. (which, in their opinion, would not be avant-garde - boot that stuff down the street to midtown...).
(the above is NOT my opinion personally - i'm trying to toughen up the argument you've laid out).
ben carter does not want the library gone on primarily aesthetic grounds - he's going to put in yet another tower and make yet another 30m+, after all is said and done. he's using the aesthetics as a weapon to galvanize support for his bid. which brings us to...
i'd argue the prime value of the building has to be established on it's cultural merit. any economics argument fails. any discussion about the aesthetics has to hinge on it being established as one of the most significant buildings, in america (not just atlanta), in the last 25 years or so. anything less is going to lose, i think. also, the other prime argument is protesting the casual demolition and sale of public buildings/land for the first development proposal that comes along. it does happen every day, but maybe this is the case that tries to stand up and say that whole premise is suspect.
i have some ideas about what to do if it looks like the cause is lost (and salvage something good out of this kind of mess)- have to get to that later. got to pay the bills...
Let me throw an idea out there and see what people think:
What if Fulton County took the money for the library, told Ben Carter to screw himself in terms of putting the library in one of his towers (aka a Barnes & Noble).
Then how 'bout fulton County hold a design competition for a new library on another site, or let Scogin/Elam have another go at it. I think the East Andrews (still very pedestrian friendly) area would be a perfect alternative to this site right around the corner.
I think the main Overall problem here is that Developers have WAY TOO MUCH influence on Atlanta's Urban Fabric. This would be a way to counter this nasty development. This could be an oppurtunity to try an bring back that "pedestrian feel" of Buckhead.
Thanks for the points all, I'm already making revisions.
Bluesman, I think you have a good point but to me it would cost the county more than $24 million to build a new library that is as aesthetically on par with its current building. The "$5 million" for the new space in the tower sounds like a mercy issue to me. Why should the developer save the library at all? He'll make way more money with a retail outlet in its stead like a Barnes & Noble. He's only doing this to prevent the public outcry that befalls the demolishing of a library.
If I were the developer and my soul interest was short-term profit, I'd hand the library a check for the market value of their land and tell them to GTFO. I'm sure the commisioner would only be too happy to accept.
If my interest was long-term profit, I'd keep the library, rehabilitate it and build my development around it, try to foster similar avant-garde thinking in my new structures and attract a clientele far more sophisticated and subsequently wealthy than new-money suburbanites.
I'd keep Buckhead Buckhead, to say the least.
Nice one meta. be sure the developer sees it.
10% of a $1,500,000,000 project = $150,000,000.
I think you should ask for more meta if you become the new architect on this job.
Meta, you undersell yourself! Everyone knows BIM + EIFS + Faux Old-World historicism = $$$PROFIT$$$
that kind of eifs big box never gets 10%, sorry to tell ya. the developer/builder types would pin you down to 4%-ish.
also its shell and core most likely. then the developer will call you everytime a new tenant is on the hook to send you plans that you already sent to them five times.
hi guys, the petition to save the library has moved here, please take the time to sign.
signed it, thanks aml
I strongly believe that the Buckhead Branch Library should be an important contributor to the vibrancy sought by the developers of the Streets of Buckhead project. They have argued that the library would be a gap in that experience but I strongly believe vibrancy results from a juxtaposition of styles that a city can only accumulate over time. Our most vulnerable contributors to this patina seem to be those that have barely emerged from the era of their conception, in this case a bold library design representing the deconstructivist viewpoints of the mid-late eighties. When I've seen vibrancy in our city it is in those rare instances when moments of history find adjacency: the mingling of the up-and-coming and the down-and-out along Ponce de Leon Avenue, the new modern homes sprouting like flowers among the dusty bungalows of Kirkwood and the Old Fourth Ward, the galleries and coffee shops tucked into the re-tooled warehouses of the westside and the progressive and engaging commentary on the commercial fabric of Buckhead that is found in the design of that district's library. These rare opportunities are endangered further by developers like Ben Carter who would rather wipe away the barely old than to see the potential vibrancy in thoughtfully co-existing with a young and inspired predecessor.
Apu, you might mention something about the inherent conflict of interest in a developer providing the public with a public building... $5million makes nothing, nowhere near enough for a decent library, and where would it be in the developer's interest to provide adequate space / base building design for a quality library?
The less library he builds, the more rent he gets. The cheaper library the county builds, the more money they get -- if they truly want to help the public as they claim, then they should be thinking about how to build a quality building, not how to save money from the get-go for other unknown things! This kind of thinking, from the start, leads only to inadequate city services & more kickbacks for cheap developers. There is absolutely zero in the equation for the public. Nobody likes to get stiffed on their tax dollars, since they have already paid them out.
Why on earth would any town give up a library building created solely for the purpose of working as a library building in order to get some leftover crap space that is so bad the developer can't use it for anything else? The base building will be designed for the rental units, not for the library; the library will have to be squeezed into some kind of awkward build-out box that was never intended for a public building. That's the kind of move a city makes when it hits rock-bottom. Why would Atlanta want to characterize itself that way in today's day and age? (Right when tons of people are flooding back into cities and looking for true urban cores and quality buildings?)
David Hamilton an Atlanta architect had an OP-Ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
He has much the same take as many of us.
"Replacement of a truly world-class and public piece of architecture with more shopping, parking and luxury living seemed to indicate that the city no longer held a place for the quirky, the experimental or frankly even the interesting things that make a culturally vibrant community.
For all the opinions about the Buckhead Library, it is a nationally and internationally recognized work of art and architecture that has appeared in a multitude of journals and other publications on architecture."
Full piece here
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.