Home > Business Insider > Archives > 2008 > July > 14 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCity gives Crum & Forster building a lifeline
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Georgia Tech Foundation’s plans to demolish the historic Crum & Forster building in Midtown Atlanta took a big hit.
The city of Atlanta’s Bureau of Buildings has denied the foundation’s application to demolish the 1927 structure at 771 Spring St.
More importantly, the city also sent the foundation a letter expressing its intent to nominate the Crum & Forster building for landmark status. That designation would provide the building greater protection from being demolished
 |
 |
The foundation had bought the building late last year for possible future expansion of its Tech Square development on the corners of Spring and Fifth streets. The Crum & Forster building, which helped influence the design elements of Tech Square, is located just south of that development.
But the foundation also said it had no immediate plans to develop the site, and that the property would be a vacant landscaped lot for the foreseeable future.
Community leaders and historic preservationist orchestrated a widespread campaign to save the building, including an online petition with about 2,000 names and comments.
In the past few weeks, critics of the foundation’s plans also started appealing to individual members of the foundation’s board as well as lobbying the city to take actions to save the building.
The campaign to save the building seemed to be having some influence with the foundation, which announced last week that it had hired an architectural firm with strong preservation credentials to re-evaluate the foundation’s plans.
The foundation still could file an appeal to the courts to fight the city’s decision to deny the demolition permit and to designate the building as a landmark.
Note to Readers: The date of the public meeting in the following letter is incorrect. The public hearing will be held on July 27 at 4 p.m. at Atlanta’s City Hall.
To read the letter from Atlanta Urban Design Commission to the Georgia Tech Foundation …
July 11, 2008
FIRST CLASS MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Mark W. Long, Secretary Georgia Tech Foundation Real Estate Holding Corporation 760 Spring St., NW, 4th Floor Atlanta, GA 30308-1028
NOTICE OF INTENT TO NOMINATE
Dear Sir:
This office has been informed that the Special Administrative Permit (SAP-08-24) for the property located at 771 Spring Street, NW, has been denied by the Bureau of Planning.
Due to its historic, cultural and architectural significance, and in accordance with the City of Atlanta’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (see enclosed), Section 16-20.005(b) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlanta, this letter constitutes official Notice of Intent to Nominate the Crum & Forster Building and the real property located at 771 Spring Street, NW, Land Lot 80, in the 14th District (hereafter referred to collectively as the “property” and as shown on the enclosed map, which is incorporated herein by reference). This property is proposed for nomination to the zoning category of Landmark Building/Site (LBS). The property is currently zoned SPI-16 (sub area 1) The Zoning Committee may modify this nomination to another category as provided by Section 16-20.006(b).
You are hereby further advised that the Urban Design Commission of the City of Atlanta will hold a public hearing regarding this proposed nomination on Wednesday, August 23, 2008, beginning at 4 p.m. This hearing will be held in the Atlanta City Council Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall Complex, 55 Trinity Avenue, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia. Also enclosed is a copy of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure that will be used during the hearing. The owner(s), or his or her representative(s), will have a reasonable opportunity to present testimony and other evidence concerning the historical, cultural and architectural significance of the property, or lack thereof. The public will also be allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and may present testimony or other evidence regarding the same considerations.
Please be further advised that, in accordance with Section 16-20.005.C. of the Code of Ordinances, the property herein referenced is protected and controlled by these regulations to the extent provided by that category of protection to which it has been nominated. This protection begins on the above date of this Notice of Intent to Nominate and continues for a maximum of 180 days. During this interim development control period, no alterations of any kind are permitted on this property unless the required Certificates of Appropriateness for such alterations have been secured from the Urban Design Commission of the City of Atlanta.
You are invited to carefully read the enclosed Historic Preservation Ordinance. This Notice of Intent to Nominate is the first step in the process of reviewing the property for possible nomination and designation to one of several categories of historic protection. The Urban Design Commission staff is in the process of preparing a detailed report on this property, which will be available for public review approximately ten days prior to the public hearing referenced above. After the public hearing, the Urban Design Commission will decide whether or not to nominate your property for designation to a category of historic protection. If the Commission nominates
Notice of Intent to Nominate - 771 Spring St., NW July 11, 2008 Page Two
the property, the Zoning Committee of the Atlanta City Council will introduce an ordinance to designate the property to the appropriate category of historic protection. That ordinance will then go through the City’s procedure for all zoning papers, which includes another public hearing before the Zoning Review Board prior to final designation action by the Atlanta City Council.
For further information or questions concerning this matter, please contact the Urban Design Commission at 404-330-6200.
Very truly yours,
Karen Huebner Executive Director
Attachments 1. Atlanta Historic Preservation Ordinance 2. Map of the Property 3. Urban Design Commission Rules of Procedure 4. Economic Incentives Summary
cc: James Shelby, Deputy Commissioner Department of Planning and Community Development & Acting Director Bureau of Code Compliance
Ibrahim Maslamani, Director Bureau of Buildings Ann Heard, Chief Zoning Enforcement
Services »
Comments
By GTguy
July 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
Hooray!
By Progress
July 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
It is indeed unfortunate that certain people choose to stand in the way of progress in order to preserve a building with dubious historical and architectural credentials. The United States is built on a legal and economic system that preserves and protects the rights of owners of property to do as they please with their holdings, so long as their actions do not impinge on the public good. This is an obvious case of a mis-guided campaign to maintain a building that is of little benfit to the people of Atlanta. The Georgia Tech Foundation should take the issue to the courts to be rightfully decided and in turn, demonstrate the fundamental quality of progress in making America great.
By Ramblin's Wreck
July 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Thanks goodness! As a Tech alum, it’s good to see someone (even if it’s not the Foundation) listening to their constituents. It should never have come to this - Tech should have found a way to save this building on its own.
By Progress
July 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
It is indeed unfortunate that certain people choose to stand in the way of progress in order to preserve a building with dubious historical and architectural credentials. The United States is built on a legal and economic system that preserves and protects the rights of owners of property to do as they please with their holdings, so long as their actions do not impinge on the public good. This is an obvious case of a mis-guided campaign to maintain a building that is of little benfit to the people of Atlanta. The Georgia Tech Foundation should take the issue to the courts to be rightfully decided and in turn, demonstrate the fundamental quality of progress in making America great.
By mary-ellen
July 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
Score one for the good guys! Maybe Atlanta will have some small scrap of its past left! Most of our true treasures have already been destroyed!
By Sam
July 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Progress without PR is simply an ogress… and she seems particularly cold in this instance!
By Ramblin's Wreck
July 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
Progress - I think part of your premise is correct, but this comes down to one phrase you mention - “the public good.” That’s where the debate is, and that is where reasonable people can disagree. As for the “dubious” credentials of the building, that’s what the nomination process is meant to determine.
By Leave it B
July 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
Progress — The reason this city has so FEW architectural and historically important building s is that we have allowed developers to tear them down in the name of progress… While this building may not qualify for your vaulted standards of what constitutes “historical status”, it’s about all this city has left.
By Jason
July 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
“Progress:” I mention Margaret Mitchell’s home as well as the Wren’s Nest as examples of “maintaining a building that is of little benefit to the beople of Atlanta”. With that admission, I say bring on the bulldozers and let’s wipe everything off the face of the earth that is older than yesterday.. Jason in Duluth (Native Atlantan)
By Michael
July 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this
Only the government would do this. GT sucks!
By Grace
July 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Progress, you’re an idiot.
By Grace
July 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this
Progress, you’re an idiot.
By Preservation
July 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
Perservation vs. progress, the story of Atlanta. Midtown has enough glass and metal skyscrapers! This building represents beauty and grace. A grand dame in the middle of a shiny mecca. Preserve this building so generations will not think Atlanta is so ugly.
At the current rate of demolition, we might as well invite Sherman to burn the city again. Is this progress?
By Yella Jacket
July 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
Progress to the detriment of the historic resources of a city is pure foolishness. Just because you own a piece of property does not give you the right to use it in a manner that is offensive to the rest of the community. Obviously, the Midtown Community finds the concept of tearing down the Crum and Forster building repugnant. They successfully opposed the demolition permit at every level of the process just as the GTF tried to force it through.
The Midtown Blueprint is set up to handle these issues and it looks like the voice of the community won out over individual property rights here. This is hardly a situation where a group of “mis-guided” zealots forced the GTF to back down. Just good old government at work. Hard to believe in Atlanta.
By B
July 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Architecture is art. If a foundation chooses to buy a painting and light it on fire, there would be nothing we could do. It is a sad day for property rights. As longs as the arrogant elite around the city continue to tell us commoners what is good, I guess we don’t have to worry about property rights. Tearing down a building that isn’t being used, would not impact anyone in this city. Give me a break. Everyone that signed that petition should be forced to buy it from the foundation.
By Tommy
July 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Progress: you are either (1) and idiot, (2) not from Atlanta, (3) from Atlanta but completely ignorant in regards to preserving the historical integrity of the city, or (4) a shallow, self-absorbed developer who really doean’t give a f—k about anything but $$$. I think you are most likely #1…
By Tommy
July 14, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
B, the same applies to you…
By Big Daddy
July 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
Progress is absolutely correct. I have never heard of a municipality nominating a property for historic preservation against the explicit wishes of the property owner. In my opinion this is treading on dangerous ground from a legal stand point. The only way the permit should be declined for historic reasons is if the property is on the historic registry, which it is not. When government starts impeding upon your property rights it’s time to get very worried people.
Legal issues aside, I think the building is fairly handsome and should be preserved if possible, but on the other side of the coin, I have certainly seen far more architecturally important building than this one razed.
P.S.- “Grace” you should probably put a sock in it….
By b
July 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
OK Yella Jacket you want the voice of the community over property rights? First, start by voicing your concerns before someone takes charge or buys the property. Changing the rules after the fact is childish. If the building is so valuable, why didn’t you lead a group of people to purchase and maintain it? Oh that’s right you want someone else to do the costly stuff for you. Building and zoning ordinances control what is built. If you want them changed work on the city government for future issues. Since when is a landscaped lot offensive? Wouldn’t more plants be good for our planet? This isn’t “just good old government at work” it is a soceity starting to lean towards marxism. If that’s what you like take a hike to China. Ask the farmers around the 7 Gorges Damn how they feel about not having property rights. Don’t pull the rug out from groups that invest money in the city.
By Tony
July 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
The claim that the Crum and Forster building is of dubious historical merit has been part of the Geargia Tech Foundations failed PR campaign. This is a tackic that has been used in Atlanta for as long as I have lived here. The fact remains that the building was nominated and recieved verification for listing on historic register years ago. At the time the then owner refused the designation. Such action by an individual owner does not invalidate the research and findings that made it eligible. Furthermore, the building was one of 19 structures in Midtown that were included in the blueprint as structures of significance. The ignorance of some people who are clearly unaware of facts in this case prostilatizing property rights and freedom is laughable. This is not an issue of progress vs. preservation they are not mutually exclusive. To view any situation in such a fashion is not only to see it falsely in black and white, but to misunderstand the reality of the case. Since when is progress defined by wanton demolition. The term implies a value structure, to progress means to develop to a higher stage. Tearing down historic structures of note is not developing to a higher stage. Failing to recognize the benefits of sustainable design through the reuse of existing structures is not developing to a higher stage. The wanton demolition of buildngs of high architectural value and replacing them with run of the mill drival is not developing to a higher stage. If you cannot understand that you have no right to tell others what is best for the communial good. We may be a capitolist society but that does not mean that we have to abandon all of our values to make a buck.
By Drew
July 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
Tearing down a building like this one to leave an empty lot, or parking lot, is hardly my idea of “progress.” Anyone who does is probably from the suburbs, or else stuck in the 20th century. And tearing down this building would impact people in this city - we’d be stuck with an eyesore of an empty lot, just as other empty lots and parking lots are finally being converted to usable urban space elsewhere in Midtown.
By Tommy
July 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this
“big” daddy, the same applies to you as well… and know the history of the building before you attempt to make a valid point…
By Tommy
July 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
“big” daddy, the same applies to you as well… and know the history of the building before you attempt to make a valid point…
By Yella Jacket
July 14, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this
b,
This is hardly a situation where whole cities have been moved to make way for a river. But even that my friend, is hardly marxism. In fact, governments take property here in the good ole US of A all the time. It’s called Eminent Domain and it might not be fair but it is the law.
The rules have not been changed here. Chapter 16 of the City of Atlanta Code has always given the City (more specifically the City Council) the right to nominate a property for historic status. The Midtown Blueprint has always set forth a certain process a property owner must follow to get a demolition permit. You just aren’t happy with the way things turned out when this process was followed. Sounds like you are the one who needs to lobby for change. Me? I’m just fine with it.
By Dave
July 14, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this
Georgia Tech had the right idea in the first place. Bulldoze the sucker and put up a parking lot. Old buildings are an eyesore, poorly built, expensive to maintain, and just plain ugly. Asphalt is more attractive than that old junk heap… While they are at it the Fox Theatre should have seen the wrecking ball eons ago. What an embarassment of a building to this community …
By BPJ
July 14, 2008 6:20 PM | Link to this
The Tech Foundation is not just another for-profit private property owner; it is a tax-exempt foundation charged with a public interest, in aid of a publicly funded university whose mission includes teaching about architecture and historic preservation. If the building is demolished, Tech will lose some alumni contributions, perhaps greater than the alleged “savings” from demolition. The usual rhetoric about “individual property rights” just doesn’t apply in this case.
By Yella Jacket
July 14, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this
To all the Property Rights posters:
Let’s say I buy the house next to you and tear it down and build a replica of the Taj Mahal, which conforms with all applicable zoning regulations of course. Appropriate use of “my” property by your logic, even though the value of your property is going to begin plummeting immediately.
An extreme example (or maybe not if you are familiar with a certain house on Arden Road) but one that illustrates a point. Individual property rights must always be balanced with the good of the community. That is what Chapter 16 of the Atlanta Code and the Midtown Blueprint are intended to do.
Here the individual property owner lost. But there are hundreds of cases where the individual property owner wins. That’s just the way it goes.
By Brad
July 14, 2008 8:04 PM | Link to this
Dave:
F* off, and climb back under whatever rock, er, piece of asphalt you climbed out from under.
By Lee
July 14, 2008 8:46 PM | Link to this
Wow, not sure if Dave is playing devil’s advocate or is acting like the devil. I cannot believe what you are saying ! You really think the Fox deserved the wrecking ball? Man, you need help.
By Dawg Fan
July 14, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this
As a native Atlantan I have seen so many beautiful structures demolished in the name of progress. Prime example was the beautiful train station. I am glad someone prohibited one more beautiful building from the wrecking ball.
By Jason
July 14, 2008 10:15 PM | Link to this
It doesn’t appear that the Bureau of Buildings had any legal grounds for denying the demolition permit. If this goes to court, the city will almost certainly lose. The denial of permit might end up saving the building by giving the city time to have the building declared historical but that still doesn’t make the permit denial legal. The real question is going to be if the historical status can be enacted in a retroactive manner. If not, once the Bureau of Buildings loses in court and is ordered to issue the demolition permit, there will be nothing that can be done to stop this. If the historical status can be enacted retroactively, then the demolition permit can be legally denied.
Do keep in mind that the city just laid off a large chunk of its legal staff. They might not even be able to fight this in court.
By Alan Kent
July 15, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this
Good grief! Save this building FOR WHAT??? It’s not as if this building is providing value or benefit to anyone at all. In fact, owning it comes with a great liability. It’s not too great a leap to reach the point where no property owner has the ability to do with their own property as they please — that all property is actually owned by ‘the people’, and ‘the people’ can determine on a case-by-case basis what the owner can do. I think that form of society has been tried before. Bulletin: it didn’t work out so well.
Geez — why don’t you people go hug one of the trees (planted by Georgia Tech) and let the Foundation run its business as it sees fit on its own property.
Historic building my foot. Quick, somebody — name a historic event that occurred in this building!
By Butts Wagner
July 15, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Let’s say I buy the house next to you and tear it down and build a replica of the Taj Mahal, which conforms with all applicable zoning regulations of course. Appropriate use of “my” property by your logic, even though the value of your property is going to begin plummeting immediately
Ok
By Billy Bob
July 15, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
The fact of the matter folks is that Atlanta has no idea how to build a city. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the last standing historic building or the last standing strip joint. The strip joint would probably get higher regard in this city. The city has NO zoning laws. They need to start by banning bill boards and strips joints with in the city limits. As the two main thoroughfares, Peachtree and Piedmont are a complete eyesore and embarrassment.
By Pat
July 15, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
They can vote to keep this one in Atlanta but not the Fire Station in the West Ends….WOW….
By James
July 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
I sure hope St. Mark still gets approval to tear down the pieces of ‘historic’ crap that’s behind their church on Juniper. Why can’t Maria Saporta continue reporting on the other half of her original article? Sure seems she’s only interested in raising a stink about what private property owners can do with THEIR property.
By Steve
July 15, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
.
The Article States:
The foundation also said it had no immediate plans to develop the site, and that the property would be a vacant landscaped lot for the foreseeable future.
According to the Petition:
The current proposal calls for the demolition of the building to accommodate 15 foot sidewalks and streetscape “improvements” (the building is 13’-9” from the curb on the side street, and 35’-0” from Spring street). The site of the building is to replaced with grass.
So …
They want to tear down a beautiful building to gain a little over a foot of side-walk space ? ?
I have to vote on the side of consevationist on this one, and yes, I’m a GT Grad …
.
By kornfeld
July 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Big Daddy, you simply don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
By Robert
July 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
Thankfully it was saved. This means another cookie cutter building won’t go up.
It is getting boring seeing the same type buildings being built.
By doorknob
July 15, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
If they could only tear down, then they could build something new, unoffensive and sterile like the rest of Atlanta
By G
July 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
I’m still upset that, in his effort to remove all historical presence in the city, Mayor Maynard Jackson padded the pockets of his mob of “moderizers” and destroyed the classical solid marble Carnegie Library in Atlanta in the 70’s, to put in the ugly monstrosity of stucco and metal that they call a library there now.
By JM
July 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Rick
July 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this
Finally people are noticing the value of our historic buildings, l can still remember the old courthouse here in Waycross, l always reminded me of a castle, lt was replaced by the “marble Monster” we now have. The old courthouse with its steeple and huge clock was a icon of bygone days and should have been saved. Thank goodness our community has started appreciating more of our heritage and renovating many of our old buildings.
By E
July 16, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
Funny that people forget that the government tells us what to do with our property all the time. Think zoning…you can’t put up a shopping center in the middle of a residential neighborhood because the CITY zoned it that way! You can apply for a permit but if the city deems its not for the good of the public they will deny your permit request. (In the case of the Crum and Forster building denying the demolition permit WAS for the public good as the ENTIRE community spoke out against the building demolition.) Just because you own the property doesn’t mean you always get to decide what to do with it.
By E
July 16, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Funny that people forget that the government tells us what to do with our property all the time. Think zoning…you can’t put up a shopping center in the middle of a residential neighborhood because the CITY zoned it that way! You can apply for a permit but if the city deems its not for the good of the public they will deny your permit request. (In the case of the Crum and Forster building denying the demolition permit WAS for the public good as the ENTIRE community spoke out against the building demolition.) Just because you own the property doesn’t mean you always get to decide what to do with it.
By E
July 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
Funny that people forget that the government tells us what to do with our property all the time. Think zoning…you can’t put up a shopping center in the middle of a residential neighborhood because the CITY zoned it that way! You can apply for a permit but if the city deems its not for the good of the public they will deny your permit request. (In the case of the Crum and Forster building denying the demolition permit WAS for the public good as the ENTIRE community spoke out against the building demolition.) Just because you own the property doesn’t mean you always get to decide what to do with it.
By Brandy
July 19, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
Dear Big Daddy,
In regards to your comment that you don’t know of any other cities that have nominated a building for preservation protection against the Owner’s consent, I ask you to research Penn Central v. City of New York. This is a case involving a demolition permit application for Grand Central Station in New York City. The City denied the application. In the wake of the recent demolition of New York’s other grand dame railroad station (Pennsylvania Station) the City had recently begun nominating their significant buildings for preservation status. Grand Central Station was one of the buildings they wished to protect. When the Owner (who also owned Pennsylvania Station) requested a demolition permit, the City denied it, citing its status as a landmark building. The Owner challenged the case and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court sided with the City, saying that preserving important historic and cultural sites is in the best interest of the public.
And before you go and say that such legislation is “unAmerican”, or against American property rights, I would like to inform you that the very first case to go through the courts, waaaaay back in the 1890s, was for the preservation of Gettysburg. A railroad company had purchased it and was planning to build right through the center. The Secretary of War got wind of this and said “NO!”. Today, Gettysburg is one of our national treasures.
Brandy
By Mike
July 21, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the biggest redevelopment blunder in the city - Woodruff Park. The all-mighty and all-powerful (and usually brilliant and far-sighted) Robert W. Woodruff bought a block and a half of shops along Peachtree Street (and a six-story Haverty’s store on Edgewood) to turn it into a city park. Now there’s almost no retail downtown, and the park is filled with homeless people. Thanks a lot, Bob!
By Bobby
July 21, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
The building is beautiful and I’m more interested to know what in the hell the GA Tech Foundation was thinking in the first place?? Since when do public universities care more about real estate development than preservation of history? I never saw a good defense or argument come from them, and when the community and its alum says no, they should listen up better.
By jen
August 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Link to this
Many are not aware that the GT Foundation originally PLANNED TO PRESERVE this building… and only after thorough due diligence post-purchasing it (i.e. they didn’t check it out beforehand) decided that would be too expensive. The building should be preserved — it was the Foundation’s fault that they made a bad business decision, and if the alumni and the students don’t support tearing it down to make way for a new building, it should be preserved.
By Marc
September 23, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Progress is absolutely correct in his position supporting individual property rights, which is a fundamental principle of American liberty. Insulting him for his intelligent comments is immature. However, I do think it is unfortunate that an esteemed institution such as GT (or the GT Foundation) does not seem to understand the value in preserving our history. Perhaps a little short-term government intervention can prevent a short-sighted and permanent decision to destroy part of our past.