Wake Co. Justice Center

[serapis]

I hate to back up so many posts but, for one counterproductive would be to build tax exampt government buildings on "prime real estate" no? Why not sell these to Empire Properties and locate the Justice Center on Hammond Road? By law, only the Fayetteville St site must remain as a courthouse (Gales family deed to the County back in the early 1800's). Saving it can certianly be turned into an objective excercise. The energy and materials originally used to build GJ goes right into the net worth equation when considering alternatives. I am not an expert at crunching these numbers but feasibility ceases as the relative sizes of the old and new buildings are closer to being the same. It seems like the County ignored alternatives analysis, simply stated their need (new facility...on this site) separate from costs, then cranked out the lowest cost to meet the stated, unanalyzed need. Keeping operations all together is preferrable for sure, but at 5 million an acre one would think other options should be considered the way the State is selling the Blount Street land. So my point is, is it really counterproductive to save GJB? Who knows without a facility planning document that details it all.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

How about we get the N&O to tear down there warehouse accross the st and move both buildings to that site? I know it would take a lot of work but it would save two very good buildings?

[serapis]

How about we get the N&O to tear down there warehouse accross the st and move both buildings to that site? I know it would take a lot of work but it would save two very good buildings?

[orulz]

How many large cities have their judicial buildings in the suburbs? Heck, why build anything downtown? How about let's build everything in the suburbs where it's cheap? I doubt the local gov't is ready to do that, just because some people want some 60's era building to look at. This board is actually the only place where I've heard people calling the subjective looking, Garland Jones building historic. It's an eyesore, if you ask me.

[ncwebguy]

I think the red brick building in rooster's pictures is the judicial services building. It looks somehat skinny... couldn't they build "behind" it? Redevloping the old deck and surface parking will free up a lot of room.

A new deck could have McDowell entrance-only access and in/out access on Martin. The current Salisbury Street parking access could be the entrance to the new building/courthouse and go "back/west" as far as Garland Jones. Then have more structure above that.

It does sound like Garland Jones may be saved, but I wouldn't say for sure until they show renderings...

[serapis]

I think this is just as true today as it was a while ago. The google map shows how much land the county can play with on the block, once the old parking deck and SURFACE PARKING behind the Judicial Services building goes away.

There is space for one or two lanes of enter-only traffic on Salisbury, since people like to park across from the courthouse. This would leave enough space to build a lobby inline with GJ and JS for an eleveator bank to the structure above the parking deck, a la PE II's lobby near the Wilmington/Davie corner.

It would be tricky to try to intergrate parking with the existing (small) structure near the Davie/McDowell corner. I have no idea why that should be saved over and above Garland Jones and Judicial Services.

The L building is a perfect example of what to expect from the county -- something functional, a budget slightly above "cheap", but not built to knock anyone's socks off. If they wanted to consider "the future" and office space needs, they should have built taller there and keep it vs. selling to Empire.

I'm glad the "small and old = a waste of space" logic hasn't been applied to the Century Post office, the State capitol building, the Joel Lane house, etc. There aren't that many more older structures left to save. The "well we have Raleigh Memoriald auditorium, the Capitol Building, and a few other strucutes, so everything else is fair game" rationale is crazy.

As for government moving to the suburbs to be cheaper, there are plenty of examples of this already happening:

- The state already has decentralized out of downtown, with DHHS on the Dix property, a lot of new DOT office space near 440 and Poole Road, and DENR leasing the Parker Lincoln building for years on Capitol Blvd. just north of 440.

- The county moved its medical facility (Wake Med) out to the (then) suburbs years ago to the New Bern/440 area. Expansion of the county's prison/jail facilities continues to be built off Hammond Road south of 440.

- The city decentralized the police department under Chief Perlov. The city is looking to move the garbagbe/recycling/street plows facility away from downtown (Peace/Capitol) to the 'burbs at Raleigh Blvd/440.

It makes sense to spread or shift some goverment services away from downtown. But the courts and their support offices, the office of deeds, etc. make sense to keep downtown. It is possible to keep them downtown *and* save these two buidlings on their current sites.

[serapis]

To some people's eyes, anything "60s era" is an "eyesore." To their parents, "20s era" beaux arts and art deco architecture was an eyesore (hence mid-20th century urban renewal.) To their parents, "1880s era" architecture was an eyesore. And so on. What I'm saying is, what's considered "an eyesore" is cyclical. To pull a generalization out of thin air, a given generation will be inclined to think of what their parents built as ugly.

But a funny thing usually happens - the following generation tends to do a 180 and cherish the stuff that their parents tried to tear down. So people wind up hating their parents' architecture and loving their grandparents'. And in fact, in many circles, 50s and 60s modernist/international style buildings (particularly well-built ones of quality materials like this one) are enjoying a similar renaissance, and cues from this once-spurned architectural era are now once again being incorporated into many cutting-edge projects. Guess what will probably be next: 1970s brutalism.

(As an aside, I've noticed that the very same thing is true of clothing and fashion, though the cycles seem to be faster.)

If you can't realize the cyclical nature of fashion, style, and architecture, and are tear down a well-built, well-proportioned, quality building like this because you have some twitch-reflex that it is ugly, I'm sorry to say, but your children will hate you for it.

[ChiefJoJo]

The L building is a perfect example of what to expect from the county -- something functional, a budget slightly above "cheap", but not built to knock anyone's socks off. If they wanted to consider "the future" and office space needs, they should have built taller there and keep it vs. selling to Empire.

[orulz]

I definitely realize the cyclical nature of fashion, style, and architecture. I just don't think every building DT is worth saving.

To take your logic for instance, Who's to say the ugly Wake county courthouse, wouldn't become iconic architecture in the future? Why not make it a historic site, representing early 1970's architecture? You see where I'm getting at?

[orulz]

With that out, I'm definitely in the 'save the Garland Jones and Lawyers Bldg' camp. I think, with the uniqueness of the architectural styles present in their respective eras with respect to the city's stock, a fairly strong argument can be made to preserve them. I don't recall the specs on the new Justice Center, but it's going to be huge. orulz posted something like 200k sf, but I think it's actually closer to 400-500k sf. Fitting that on top of the old county deck may be difficult, but I'm sure it can be done... without busting the budget? I don't know.

Now, for those interested in taking action on this, we'd need to confirm what the definitive plan is for that block. Assuming the plan is for the demolition of those two bldgs, one approach might be to contact the Raleigh Historic Districts Commission. They are the official body that makes recommendations on issues of historical significance, and presumably would have some authority in determining their historic value to the city.

[Jones_]

I have sent two emails to Empire Properties urging a public comment on the issue..maybe an offer on the buidlings ala Raleigh for Dix. So far no response from them.

[jnzllwgr]

A workshop was held a few years ago with some students from NCSU's School of Design and Dan Douglas/Urban Design Center. This was done along with the County and schemes were presented to them at the conclusion of the design period. The final scheme showed a plaza, the same dimensions as the footprint of the Garland Jones, where the G-J building sits today. In essence, the point was to demonstrate that the County's challenging program for the new Courthouse Complex could be satisfied without OCCUPYING the acreage covered by the G-J.

I believe the County is still interested in pursuing this notion. Yet, from an urban planning standpoint, a corner plaza at this location does more harm than good to the city fabric. An eroded corner, less than a block away from the major public spaces of Fayetteville Street, and two blocks away from Nash Square, a) squanders the utility of this parcel and b) dilutes the importance of these other public spaces.

I support the saving of the Garland Jones Building because it is a good neighbor in the downtown context. I think people get fixated on the blue panels and do not recognize that these can be easily modified to bring the building into the 21st Century. The use of stainless steel storefront framing and marble cladding reveals how well built and timeless this building is. All these quality materials will end up in the landfill and the County will replace it will a structure NOT of equal value. The cost of these materials today generally prohibit public agencies from utilizing them as generously as the First Federal Bank did (they built the building in 1960).

It should also be noted that the regulatory bodies who are assessing Fayetteville Street for placing it on the National Historic Register, considers the G-J Building a contributing structure in the district. I believe this will at least make it more difficult to tear the structure down as the County will have to go through an application process and a series of public meetings to hear the citizens thoughts about the issue. The Historic Register ultimately doesn't prevent the building from being torn down, but it does make it more of a pain in the neck to do it.

[orulz]

I think people get fixated on the blue panels and do not recognize that these can be easily modified to bring the building into the 21st Century.

[jnzllwgr]

Unfortunately, I believe the Lawyer's Bldg was eliminated in the NCSU plan. Its location midblock made it more difficult to work around given the complexity of the Justice Center's program. There are underground tunnels proposed between the jail, existing courthouse and new facilities and, if i recall correctly, the Lawyer's Building sits directly across from the existing courthouse. That may be one of the reasons for its demolition.

[orulz]

Unfortunately, I believe the Lawyer's Bldg was eliminated in the NCSU plan. Its location midblock made it more difficult to work around given the complexity of the Justice Center's program. There are underground tunnels proposed between the jail, existing courthouse and new facilities and, if i recall correctly, the Lawyer's Building sits directly across from the existing courthouse. That may be one of the reasons for its demolition.

[jnzllwgr]

The existing courthouse is indeed directly across from the Lawyers Building, but luckily the Lawyers building is very skinny and the courthouse is much wider, so the courthouse is directly across from the jail AND the parking deck entrance as well. It might be more expensive, but it seems like maybe they could find a way to work around that.

Besides, I think there aleady is a tunnel between the courthouse and the jail. I could be wrong, though.

I might not understand everything that's involved in the county's program, but I don't see how it could be so complex that they absolutely need the entire lot clear from McDowell to Salisbury. Do you recall any specific reasons why they can't just build a 12-story courthouse building on 3/4 of the lot, rather than a 9-story building on the entire lot?

[ncwebguy]

In my earlier post, I was trying to point out that some city/county government sites/offices should be distributed (fire and police department, park facilities), while some should not (records, courts). The latter do not have to be in the same building, but would benefit by staying somewhat clustered.

This could have been acheived by being in other nearby buildings, including the L building, vs. concentrating it all on this block. Yes, the county has done a lot worse with that parcel for years (surface parking replaced the old buidling/hotel that was there) and the wrapped parking structure vs. standalone, streetscape-killing deck is a good step going forward. But if the county knew it needed more office space, it kept that to itself. Or maybe it could explore acquiring Turn Key tire and the surface parking on the NW corner of Davie and McDowell.

RE: Garlan-Jones + Lawyers Buiding + something new on the rest of the block vs. the One New Hall of Justice.

The tunnel is an issue, but it could be angled under Salisbury from the existing parking deck entrance to the courthouse vs. a straight shot from the Lawyers Building site. It gets more expensive to not start with a clean slate, but they built the courthouse pretty close to the Century Post Office with not little trouble.

If they buildings are saved, the existing office space within them is *saved* as well. 12 stories on 3/4 of the block plus the two saved buildings gives *more* space than the 9 story all-encompassing structure, assuming the county keeps them. If the county sells the two buildings for redevlopment, the 12 story building provides the same amount of space, but its cost is offset by the money raised by selling the two buidings. *But* the those two buildings returned to the private sector start paying taxes, while the the all-county use won't.

It seems the county is ignoring these opportunity costs (not having to demolish the existing structures, disposal/recycling of materials, sale of building, and tax revenue). When they first started planning this, they probably wouldn't get enough money selling the buildings to make the numbers work. But with the way downtown has changed over the last few years, the numbers could work out so that saving the buildings makes sense. I would hate that we are stuck with only one plan due to the downtrodden downtown of the late 90s/early 2000s.

[Jones_]

I emailed the Commissioners and requested a response. Will see what happens.

[Captain Awesome]

I emailed the Commissioners and requested a response. Will see what happens.

[Jones_]

I hope that this push results not in the saving of those buildings, but in a recognition of the fact that the buildings that replace them should have some aesthetic and architectural value.

[orulz]

All new buildings should have some appropriate architectural value, whether satement making or subdued and blending in as needed. In this case....well sh$% I give up....I'll keep my crazy left wing liberal activism to myself from now on. Rather than announcing that I will be contacting the Raleigh Historic Districts Commission, the Mayor and City Council, I'll jut hope that I have results to speak for my efforts. Ciao.

[Jones_]

Roger Koopman responded generically, urging contact on any issue you want to bring up....its on one person's mind anyway...

[Captain Awesome]

All new buildings should have some appropriate architectural value, whether satement making or subdued and blending in as needed. In this case....well sh$% I give up....I'll keep my crazy left wing liberal activism to myself from now on. Rather than announcing that I will be contacting the Raleigh Historic Districts Commission, the Mayor and City Council, I'll jut hope that I have results to speak for my efforts. Ciao.

[jnzllwgr]

Whoa. Don't take my post the wrong way. I think that contacting those organizations is a very important thing to do and too am interested in the feedback that you receive. True, I have personally been waiting for the day that they tear down GJ; the more feedback the city gets for these necessary demolitions may force them to replace older structures with something other than boring, utilitarian buildings with grey facades in an effort to compromise with those people who do feel strongly about loss of these buildings.

[serapis]

I'm not going to start an argument here, but when you use generic terms like "boring", "utilitarian" or "grey" to describe the Garland Jones building, I would like to see some developed argument for your position. Given that the building works incredibly well in the urban setting by sheltering the sidewalk with its canopy, by providing places for citizens to linger and rest with its bench/planter and by providing as sense of positive connection between its inhabitants and life on the street with its large, floor-to-ceiling windows, I tend to think this building has immense worth. Its large windows on the upper stories are actually quite historic in their proportioning and do well to let air and light into the building to brighten the workplace. Its use of high quality metals and marble demonstrates its quality of construction and non-utilitarian origins. As a building of its style, it an excellent specimen and --your subjective tastes aside-- should be able to be appreciated within that context. Considering the value we are beginning to place on recycling, minimizing landfill waste and cutting pollution, adaptive reuse principles suggest that saving this structure would be advisable because of all thing things it does well.

That's my rant. If one can produce reasons for demolishing the building in equal measure, I'll be considerate and, I'm sure, my opinion will be matured. Until then, beware of subjective terminology as they only act as a thin veil to undeveloped critical thinking.