Home > Business Insider > Archives > 2008 > June > 04 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTech faces pressure to save building
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Georgia Tech Foundation took its request to demolish the historic Crum & Forster building Tuesday evening to the Neighborhood Planning Unit — E meeting.
But community and civic leaders were as determined as ever to save the elegant building at the corner of Spring and Fourth streets.
Two leaders who were at the meeting sent me emails about what happened — architect Jonathan LaCrosse and Midtown’s NPU-E representative Graham Balch. To read their partially edited emails, please click on link at the end of this item.
The movement to save the Crum & Forster is gaining steam. As of this morning, the web-based petition to save the building has generated 1,144 names and comments. To read the petitition
Community leaders hope the public protest will lead to the Georgia Tech Foundation reconsidering its plans to demolish the building. Their comments….
Email notes from Jonathan LaCrosse:
(NPU-E Chair) Penelope Cheroff began by explaining the process a bit, and the specifics of the project. The NPU will not vote but will provide comment on the building that will then be forwarded to the Development Review Committee.
Carl Westmoreland got up to represent the Foundation. He gave a brief description, and stated that the building was to be replaced by a plane of grass instead of a parking lot (he corrected P. Cheroff - she had said a parking lot)
Said Tom Barranco , and the guy from HGOR landscape architects was here to also represent the board.
They said they had met with Boyd Coons with the APC, and Ray Christman with the Georgia Trust to establish “dialogue” with the community
Cheroff then opened the floor and stated she had letters from the Urban Design Commision, the Georgia Trust, and other interested parties who were in opposition of this matter.
She then invited all those that were in opposition to this demolition permit to stand, nearly everyone stood. Cheroff said that she had talked with the Ansley Park folks today and that she could stand up for them, to which point the representatives from the various neighborhoods of NPU E stood.
Graham Balch, Midtown’s NPU-E representative said that Atlanta and Georgia Tech are like two sisters…Atlanta wouldn’t be what it is today without Georgia Tech, and Georgia Tech wouldn’t be what it is today without Atlanta. He continued to say that Atlanta was asking Georgia Tech to preserve this building.
The floor was then fully opened up.
Boyd Coons (Atlanta Preservation Center) spoke first, he handed letters from the APC and GA Trust to the NPU E.
Laura Depree Spoke up representing the ICA/CA and The SAF, she started out saying Atlanta was tired of its history being ripped away from it and then read some very eloquent comments from people who have signed the petition )
I then spoke up, reading a few more comments, , stating that the dialogue is occurring all across this city and the Foundation, through their insistence on going forward with this demolition permit is ignoring what the citizens of Atlanta are saying, I also mentioned that this is now bigger than Atlanta and is getting national attention. I ended by reading the mission statement of the GA Tech foundation and asking how the demolition of this building will further their stated mission.
Clementine Sharpe - representing the Young ICA/CA Southeastern Chapter then got up and pointed out that they had just organized a sketching studying tour of the city and that for them it was extremely important since this is one of the few examples of Commercial Classicism available to study, she said most of the time they only get to study classically designed residential buildings and to take away the opportunity for future generations was wrong.
One person spoke up that she had gone around this morning, taking pictures of the site, and that while she agreed with absolutely everything that was said by those opposed she was disgusted by the condition of the site, not the building - she made a point to mention that it was so well built it could last for hundreds of years -there are broken parking boxes, overgrown grass, trash, etc., these could contribute to illicit activities. Which would further degrade the health, and life-safety of the students and the Midtown community at large. She expected better of a “good neighbor”
Another NPU member recounted a story about the loss of the Kimball House and how they replaced it with a parking deck, “hanging Mr. kimball’s portrait” removed from the hotel “in the parking deck lobby.” He said it made him “sad for my city”.
Comment was then made by Cheroff that the citizens have been successful in saving buildings in the past, and she encouraged everyone to speak up to the city.
Comment was supposed to conclude, however, the crowd wanted more answers. Crowd: “What plans do you have?”
The foundation: “We bought the property to expand Tech Square, but with no specific use for the site in question.”
This continued response did not fare well, eliciting comments such as: “ unthinkable that it [C&F building] wasn’t incorporated with the Plans.” “Surely you knew the building was there.”
Another gentleman piped up that as a former Georgia Tech tour guide and Alum, the thing that he felt that made Tech so great was the “exact mix of old and new”, and that by destroying this Tech was “betraying our very core values.”
Crowd: “Was anyone able to see the documentary on President Clough where he states “how proud he was on his working with the neighborhoods”…”his legacy could be to help preserve this building …not a legacy of destruction”
Crowd: The Georgia Tech Foundation need to re-evaluate their strategy and perhaps become “less of a caretaker of funds” and more “as a leader in the community” time is on the Foundations hands…”Do things that enhance that community not detract from it”
In defense Tom Barranco stated again the foundation “bought the property with the intent of exapanding Technology Square” and that the “clear opinion is that they not tear down this building , and that we could debate whether or not the GTF are a pillar of the Community…they have done a Police precinct - Tech Square - and the Home Park Community center.”
Crowd: “Why can’t the building then be a part of the expansion of Tech Square, why are the two mutually exclusive?’ “What is the real plan?’
Georgia Tech Foundation representatives said they were going through the process, that they had received numerous phone calls, letters, petitions, etc, and understand the objections.
Crowd: “Then why hasn’t the foundation withdrawn the application?”
No response that I can recall or have jotted down
Crowd: “Have you studied alternatives, and what is the result?”
The GTF - “Yes, and this is the result”
Comment from the crowd - “then what architect made the study?”
The GTF - no comment made.
Another crowd member piped up and said perhaps someone should “call the Governor,”and get with the Board of Regents to “cut funding to Tech.”
In closing Penelope Cheroff stated “come to us, let us help you save this building.”
A comment was then made for folks to contact the City of Atlanta Bureau of Planning since they are the ones who ultimately grant the permit.
Email Notes from Graham Balch
Well, it seems like Georgia Tech Foundation is still set on tearing down the building. At the end they say they heard the people, but that they are continuing to pursue the demolition permit as their decided course of action.
I am pasting in a bunch of things that were said tonight and two folks got up and quoted from what was written on the petition against this project which I also included:
Carl Westnoreland (lawyer for GT foundation): It is not being converted into a parking lot, it is being converted to green space. Tech bought the property six months ago. They want to incorporate it into their Tech Development. We understand the sense of the community. Both Georgia Tech and the Foundation that they will study alternatives.
Graham Balch (NPU representative from Midtown): Atlanta would not be Atlanta without Georgia Tech and Georgia Tech would not be Georgia Tech without Atlanta. We are sisters in making Atlanta the pinnacle city in the south. Your sister, the city of Atlanta, is here tonight to ask you to preserve this building. Are we so rich that we can afford to lose this building or so poor that we can’t afford to keep it? Your sister, the city of Atlanta, is making one the strongest felt requests we have ever made of Georgia Tech as we ask you “Please, preserve this building.”
Boyd Coons (Atlanta Preservation Center): “We consider this to be historically and aesthetically very important. This is an indictment against Georgia Tech. This building is so important.”
Winston (Midtown resident): Replace the Crum & Forster building with another building like at 5th and spring would be ridiculous because this building adds character to the neighborhood. Another gentleman said the building was very strong and would stand for 200 years. It is against anything anybody who has any respect for design would do. Over my dead body and I will do everything I can to preserve that building. I have sent emails to everyone at Tech asking that this building not be torn down and that is what I am asking you.
Laura (granddaughter of architect who designed the building): Midtown neighbor and Tech alum, multi-generation alum, I speak for well over 1,000 people who are against this demolition. “It is hard to believe that this building is at risk of being destroyed. Please GT Foundation, don’t commit this crime.”
Jonathan Lacrosse: “I think it is wonderful that the foundation has done so much at Tech’s Square.” LaCross, who graduated from Georgia Tech in 1998, read several entries from the petition.
Penelpe Cheroff (NPU Chair): “We are talking about what people need and it speaks to us. Partner with us in saving this building. Partner with us. Talk to us. You will let us help you find a way to keep it.”
Carl: Y’all have been very clear and consistent. That message has gone back to the foundation. They understand it. The response has to come from the foundation. They understand the issues and concerns.
Comments
By Lain
June 4, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the update!
While it is disheartening that the Georgia Tech Foundation has remained so stubborn and intent on tearing down the building, I’m glad that more than a handful of folks are willing to stand up for historic preservation.
The irony is that the Crum and Forster building would ultimately make Tech Square a more valuable development no matter what gets put there instead, let alone a sad patch of grass.
By stimpson j katz
June 4, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
Westmoreland is the best at pulling the “you’re opinions have been heard and we will think about them carefully,” all while pushing through the same plan.
By Midtown resident
June 4, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
With the Home Park neighborhood protesting the design of the proposed development on 14th St by Sembler that would be built on Georgia Tech Foundation property, it seems the Georgia Tech Foundation has its work cut out for it in being a better neighbor and listening to the concerns of its community. First this building, and now the hideous and out-of-place Sembler development on Tech land. Come on Georgia Tech! Midtown deserves better!
By Wright
June 4, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this
The Crum & Forster building is one of the few classically designed commercial buildings left in Atlanta. Atlanta has so few of its historical building left. It is hard to imagine that we would tear down such a great one without specific plans to do something that would be an improvement.
This building should be of great importance to Tech since it was designed by the well known firm of Ivey and Crook, two of the original students in Tech’s architecture school. Additionally, Tech has finally begun to respect classical architecture again with the school now offering classes in classical architecture and urban planning. It would be hard for the school to claim that it supports these ideals and demolish the building.
In contrast, the Savannah College of Art and Design, an out of town school, is renovating the Peters House, also know as the Mansion Restaurant on Ponce. This is an interesting parallel since the Peters family donated the land for Tech to build its campus. It would seem that Tech would be want to preserve its legacy in Atlanta more than SCAD would be interested in doing so, but unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. It would be wonderful for Atlanta to have both great buildings at the ends of Midtown with ties to Georgia Tech.
Because Tech’s president is about to move to the Smithsonian, this effort may be neglected and the building torn down. It seems like it would be wise to withdraw the demolition permit so that another use for the building can be found. I understand that building has always been incorporated in the plan for the midtown area. If SCAD can find multiple uses not only for old buildings in Savannah but also in Atlanta, surely Georgia Tech can do the same. If the application for demolition is removed for several months, a feasible solution will likely emerge, and if Tech truly does not have specific plans for the use of the building, how would this do any harm?
By Phil
June 4, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this
It is amazing how stupid people are.
“Don’t commit this crime”??? What crime?
Great let’s let a dilapidated bldg sit empty forever.
1,000 people showed up? Great, what about the other 5 million who don’t give a crap?
Tech owns it. They can tear it down if they want. Get over it.
By Bill B.
June 4, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this
It’s like General Sherman all over again when buildings like this get torn down.
By Midtown resident
June 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this
See this AJC article about the proposed Sembler development on Georgia Tech Foundation property that midtown residents are also protesting: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/06/02/sembler06033DOT.html
When will the Georgia Tech Foundation realize it needs to be a better neighbor?
By Midtown resident
June 4, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this
Sorry, the link to the Sembler article isn’t working. Do a search for “Sembler” on the AJC website and you will find it.
By jefferson
June 4, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this
Stop whining. If you want to save the building, buy it. Otherwise, shut the F up.
By Jason
June 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this
Exactly what historic events happened in this building? It seems in Atlanta if a port-o-pottie is left on the street corner for more than a week, there is some busybody up in arms to save the historic toilet.
It reflects poorly on our city that the preservation community is unable to distinguish betweeen historic buildings and those that just happen to be old. Preservationists from the rest of the world must be a good laugh when we try to pass off every old building as being historically significant.
People are addicted to being outraged. Tech wanting to remove this old office building is just an excuse for the continually dissatisified to get attention for themselves.
By Atlanta Archie
June 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this
To Jason - there are many reasons why this building is historic, and Preservationists across the country are not laughing at us, rather they are laughing at comments like yours. Furthermore, the building has been identified for decades as a contributing landmark to the City of Atlanta, consult the resources listed below if you would like to find out more, oh and one thing to add I can assure you that “no port-o-pottie” will show up in these books!(to make such a comparison exposes your ignorance on the facts that make this building historically and Architecturally significant)——Atlanta Urban Design Commission’s Atlanta Historic Resources Workbook (1981), Atlanta’s Lasting Landmarks (1987), Lewis Edmund Crook, Jr. “A Twentieth-Century Traditionalist In The Deep South” (1984) and The American Institute of Architects Guide to Atlanta (1992)
By ScottArchitect
June 4, 2008 6:08 PM | Link to this
Jason, your reference to a “historic toilet” is misleading and stupid. There is no unconsious comparison except on your part. This building is a well-documented historic building. The preservation community is more than able to distinguish the difference between historic and old. Are you? Can you document any cases where preservationists from elsewhere laugh at our old buildings? And how can blanket statements such as “addicted to outrage” and “continually dissatisfied” possibly add meaningful information to the question at hand? I challenge the idea that you live anywhere near “our city” anyway. I recommend maybe anger management or a desire to learn, definitely less conservative talk radio.
By JCarchitect
June 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this
ScottArchitect- I listen to “conservative talk radio” and support the effort to preserve this important building. Let’s keep our arguments related to the building and not assumptions of other’s political preferences.
By GTStudent
June 4, 2008 8:09 PM | Link to this
Whoever said that the Board of Regents should pull funding from Georgia Tech obviously doesn’t understand that we are a research institution and very little of our money comes from the state at all.
By Save771
June 4, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this
The next step is the final City of Atlanta Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on Thursday, June 26 at 5:30pm. It will be held at 999 Peachtree, Suite 145 (lobby level). Public welcome.
By MUTT_H8R
June 4, 2008 8:36 PM | Link to this
Preserve this building? Are you serious? Tech is tring to greate livable space for students AND residents in what is now a MESS of concrete and asphalt. Does anyone remember what that area of town was like before Tech built Tech Square? Nasty, crime-ridden, and completely devoid of business.
Almost everything Georgia Tech has done in and and around the campus in the past 15 years has improved the city of Atlanta. Tear down the pile of steel and concrete and put something useful there for the students, employees, and residents of Midtown.
By James
June 4, 2008 8:45 PM | Link to this
Can someone tell me what is historic about this building? I don’t have the books that another commentor listed on my shelf but know inclusion in a book doesn’t make something automatically historic. Perhaps the owners of those books can share some of the information in them with us instead of assuming we all own those books. I’d like to know exactly what it is about this building that makes it historic, not some generalized concept about being in a certain architectural style. If this is about style, than claim it is architecturally significant but don’t try to call it historic unless it truly is.
By Atlanta Archie
June 4, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this
Certainly see the below:
“Architectural and Historical Value –
Inspired by Italian Renaissance details, the building combines such rare elements as a pulvinated brick frieze, monolithic limestone columns, and wrought iron grillage. The building is unique, eccentric and one of a kind. Architects, TVS & Associates incorporated references to this building when making material choices and height/scale decisions. While not protected it has for years been considered a contributing landmark by the City of Atlanta, the AIA, the Midtown Alliance, and the Atlanta Preservation Center, to name a few The Crum & Forster Building’s architectural significance have been documented in significant publications: Atlanta Urban Design Commission’s Atlanta Historic Resources Workbook (1981), Atlanta’s Lasting Landmarks (1987), Lewis Edmund Crook, Jr. “A Twentieth-Century Traditionalist In The Deep South” (1984) and The American Institute of Architects Guide to Atlanta (1992).
The building was designed by Helme, Corbett, and Harrison Architects from New York, associated with Ivey and Crook Architects from Atlanta. It is an excellent example a renowned world-class Architectural firm partnering with an Atlanta Architectural firm.
Ivey and Crook Architects of Atlanta:
Both Ivey and Crook were educated at Georgia Tech, and studied under the tutelage of premier architect and academic Francis Palmer Smith. This building is considered to be representative of the type of Beaux-Arts projects and student exercises of Francis Smith’s architecture program. Ivey was instrumental in establishing Georgia Tech’s College of Architecture and is credited as a “student founder” of the program. A program which celebrates it’s 100 year anniversary this year. Crook was equally renowned. The firm did such notable work as the Emory Presidents House, The Candler Library at Emory. The Callaway Memorial in LaGrange, as well as many notable buildings across Atlanta and the Southeast.
Helme, Corbett, and Harrison Architects from New York
The firm is highly regarded and renowned, having produced many signature buildings in New York City. They were responsible for the Design of Rockefeller Center, one of the first urban mixed use projects in the country. Wallace Harrison is considered one the great American architects of the twentieth century. He would later go on to design such infamous buildings as the Trylon and Perisphere at the 1939 World’s fair, LaGuardia Airport, the United Nations Headquarters, Lincoln Center, and the Nelson Rockefeller Empire State Plaza.
The Crum and Forster Building may be the only building in the South extant from this firm.
It was constructed by Carr Construction Company. The formwork used for the concrete frame was well advanced and way before its time.”
By S
June 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
To Jason, you mention people like having attention drawn to themselves for arguing… I think you’re the prime example.
By EII
June 5, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
I work directly across the street from this building. I’m a little torn on what I would like to happen here. The building is undoubtedly beautiful, but the surrounding property and parts of the building are in a sad state of disrepair. (A hobo sleeps on the front steps most days) For those of you who are saying GT and the GTF don’t take community interests into account, seriously thats laughable. As someone stated earlier, the area was a crime infested scumhole prior to the construction of Tech Square which is a now the heartbeat of Atlanta’s up and coming technology focused community. Even now, the areas between Spring and the Interstate that Tech doesn’t own are eyesores (Ancient Arby’s, weird clubs etc., and down to the Varsity.) At any rate, renovating the building would be beautiful and be a better long term solution but GTF can do what they want, and history shows their solution will be viable. No one cared about this until rabble rousers started stirring the pot…of course “Midtown neighbors” will want to keep it even though they hardly noticed it until they heard of its imminent destruction. Hopefully, it will be kept, but its not your decision. Capitalism FTW, or maybe FTL in this case.
By Why?
June 5, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Why are the proponents for demolishing the building just flying insults? Shouldn’t we all be aware that calling Midtowners “stupid” and asking preservationist to “F off” only strengthens their argument. If you would vote to have it demolished, make a real argument. Convince us that incorporating the building isn’t viable. Convince Atlantans how the building restored (or even just sitting as it is) is so detrimental to the city of Atlanta that it must be destroyed now. Obviously, the Foundation has yet to begin serious dialogue and the comments on this blog by demolition supporters makes that more apparent.
The AJC needs to promote real dialogue with its blogs, rather than allowing rambling insults and immaturity. We would all benefit from intelligent discussion in solving many of the issues facing Atlanta.
By Phil
June 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
“Why?” - the real argument is that Ga Tech owns the property. You do not. Nor do the other 1,000 whiners. They have the right to do with it as they wish. They are bending over backwards to try to appease you, which, unless it’s against the law otherwise, they don’t have to do.
It’s called “rights”. They own it. They have the right to do with it as they see fit, within the laws.
By Phil
June 5, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
P.S. - If you ever have plans to do anything with your house, I want you to run it by me first.
I want to know who you’re selling it to (if you sell), because I might not like who you’re selling it to. Also, if you ever add-on, or subtract from, your home - I want approval because I might not like what you’re doing there either.
Don’t paint it - I have opinions on what colors look best. Do not do it without my say so (and anyone else who wants to chime in).
By Me
June 5, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Phil— Georgia Tech is a public organization — not a private entity. It is funded by the public’s tax dollars - both State and Federal. As such, it is bound to represent the public’s interest, and right now, much of that public interest is against tearing down the building and development of the Sembler property as it is proposed now. The public in this case has a voice, and frankly, I doubt any of us care what color you paint your living room. That’s a separate issue.
By Phil
June 5, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
Me - one problem. The property is not owned by Ga Tech. It is owned by the Ga Tech Foundation, Inc. - Not a public organization.
They are being nice in soliciting the public’s opinion.
By Why?
June 5, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Bending over backwards? Really? Are you serious?
Planning to demolish a building in an urban environment, no matter how architecturally significant, has important implications on out city. To do so without a strong plan, not just lip service about furture expansion, is poor planning - one that Atlanta cannot seriously afford after years of deglect.
Yes, if the city issues a permit, they can do whatever they want. That’s not my point, Phil. My point is no one can seem to they me why that’s a good idea.
By Why?
June 5, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
PS. I doubt they are soliciting public opinion because they want to “be nice.” It’s more likely receiving public opinion because of the process to get a demolition permit requires the Foundation to go through the Midtown Neighborhood Association first. Someone correct me if I’m wrong about that.
By Joeventures
June 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
As “Why” states, GTF does have to follow the rules, like everyone else, when it comes to applying for demolition permits. That includes soliciting support from the neighborhood planning unit.
There are several sides to this coin, and I find myself having points of disagreement with both the preservationists and the property rights folks.
On the one hand, the city does have the right to regulate exactly these sorts of land use issues. Zoning came about many years ago as part of the government’s police power — that is, the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. An incompatible land use that endangers the public in the area would obviously be against the public interest.
What GTF decides to do with the C&F building will have an economic impact on the surrounding properties specifically, and the neighborhood generally. If a proposed development (or demolishing) in your neighborhood would have an impact on the value of your property and the character of your neighborhood, you would want to have a say in that matter, too.
That being said, smart growth principles make for a very positive set of guidelines to follow for the good planning and development of a region. And preservation is one of the essential principles of smart growth.
Where preservationists should be careful is in the level of their zealotry. A couple of previous comments referred to the ability (or inability) of preservationists to distinguish between “historic” and “old.”
I, personally, do not find architectural significance to be sufficient reason to call a building historic. If you look at the Midtown Neighbors Association’s efforts to preserve the “historic” part of the neighborhood, you’ll see the zealotry at work. The only criteria the preservationists are concerned about when they judge whether a structure is a “contributing” structure is that the structure is 50 years old or older.
The “50-year” criteria is dangerous. It turns preservationism into a pursuit for dead buildings, dead neighborhoods, and dead cities. Preservationists would be better to consider their cause within the wider context of smart growth.
In the case of the C&M building, I’m quite sure that building would fit well within the wider context of smart growth criteria. That’s not to mention what impact the building could have on local property values and the character of the place if it did get some use.
By Phil
June 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
Well what “negative impact” is going to be created here? Is GTF going to put up a strip joint? We all see how terrible their 5th street development turned out (sarcasm alert).
And “Why” - you state that they shouldnt move forward without a plan, something Atlanta can’t afford after “years of neglect” - EXACTLY! That’s what they’re trying to do - improve an already crappy area (Atlanta). And you are correct when I say “being nice” is nothing more than paying lip-service to people whine about something they should stop whining about. They don’t even have to do that, in my opinion.
By Why?
June 6, 2008 7:32 PM | Link to this
The 5th Street development is one of my favorite places to go to in Atlanta. At one point in time, I was eating lunch there at least once a week. I love the architecture, the people watching, the window shopping, etc, etc, BUT doing good work does give the Foundation the right to now do a great disservice to the area. It’s not all or nothing.
Sorry, Phil, but a patch of grass is not a plan for the future. Open space is good, especially in an urban enivronment. Once Tech Square’s green space reopens, it will be one of Atlanta’s best urban plazas, but it works because of the density of the surrounding blocks. That is not the case for the Crum & Forster site. Tearing down that building will leave that block empty along Spring Street. Vacant lots & a sea of parking lots is a root cause of the “crime infested scumhole” that exists in the area. A real plan, Phil, would show the community what the Foundation will build in its place. The patch of grass plan would be laughable if it wasn’t so dispicable. That point has been made continiously at the neighborhood meetings. Show usa plan of something real! Then we can debate whether it’s worth losting the old building for the new buildings that provide for Tech students and city dwellers.
If the Foundation is truly concerned about the area it would realize that the C&F building could be a jewel in the redevelopment. It should be encorporated into future development, and no one from the Foundation has given any real reason why it can’t be. Tearing down and building from scratch is a suburban solution. Diversity is what makes holds our attention as we walk the sidewalks.
Phil, stop your whining and start adding to the discussion. Stop whining about the perservationist and start convincing us otherwise, because to me comments like “They don’t even have to do that, in my opinion” is one big whine.
And you’re right, the Foundation doesn’t have to give us the lip-service. They could be honest and say we don’t want to deal with the building so we are going to demolish it no matter what people would think. That, however, would be a PR nightmare.
By Designer
June 7, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Within the Board of Trustees of the Ga Tech Foundation there are several prominent designers. Why isn’t the Foundation using the expertise of its Board and within the College of Architecture at Tech to develop a solution that benefits the neighborhood, the University and the Foundation? If TVS&A incorporated elements & proportional rules from the C&F building into the design of Tech Square, why isn’t Foundation Chairman Emeritus, Mr. Thomas W. Ventulett III making that case to the Trustees? G. Niles Bolton, of Niles Bolton Associates, another prominent local architecture firm also sits on the Board. Where do they stand on the design intent of a patch of grass? It’s time for the leaders in the field to provide real solutions!