Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

88 Excellent

About Exile

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Concord, NC

Recent Profile Visitors

1621 profile views
  1. I actually am inclined to agree with this. The St. Louis Art Museum is the best--and pretty much completely un-duplicatable--example of this that I know of. Which raises the question of "wedging." Should you "wedge" this kind of museum into a development like this? What if a major benefactor--another Arthur Magill--wants to loan works to the museum? Will there be room for growth? I doubt it.
  2. Where did anyone suggest that "the likes of the Louvre is the only appropriate host of such great art"? I believe it was Gman who invoked the Louvre. I did offer an opinion on the pyramid there, but nowhere has anyone suggested a particular style--other than the extremely broad categories of "lasting" and "traditional", with example-lists clearly not meant to be exhaustive--much less a particular building as a model for the proposed museum. And as far as your historical account of the conversation goes, you've got it completely backward: I *first* expressed my serious reservations about the "glass box" concept and at the same time suggested *a style* that "evokes" the art's European sources. Gman then brought up the Louvre, yada yada....you can reread it, if you choose to. Second, while there's a kernel of truth in your summary phrase "I [Exile] don't like glass," it's really a total caricature. There's a reason that postmodern architecture rejected the modernist, unadorned boxiness that this concept seems to favor. P&K cited the "New Classical" approach, of which I'm generally a fan. Thus, I'm not alone in this--a lot of architects would essentially agree with me (and a lot would not; I get that, FTR). Finally, its not that the *building materials* that have stood the test of time (they won't--think Notre Dame, ruined abbeys, etc.), it's that the architectural style itself has endured. Moral of the story: if you're going to criticize--directly or indirectly--someone else's expressed opinion, then represent it in a factually and conversationally-accurate way. Unless your intent is subtle mockery. Is that it? Your imperious "We won't get into..." and subtly mocking "I'd love to see you make the request..." of your most recent reply to P&K would indicate so.
  3. "Stagnant" and "Disney" are loaded words (but I guess I invoked "Brady", so we're even). I'm aware of the High and other similar buildings. To me, those are far more "Disney." As for your opening question: why not? If a glass box is appropriate, if a mountain lodge just across the river is appropriate, if stick-built five- and six-story apartment buildings are appropriate, why not something more traditional? And monumental. But I'm confused: since you've indicated that, to you, all an art museum really is is a (bunch of) white wall(s) with great lighting, why are you even weighing in?
  4. A pyramid that is dwarfed by the originally 13th-century castle that it is an appendage to. Not a fan of the pyramid, either, but really. And I'm not advocating for brick---never said anything about it. There's lots of granite to be had around here (e.g.). So I'm with you on variety--just make it variety that won't be "Brady Bunch" in 40 years. I fear that a glass box, no matter who designs it, will be very Brady.
  5. Not at all. I'm not a fan of glass boxes that will soon be outdated. Since we're talking about a place to house the kinds of paintings you might otherwise find in old European museums, it seems to me that the architecture should at least evoke that kind of setting, rather than going in completely the opposite direction, as the concept--hopefully just a concept and nothing else--seems to. Lasting art of this kind needs to be housed in buildings whose architecture is lasting. If it were going to be a museum of modern art, then maybe a glass box makes sense. But really, even putting Andrew Wyeth paintings in such a setting seems inappropriate. One thing Greenville really lacks entirely is monumental buildings, in the traditional sense of that term. With both the museum and the Unity Park tower, I'd like to see something truly monumental. BTW, I'm only talking about the museum. I'm not nearly as concerned about the design of the convention center, hotel, office building, condo tower, whatever (though I still don't like the glass box concept).
  6. The whole thing needs a redo (to the extent that anything has really been done, I guess). But putting "one of the largest collections of European Old Masters" in that monstrosity would be....monstrous. If I were BJU, I'd refuse to participate. If that and the Unity Park Jungle Gym get built according to their currently displayed concepts, I think we can safely say that Greenville will have officially run out of insightfully creative architectural brains.
  7. Greenville better have the population base for a 3000SF "Nordstrom Local." But I'm not convinced that Greenville lacks the base for a regular Nordstrom, when you factor in the entire region. What we lack is a proper setting--there's no place I'm aware of in Greenville that's high-end retail with a big enough site. It's conceivable they might have gone to GM if it had succeeded in its re-positioning, but HM will likely never have that kind of store (I remember when everybody was so jazzed that Greenville finally had a Rich's when HM opened). Where else to put it? Maybe eventually in a "lifestyle center" that's well-situated, after the next wave of department store bankruptcies further sorts that sector out.
  8. Overall, yes, but the downtown Belk closed and was replaced by HM Belk. As I recall, the downtown Belk was still doing a pretty good business in one of those old buildings where you'd expect there to be an elevator operator announcing every floor. Would Belk have maintained that store? At least for a while, we can presume. Maybe they'd have been a 3rd anchor at GM if HM had not been built. But all other things being equal, that end of Main would have still been in half-decent shape with Belk, Hales, Carpenters Drugs, that furniture store whose name I can't remember, First National, and several restaurants. The Poinsett was still owned by the Bibles and operated as an "old folks home," as we used to say, along with fairly regularly hosting high school dances. Likewise, Sears closed their store on Stone, which J. P. Stevens then occupied as its HQ building, across from Northpointe. They'd have competed for space at GM. Maybe Montgomery Ward would never have come here. That bankruptcy was a huge blow to GM. So P&K's question leads to the question: what if GM had begun life with 3 anchors: JB White, Belk, and Sears? But I guess that's more of a meta-what-if.
  9. Exile

    The Gateway Site

    Is this your way of lowering expectations so that you can experience more joy when something actually materializes?
  10. Instead of more floors, bring back the Court Street Tower (minus the plaza encroachment). Or do both.
  11. You seem to think that your opinion is normative. I live in the CLT area, follow the Douglas Int'l thread on UP, and have flown in and out of all these airports a number of times--I don't need a primer, and I seriously doubt anybody else on this thread needs one either. I do hear complaints about CLT being a hassle, lots of them, along with expressed hopes that the upgrades will out-punt the traffic. Some of those people will in fact be pleased with the finished product and use CLT till it clogs up again. But there really are other people out there who prefer to avoid CLT if they can, even when the construction projects are finished, and, when feasible, actually follow through on that preference by going to GSP, GSO or RDU. I don't expect the Concord Airport ever to be much more than an Allegiant + NASCAR facility; but at the same time it would not surprise me if something more than that developed there for us O&D leisure travelers. One man's "really cool" is another man's poison. I'm out.
  12. From the perspective of CLT (22MM boardings), undoubtedly. From the perspective of GSP (1MM+), maybe more significant. The populations of Cherokee and Cleveland Counties combined is over 150,000 people. If all air travelers from those counties were to opt for GSP (unlikely, I admit; but that's just two possibilities), that would be significant for GSP. I assure you, a lot of people will drive in order to avoid big-airport hassles as much as possible; and if, as you speculated, longer distance nonstops are going to become more common (or less uncommon) for smaller airports like GSP, that "leakage" will increase. Probably not enough for CLT to take much notice, but potentially significant for li'l ole GSP.
  13. Actually, I didn't suggest that people from Charlotte would drive to GSP. My words were "I could see leakage in the other direction from points northeast of Gaffney." Now while Charlotte does technically fall into that general description, I thought it was pretty clear that I meant travelers on the margins who are closer to CLT but inclined to avoid it if possible. So, no, I never thought that banking executives would drive to GSP. LOL.
  14. Allegiant's double-edged sword is its nickel-and-dime approach to fees. If you don't expect to be pampered and if you prepare well, you can save a lot of money, as long as your destination is a vacation spot. Otherwise, you'll likely hate it. We lived in FL for a number of years and occasionally were able to use Allegiant in reverse. We once took a ski vacation in the Northeast and paid next to nothing for round-trip tickets.
  15. Wow. I haven't flown AA much--we use SW most of the time. Clearly, though, the difference is huge if you're willing to drive a longer distance to the far side of ATL than to the near side of CLT.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.