Hey guys,

I have been a long time reader of Archinect, but this article in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution got me so fired up, that I had to post.

Article link:

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/02/10/library_0211.html


Some of the quotes in this article show the ignorance that we have to deal with in Atlanta (and our profession).

Would love to here your thoughts!

I used to go to school right next to that library. It is by far the nicest building in buckhead and the most original public building in the entire city IMO.

Demolishing it would be a grave loss to the culture of Atlanta. I will have to read the whole article later.

Scogin-Elam = hacks!!!

Tear it down. Maybe do some creative recycling.

Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.

calling mapa.

i dont see what the big deal is...the new library will have a reading terrace

WOW - that sux

Mdler - Still shitting in others threads I see!!! - How have u been?

Ooooo. Better not hang around Wakefield Drive, that kind of comment'll get you off'd.

I've got mixed feelings about Scogin-Elam (& Bray)'s work. They were the Champs of Deconstrivist ATL Arch Students in the 80's & 90s. Their forms & massing are interesting, but the detail's a bit heavy on the plexi glas . Nonetheless, to demo this bldg is typical of the ATL - after all, just a couple of blocks over, the old Oxford Bookstore (a sort of Bruce Goff design for a mercedes dealership) was levelled. If it don't look like it's from Ye Olde Williamsburg, ATL don't want it.

In being away from ATL for the better part of the last 2 years, I was astonished when I came back & wanted to geet a beer in Buckhead this Fall - Seems that Buckhead is no more. That seems to be the way of Atlanta. I'll bet that Midtown & Inman Park are next.

It's kind of a ridiculous city when developers get involved, but I still kinda love it.

Ooooo. Better not hang around Wakefield Drive, that kind of comment'll get you off'd.

I've got mixed feelings about Scogin-Elam (& Bray)'s work. They were the Champs of Deconstrivist ATL Arch Students in the 80's & 90s. Their forms & massing are interesting, but the detail's a bit heavy on the plexi glas . Nonetheless, to demo this bldg is typical of the ATL - after all, just a couple of blocks over, the old Oxford Bookstore (a sort of Bruce Goff design for a mercedes dealership) was levelled. If it don't look like it's from Ye Olde Williamsburg, ATL don't want it.

In being away from ATL for the better part of the last 2 years, I was astonished when I came back & wanted to geet a beer in Buckhead this Fall - Seems that Buckhead is no more. That seems to be the way of Atlanta. I'll bet that Midtown & Inman Park are next.

It's kind of a ridiculous city when developers get involved, but I still kinda love it.

I was dissapointed in Atlanta...considering the airport is at the south end of the city and I was headed north....on a Friday Afternoon. They should save every building that is designed by an architect which isn't
done in Marble or limestone.

weAREtheSTONES

any more naked beer pong?

it's a neat little building and it would be a shame to tear it down, but as they said in the article - it's a public building. therefore, the public owns it and can decide to toss it aside if they really want.

maybe i've been here for too long, but this town is probably beyond architectural appreciation. it's no surprise that so many people hate the building, and it's no surprise that there are folks who would gladly tear it down and make a $19 mil profit.

it will be interesting to see if the community rallies around this project. in my opinion, it's the users who should come to its defense. of course architects (mostly) love the thing - everything going up in this city is mixed-use crap and there's really not a lot of great, real architecture to visit here. but the general public seems to gravitate toward the 'brick and limestone = quality' mindset noted in the article and this building definitely doesn't fit that bill. if the buckhead community - the end users - like the library, they should stand up and fight the developer. i just don't think they will.

not lately...when are you coming up to SF again....my friend has been asking about you!

and yeah, the buckhead of old is no more. the only reason to go to buckhead these days is to buy a sofa.

The Oxford Book Store was designed by one of Bruce Goffs Students.
I'm having a mind fart....or I would tell you who he is....have to go do some looking. It was an automobile dealership....Grant ...something.....as I recall

I just read that AJC article - Theyz just so many jerks in the ATL.

THAT's IT! I'm gonna protest by building what I really want on my property in my neighborhood, now. Forget fitting it in - I'm on a mission to make sure that my neighbors can't sell out to no
dirtbag developers.

In the news

A reader sent in this information:

Comments@co.fulton.ga.us

This is the basic library email address to send comments to the library.

The head of the library is John F. Szabo

The Fulton County commission Chairman is john Eaves.

Shout the Manifesto, "Down with Haughty Buckhead EIFS Architecture"

Sweet!! Everyone start emailing!!

"That library, to my way of thinking, was an abortion the day it was dedicated," Fulton County Commissioner Tom Lowe said. "I am a lover of art. I can even stand abstract art. But God darn, who in the world would build something like that? There ain't no damn artistic value to that library."

... and if you feel like emailing Tom Lowe ... Tom.Lowe@co.fulton.ga.us

hmmm....I find it rather interesting, and a shame if it was torn down.

Bluesman7....Im in!

j, i tend to agree with your general position - that the local public should be the ones to decide if they like this building enough to fight for it. that said, it seems that they are being lead in a certain direction by local politicians:

That library, to my way of thinking, was an abortion the day it was dedicated," Fulton County Commissioner Tom Lowe said. "I am a lover of art. I can even stand abstract art. But God darn, who in the world would build something like that? There ain't no damn artistic value to that library."

This is an opportunity for the county to receive some money — to profit," commission Chairman John Eaves told the library system's board of trustees, of which he is a member. "But it's also an opportunity for the library to be brand new and relocated to the same immediate area."

"I think that it's absolutely worthy of exploring," John Szabo, the library system director, said. "Once the Streets of Buckhead development is completed, the library site is not going to be harmonious with the overall development."

if i had the time i would love to pick these quotes apart for all of their inherent idiocy...but alas, i have to write a letter...

i actually like this better...




its more warmer and nicer

as a former ATLien, i think j has a little too much faith in a public that is generally in between 'not giving a crap' and 'not having a clue' when it comes to development. take a look at what's happened to that city in the past 5 years.

i think mack and merrill should have the opportunity to defend this building...but then again, i'm a little partial.

"That library, to my way of thinking, was an abortion the day it was dedicated," Fulton County Commissioner Tom Lowe said. "I am a lover of art. I can even stand abstract art. But God darn, who in the world would build something like that? There ain't no damn artistic value to that library."

Before I go into this I should say I’ve only flown through Atlanta so I’m commenting purely as a voyeur here, but if this is not just the opinion of Mr. Lowe, but as I gather from the article, a rather general sentiment of citizens of Atlanta (minus the architecturally interested) then doesn't this building represent a pretty major failure on the part of the architects?

Unlike Mr. Lowe I personally find the library interesting, if only aesthetically from studying these photos online, but doesn't the general distaste seem to stem from a big divide between the ideas of the architects and the values of a community? That's a pretty big part of successful public architecture in my opinion and seems worthy of discussion here before everyone trounces on the guy who's clearly not wearing slick glasses and odd footwear like all of us.

That said, the biggest mistake here to me is to demolish a building that is so young. Seems like a lot of wasted material there for a parking lot.

money talks...bullshit walks

i'll chime in as an atl resident...

first off, i saw this building when it first went up (way back in undergrad). it was clearly the nicest building around it - that isn't saying much, since the retail section of buckhead in those days was nothing but crappy strip malls, converted bungalows, and generally nothing of real interest. (the goff building had been so badly 'renovated' at that point, you would have never seen his hand in it if it hadn't been pointed out to you. it was not the equal of the bavinger house, let's say...)

in the last 20 years or so, though, that section of the city has slowly changed. still pretty low rise, but it all became more upscale, the parcels that were redeveloped were larger, more dense. the neighbors got bigger and the novelty of the building wore off. it hasn't been kept up well, nor was/is it a brilliant design in terms of aging gracefully. inside, the carpet was cheap, the detailing poor (though, i presume, more 'cutting edge' to most of hip kids), and the overall atmosphere a little less than remarkable. a lot of the money went into the exterior and general construction. in sum, it's like all their libraries here - lots of flash for the cash, but not holding up as well as you'd expect from civic architecture. it was clearly their strategic intent.

the location of the building, relative to the new development, plus the opportunity for the county to realize a sizable profit on the deal (let's say you build 25,000 for 400/sf, and add another 3m for the land somewhere else. it'll still have a surplus after all the soft costs, ffe, etc. or you get a bigger library), and it's going to come down no matter what anyone tries to do. mark it down.

thing is, i'm personally not going to be that sad to see it go. now, if they get an absolute hack to do a new one (and, sigh, the chances of that are high), then that'll be the real tragedy. but the idea of doing a more 'urban' library up there could be an interesting notion and unless they want to drop a lot of money into this one to refurbish it (and they won't), then it needs to be let go quickly and the focus needs to be on creating the conditions for generating another, better piece of architecture.

(and yes, i realize that preserving and restoring this one would be a culturally affirming act for this town. and, contrary to this post, i think the world of msme, especially merrill. to me, though, the early libraries were more about their ego and defining their name than their real abilities as architects -see the tulane student housing or berkeley projects for better, more mature examples. they're not going to stand the test of time, literally, so take them down sooner than later if need be. the kneejerk desire to preserve it, simply because, doesn't really wash in my book. i do expect to be in the minority on this, though...)

That Buckhead Devlopers website - the image mdler posted above - made me vomit a little.

Off to write some indignant, angry, and intelligent emails...

"If it don't look like it's from Ye Olde Williamsburg, ATL don't want it."

mysteryman - i don't agree with that at all. in fact, i think there are plenty of people in atl who want something new, interesting, different, etc. and would happily embrace those buildings.

yes, the rulers of buckhead seem to think it should be a cross between georgetown and rodeo drive, but that's not true everywhere. our firm is doing a new branch library in decatur (which is almost as large as the buckhead branch) that is pretty damn far on the other end of the spectrum from 'ye olde' anything and the head librarian loves it. he's trying to dig up more money to help us preserve some key pieces of the design.

fact is, any city in this country is going to have some bluebloods who love and venerate the traditional. i'm actually ok with it. i just wish they could find some exceptionally talented architects who really believe in those principles (say leon krier or scott merrill, for example). plurality is a great thing - i don't need all of atlanta to be 'modern'....

lb -

wait till tomorrow and see if you feel the same way. yeah, the commissioners are ignorant pricks. yeah, the developer knows he's going to get the property and is a cocky jerk. yeah, what's going to go back isn't nearly as interesting (or good) as the library. but all you're going to do is confirm their worst instincts, not convert their minds...

I agree lb. Had to laugh a little a the "...warmer and nicer..." comments.

You'd be amazed at what we renderers can make look "warm and nice"!

Thankfully, good architecture is generally easier (and much for fun) to make look attractive.


Scogin, Elam and Bray were some of my favs for their residential designs.

I lived and worked in ATL when this project was built and for 5-6 years after it opened. I lived only about 2 miles away and spent many hours in this building during that time.

While I always held the design in high regard, as a "building" it sucks. 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.

In the process, the taxpaying citizens of Atlanta got screwed. Maintenance costs were astonomical. For long periods of time, the stacks were draped in plastic to keep water off the books. I don't recall ever being comfortabe temperature wise while in this library - it was always too hot or too cold. Staff services declined sharply during the first years of this building's life - presumably to cover increased operating costs.

Atlanta built this building at the same time it was adding a number of branch libraries to their system. All had comparable programs and budgets. This was the only one of that group to suffer these sorts of problems.

IMO, architects should serve their client's operational needs first. That did not happen with this building.

If I still lived in Atlanta, I would miss seeing this building when I visited Buckhead. But I understand why the city would want to unload this (functional) piece of crap for the enormous sum it's been offered.

If this issue becomes your litmus-test for Atlanta's appreciation of good buildings, you're off base - there are legitimate extenuating circumstances that can be laid squarely at the architect's door.

That sounds suspiciously like rolling over and giving up, laru. I can't.

PS If you copy emails to the "ignorant pricks" to the journalists who wrote the article, they see that a potentially news-worthy fight is a'brewin'. And what journalist doesn't want to sell newspapers?!

And jeezus, what's the worst that can happen from writing angry emails? Maybe the County Commissioner realizes that the building is worth more than what the developer is offering, because it holds high cultural standing, and thus the city gets more money to build a higher-value replacement. What kind of county commissioner sells out his city's cultural legacy by telling a developer "Hell, that building's just an abortion anyway, take it for five bucks and we'll say thank you!"? That's betraying his citizenry by not only selling off their cultural inheritance but selling it off cheaply. Shame.

And for chrissake do we all really want to see free-standing libraries - libraries, the buildings that house knowledge - turned into rental spaces in mixed-use condo buildings? For godssake, that's a bleak view of where we value education. See ya at Border's.

^ that's atlanta for you LB, it truly is becoming the city taste forgot.

they can still build their retail development / town center whatever thing. all they have to do it surround the library with it. that would make a nice contrast.

"That library, to my way of thinking, was an abortion the day it was dedicated," Fulton County Commissioner Tom Lowe said. "I am a lover of art. I can even stand abstract art. But God darn, who in the world would build something like that? There ain't no damn artistic value to that library."

This man is clearly very ignorant, if he and developer Ben Carter have there way and the Buckhead Branch is destroyed to make way for more parking (like ATL needs more of that!) and the new library is turned over to the private sector, this would be a huge blow to the Arch. Community in ATL. But it doesn't surprise me that the Buckhead community thinks this building is 'ugly', look at everything they build, its not to hot...

i also can't believe people are actually posting comments not really giving a crap, especially those users from ATL, if you just roll over and let nice works get demo'd to make way for parking and some EIFS crap, your no better than the ones that want it gone...

say the word, i'll burn the whole damn town down...

I just noticed Mdler's image post and i have to say:

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO BUCKHEAD! TURNING IT INTO ATLANTIC FUCKING STATION! CAN THOSE FUCKING ASSHOLES HAVE ENOUGH EIFS COVERED HISTORICIST CORPORATE GARBAGE! THOSE FUCKING COCKAROACHES, I USED TO HAUNT THOSE STREETS!

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest. For those of you that don't understand, Buckhead has a fair amount of history behind it. In the 80's and early 90's it was the part of town you went to to party. The clubs have slowly shut down and moved south to midtown but now its full of mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, bars, a nice music venue and all of them are on an actual urban scale and within walking distance. Not to mention the library. It is one of the few bastions that actually has any real "culture" in Atlanta. But of course the new money assholes have invaded West Paces, moved the old money out and have started an all out onslaught of franchise stores and restaurants.

I apologize for the profanity in that post its just I have roots in that area and hate to see this happen to it, I'd rather its culture be enriched than dumbed down.

This just in...

A public forum has been created as a petition to save the Buckhead Branch Library at www.savethelibrary.blogspot.com ...Archinectors who wish to save the library, please go add your name and comments.

MSME's write up/blurb:

project: a branch library
location: Atlanta, Georgia
client: Atlanta-Fulton County Library System
date of completion: winter 1989
building area: 20,000 sq. ft.
construction cost: $1.6 million

The Buckhead Branch Library is a 22,000 square foot neighborhood facility located in a unique nouveau riche strip of Atlanta. The Buckhead neighborhood is the foreground of an cultural shift where the boutique succeeds the pool hall. The neighborhood is a rupture, showing signs of a downtown with growing pains.

The existing Ida Williams Branch was a parking meter... past expired... unable to communicate with speed and clarity. The function of today's public library: a locus for knowledge within a civic landscape bounded by mobile sprawl and strip shopping.

The particular site is atop a crest that commands a spectacular view of downtown Atlanta. The new building consumes the large narrow portion of the site in-between the distinct frontages while perching itself in full view towards downtown. An array of canopies intensifies the pedestrian scale relationships along Buckhead Avenue and deposits the reader at the helm of the spectator city, air-conditioned and detached.

The plan organization is linear: sidewalk, entry sequence, circulation desk, reference and main reading room. Children's services, public meeting room and periodicals are located in "saddle bags" off the main linear circulation path.

Building materials and systems include structural steel frame, painted metal roofing, slate siding, and cast-in-place concrete foundation walls.

While it might technically be too "new" for their jurisdiction, anyone know what position the "official" local heritage/preservation bodies might hold, either now or potentially? After all, that might be a critical middle-ground between the so-called tyranny of the architectural minority and the tyranny of the "real people with real people taste" majority...

if this were a beaux arts early 20th century building you all would want to see liebskind jagged points violating it all in the name of cutting edge architecture.

lb and apu -

i think a campaign to try and save it is great. i don't think sending letters to the county commissioner in the article or the developer are going to do anything, especially if they smack of vitrol. if you're interested in a larger campaign, i'd suggest the following:

first, create an editorial for the atlanta business chronicle (http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta). this is the bible for the buckhead/midtown/downtown conservative business community, which has gleefully promoted this development. dick williams is the publisher/editor. send him a thoughtful, 200-300 word essay on why to save the library and see if he'll run it as a guest editorial. these are the people you have to convert.

second, you can check with the docomomo atlanta group - http://docomomoga.org - i think tom little is still the head of that group. they've done several of these kinds of campaigns.

third, go to one of the underground weeklies - creative loafing, etc. - and write a similar impassioned editorial. send it to felicia feaster there - she is familiar with the arts/architecture scene.

that's a start on the media. my resignation is that, knowing how power works here, this is probably a done deal....

"I can even stand abstract art."

Wow, that statement is loaded with condescenscion. On the surface, it would appear that this man doesn't understand art at all but is simply a stylistically limited worshiper of objects.

Regarding the building and it's possible fate, I'm not yet sure how to feel about this one. On the one hand, it is troubling that the developer is having such a large role in the shaping of the community and that there seems to be very little critique behind the idea of the county government profiting from this deal. And what is so discomforting about having a building stand out of its context anyhow? Especially a context that is not yet built.

Yet, if this is the people of Atlanta want, then there's very little that can be done to stop them.

Oh laru I wouldn't dream of writing something as vitrolic as what I wrote above to the ABC. That is a fine idea though, and I may try it.

It is interesting that many of the locals or at least those with experience/history in Atlanta and Buckhead, seem to acknowledge some problems with the building.

That maybe, many "new" buildings don't "last" well without some basic upkeep. This seems esp. true with decon based or inspired projects.

However, that being said it would be terrible to replace it just because it is an "abortion". Especially if the next one will be more faux-historical fluff, or as i have seen with some new libraries simple stuck in the rented space of some mixed use development.

Additionally, as LB points out at the very least, maybe the county can get some more money from the developer....

So if it leaks fix it. Its almost always cheaper to repair and fix buildings up than all new construction unless the building is beyond hope, which it isn't.

Look the building's flawed, but Atlanta is fast becoming a cultural wasteland and its residents need to take a stand against the influx of new residents that have shown up in the last decade and demand some kind of faux-southern garbage to fulfill their dreams of living in a big house on big hill.

I'm sure in my lifetime they'll start demo work on Auburn ave to build condos unless us long-timers take a stand.

Tom Lowe, of Lowe Engineering - that explains his 'appreciation' of art.

Charles Loudermilk of Aaron Rents - Charging usury for cheap furniture Aaron Rents has been leaching off to low-income Atlantans for over 50 years. being around low-quality appliances & 'formica' tables w/ vinyl covered chairs for that long explains his lack of taste. iF he wants to promote 'quality', then his stores should close first.

Going back to my comment on SEBA's detailing being heavy on the plexi - I have to remember that the budget for this PUBLIC bldg was probably shoestring. As such, I'm guessing that SEBA pushed some limits with their use of finishes like 'cheap carpet'....although, that slte cladding must've eaten up much of the budget for finishes.

Actually It wasn't grant but Robert Faust who designed the automobile dealership: It is not pictured in his site but I have
seen photos of it in the past and it is not so far afield of the MG
dealership building in the site. http://www.auburn.edu/~faustrl/

quote from Tom Lowe's Bio:

"Commissioner Lowe served 15 years as a member of the Atlanta-Fulton County Water Resources Commission from its inception in 1986, and served as chairman in 1990, 1991 and 1996."

We are in a serious Drought, enough said!

LOL bluesman!

That's southern politics for you.

Hey, it could be worse, we could be New Orleans I guess.

I gotta say, I haven't seen this much ill-informed hysteria in quite some time. This is not the sort of thing that makes the public in general have a lot of respect for architects.

Don't get me wrong -- once again, I'll say that I like the design of this library, as a design. If it goes, I'll miss it on my future visits to Atlanta. But, it's a bad building and it's been an economic drain on the library system since the day it opened, whereas the other branches constructed about the same time have not.

This enormous knee-jerk reaction -- apparently arising solely because this massively unworkable building was designed by Mack and Merrill -- overlooks the broader context in which this proposal is being considered.

The library system in question is tremendously short on financial resources -- Ben Carter is offering them a way to a) get out from under an economic black hole, and b) obtain a replacement library that will serve their patrons at least as well as the current Buckhead branch, and c) pocket some much needed dough, which they can use to improve the library system. This is the context in which this decision will be made.

Architecture also must serve its users and the people who operate the facility. It can't just be about 'art', to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Yeah, but couldn't the library be refurbished at lower costs? Why build a completely new library? To me it seems like this decision is being made off of its aesthetic qualities alone.

No one is going to contest your assertion that Architecture must "also" serve its users. That much is obvious. But I don't think that the rationale for flattening this building can be reduced quite so simply to eliminating a building that was deficient due to an architect's surplus ego. Poor mechanical function and construction were nearly obligatory characteristics of any public building constructed in Atlanta in the 80s. What is remarkable is that it was built at all, and in spite of crap funding the architects and the city were able to deliver more than just a mediocre box, but something remarkable that gained the attention of not just the local community, but also the architecture world at large. 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.

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.

[beta]v.4 - yet again, you make an erudite and persuasive argument.

i'm totally convinced

THANKS! i always look for your approval!

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.

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

"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.

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.

i have a solution...
a big box greek EIFS temple that will enclose the library, turning the library into a funky piece of furniture...

Nice one meta. be sure the developer sees it.

dude i am so in, what should my fee be? $500K for a copy paste exercise? wait, can i download my building from google earth and convernt into CD's via Revit?

someone should
A) build a Sketch-up model of the library
B) create a wikipedia entry

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.

but Apu, big box EIFS greek temples is a one man job with BIM software, can i really make $150 million bucks in say 5 years? NY yankee players don't even make that much.

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.