Jump to content

Wake Co. Justice Center


capitalapts

Recommended Posts

I can't stand that building. However I'd keep it as an example of how ugly things can get if you don't hire a good architect. :D (BTW I put the First Citizens/BTI/Cameron Brown building at North Hills in the same category) When I've driven through dt Charlotte I've been struck by how few old buildings there are. They've torn way too much down and will regret it in 20 years.

What are your thoughts on the Audio Buys building at Five Points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah, like I said above, if Raleigh had several buildings that looked like that, I'd not care for it. But I think the fact that it's the only one...totally unique...gives it a character.

I think more people would like it if it was worked on some...polish the steel, give it more modern light fixtures, paint those faded blue squares. Maybe if we changed them from "Carolina blue" to "Wolfpack Red", more people would like it. :D

That has my vote :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on the Audio Buys building at Five Points?

Is this a trick question?

I think the correct answer is tear that awful building down and replace it with something more in keeping with the neighborhood. However, there may be a contingent that believes it is an interesting structure that enhances the neighborhood. Nah. Tear it down.

Also, I agree with you about Charlotte. Although it obviously has beautiful new buildings, I think it destroyed it's character and history by bull dozing almost everything old during it's "urban renewal" period. Charlotte will never have the charm and feel of Richmond or Nashville or even Raleigh when it comes to that aspect. But they do have some really nice tall buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stand that building. However I'd keep it as an example of how ugly things can get if you don't hire a good architect. :D (BTW I put the First Citizens/BTI/Cameron Brown building at North Hills in the same category) When I've driven through dt Charlotte I've been struck by how few old buildings there are. They've torn way too much down and will regret it in 20 years.

What are your thoughts on the Audio Buys building at Five Points?

Is this an attempt to get people to expose their subjectivity to what often sounds like objective "save everything old" arguments? Audio Buys is steel I-Beams with windows thrown up in between. You could PC your way through reasons to save that too like happened with the Wake County office building near Kings. Audio Buys is almost strictly utilitarian in design as were many brick turn of the century commercial storefronts downtown. Could someone find charm in Audio Buys like I do with 100 year old brick storefronts? Maybe. In fact Audio Buys replaced the original Piggly Wiggly brick building on that site. (see pictures at The Pointe). I think not only is Audio Buys ugly, but it contains poor elements of urban form. My brick storefronts and Garland Jones, I find both pleasing to look at and they contain many elements of good urban form. A little subjective and objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raleigh has enough architecture from that time period, just not really downtown. That is a time period that produced better residential than commercial buildings. If it can be torn down to produce a unique building, I say go for it. However, tear it down and build a box, I say keep it. I love that old clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Now that the dust has settled a bit from the first posting's responses I wanted to come back and attempt to elevate the discussion a bit.

From what I could discern from the postings, most folks who desired to see the building go, based their judgement purely on the appearance of the building, something I was attempting to avoid. Let's scrap the ugly vs. beauty debate for now simply because it is so subjective and tends to be devisive in its nature.

A recent brief article in the September issue of Architecture magazine speaks to one particular issue of importance: Resource Management.

To be mindful of the fact that we have surpassed the production capacity of the earth by one and a half times brings me directly to the point: If we have a building that functions well within the urban context, is built of good materials, and has been properly maintained, should the building not be kept? The issue here is that it took energy and resources to fabricate the building in 1960. On the Wake County Real Estate Register it is noted that in 2000, your tax dollars were spent renovating interior of the building. All that energy embodied within the structure will be squandered if the building is torn down and placed in a landfill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but safety and efficiency should also be considered. Is that 1960's building as safe as a new building today (materials, emergency systems, ventilation, etc.). Also, is it as efficient to use (floorplans, materials, access) as a newer building. Let's also not forget the prospect of replacing that building if a newer, taller one could be better use of the land under the building. Another factor would be to consider the attractiveness of the building. If the county gives it up, would a private comapny be willing to lease a building that looks like it. If they renovate, would it be worth their investment to spend X million to renvoate vs. X million to start a new.

I say all this to say that there are more factors to consider than just a building's pure age and of course, its appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but safety and efficiency should also be considered. Is that 1960's building as safe as a new building today (materials, emergency systems, ventilation, etc.). Also, is it as efficient to use (floorplans, materials, access) as a newer building. Let's also not forget the prospect of replacing that building if a newer, taller one could be better use of the land under the building. Another factor would be to consider the attractiveness of the building. If the county gives it up, would a private comapny be willing to lease a building that looks like it. If they renovate, would it be worth their investment to spend X million to renvoate vs. X million to start a new.

I say all this to say that there are more factors to consider than just a building's pure age and of course, its appearance.

Good points. Sensititve renovation is always a viable option. And change to a building is, of course, a natural course. Those blue panels might be changed out for something more "timeless", for example.

My work involves almost 80% existing conditions which can lead to creative, distinctive and memorable spaces and places. I've found that starting new has its advantages just as much as working with existing conditions has other advantages. Instead of one strategy being better than the other there are clear tradeoffs. With the Cotton Mill on Captial Blvd., Pilot Mill, or the old Hudson Belk on Fayetteville Street, the tradeoffs were clearly positive for keeping some, if not all of the building. And there are many more examples throughout the Triangle of this.

Density is very important as well, especially with the problems of suburbanization, gasoline prices, and pollution. I'm not sure going up higher is always a justification, however since I'm eager to see equal interest in the surface parking lots throughout the downtown core as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me for being slow: could you explain this statement? and: Who has done this research and analysis to come to this conclusion?

One can measure your individual impact on the environment by analyzing particular factors like how far you drive each day, how often you eat out, how much you spend on groceries, etc. This essentially describes your how much land it would take to sustain you if you were plunked down in the middle of nowhere and had to farm, hunt and shelter yourself to the same degree of comfort you have today. Rural farmers in China require a average of approximately .65 acres of land per person to sustain the lifestyle they lead today. U.S. inhabitants require something approaching 4 acres (Don't quote me on those numbers, I'm pulling them from memory). Population growth and improving levels of modern comforts constantly change these factors. If you've ever seen one of the BP commericals of late, you may already be familiar with this concept.

Our built environment can be looked at the same way. Buildings require resources in the form of materials and labor to construct. To manufacture the material there are long supply chains beginning with the raw material (i.e. the forests and the mines), moving into the factories that shape and process the material and and onto the jobsite where they are put in place on the building. There are labor costs, transportation costs, fuel and energy costs in order to take those raw goods out of the earth to cut, carve, melt, or cast and them into something we use. And once the material is made, thats the only evidence of that long chain of expenditure.

The issue here is that the earth is no longer keeping up with what we're taking out of it. For example: A farmer's got a field full of corn. The corn is not always just simply there for picking, but must first be planted, allowed to grow to maturity and then harvested. Stilll, some kernels must be put aside in order to ensure next year's crop can be sown. Essentially, the Global Footprint Network argues that we're now at a point where we're not setting aside any more corn for next years harvest. We're consuming more than is being replenished by natural cycles.

More information can be found at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.ph...lobal_footprint

This is where that initial statistic emerged from. My point is to say that by reusing the structure, one can continue to take advantage of that energy spent in 1960 and expend new resources more effectively and responsibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jnz, You make really good points, probably enough to convince me that maybe you're on to something that should be considered--especially given the renovation 6 years ago. Although we could have used the same argument on the old civic center, and that building (everyone can agree, I think) was a piece of crap, and the east side was renovated in the mid-90s. I hope we can all agree that Site 1, as proposed, is a MUCH better use of that property in almost every way imaginable.

Now, the Garland Jones Bldg has more merit than the old Civic Center for sure, but I doubt you're going to convince the somewhat backward-thinking Wake County Commissioners that keeping it on the basis of human sustainablity on a global scale is the right thing to do. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Physical space will likely be the clincher (even water limitations can be overcome by huge desalination plants and pipelines if you don't mind clean water being 10% of your monthly bills) as places to grow food cannot be duplicated easily. The corn analagy applies to physical space limitations, which run out before the nitrogen, phosphorus and (desalinated) water do. I bet that acreage figure has a lot to do with high meat diets and includes materials needed to heat and cool living space as well as construct it. I want to keep the Garland Jones Building too and appreciate an economic link for doing so, but think the macroeconomic view does not win out here. A micro view, of buying cheaper land for the County out by say DOT, might be a better argument (I am not necessarily advocating putting it out there mind you) Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your/the concept, however if it were taken a few steps further, we would feel such overwhelming guilt for ever tearing down buildings, that we would only approve giant, perfect buildings that we are absolutely sure will be acceptable in the long run. I don't like waste, but I also like creativity and artistic risks. Some risks work out and some don't. The fear of guilt from artistic failure will kill the artistic spirit.

While I didn't love the Civic Center, it served a mid 70's Raleigh well. It was a city that had a gymnasium for its symphony, no air conditioned spaces for more than 2,000, and no air conditioned exhibit space larger than a hotel ballroom. In one project the Symphony had a temporary home, there was space for boat and car shows, shopping shows, concerts, graduations, political rallies, and small sporting events. Pretty good use until we had enough money to build specialty buildings if you ask me! Yes, energy from the Earth was invested and later thrown away, but couldn't one argue that the emotional energy offered by the building's events offset that to the Earth? People took that energy and used it elsewhere.

I'd hate to see a future planning commission, afraid that any lot will be considered "underbuilt" in 20 years, deny low/mid rise projects that serve us well in the short/medium run. If that guilty mindset ruled, we'd only have 1 or 2 massive projects per year proposed and empty surface lots would prevail for decades.

We need to fill in downtown and make it livable and walkable. That is the way we go about repaying Gaia, not by guilt for tearing down misdeveloped land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While its interesting to look at demolition vs. renovation in terms of energy and materials it will always come down to economics.

If you demolish a building, the majority of the building materials could be recovered if you are willing to put enough energy into recycling the materials. The energy to build/transport/extract is gone, but the thing to keep in mind is that we will never run out of energy; the problem is running out of cheap energy.

There is going to be a point where we are crunched for cheap energy, but in the long long term energy should only get cheaper (ie improved solar technology, more nuclear energy and we might even get lucky and get fusion working)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi folks.... its been awhile since I've been in this fracas, but I had a great conversation last night with a friend and wanted to consolodate and sum up some things.

I think the dialog thus far has been postitive and shows that there are diverse ways to examine a particular archtitecural or urban situation. It shows how diverse our city really is and that our buildings can mirror that diversity in appearance and use. It also shows how architecture is not simply a conversation about the ugly versus the beautiful.

Our built environment is a complex, amorphous organism that is comprised of an existing and ever evolving fabric of buildings, roadways, lampposts, people...you name it. It is important to look at ALL these aspects in determining the value that those elements hold in our community.

In the case of the Garland Jones Building I think there are 3 critical aspects to be analysed in determining its value:

1) Is it a good example stylistically of its kind.

2) Is it built well?

3) Is it a good neighbor? (or, How does it work within the urban fabric)

Evaluating the building on those terms helps us to determine whether the embodied energy/sustainability issue has value. A knowlegeable response to each requires a bit of understanding of architectural history, building construction and urban design. I think if the community can answer "Yes" to the first three questions, it encourages preservation or adaptive reuse, because it demonstrates the underlying value that supports a responsible, sustainable strategy.

I hope to continue raising these issues with the community in Raleigh and Wake County in the hope of persuading the County Commissioners and the Facilities Design Office to work with the building rather than in spite of it. If you support the recycling of the Garland Jones Building I encourage your involvement and write your County Commissioner now before design gets underway for the new Courthouse this fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing is that part 1 doesn't include anything about the worthiness of the kind. I mean, why don't we build a log cabin skyscraper. I think that this building is hideous, and if we had a serious land crunch, I'd be completely for getting rid of it. However I said in an earlier post that there are almost 150 unbuilt lots in the 120 block downtown, so I'd rather focus on those before replacing yesterday's mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing is that part 1 doesn't include anything about the worthiness of the kind. I mean, why don't we build a log cabin skyscraper. I think that this building is hideous, and if we had a serious land crunch, I'd be completely for getting rid of it. However I said in an earlier post that there are almost 150 unbuilt lots in the 120 block downtown, so I'd rather focus on those before replacing yesterday's mistakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.