Jump to content

Wake Co. Justice Center


capitalapts

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Folks are entitled to their opinion, but lets not let incorrect statements cloud the discussion or mascarade as something more than pure opinion. The Lawyers Building is one of Raleighs 7 original skyscrapers, two of which are already gone. All seven of these were built before the great depression which is generally the date cutoff for entry into the national register of historic places. The Lawyers Building would easily qualify if the owner would simply fill out some paper work. It is a classical revival style. The makeup of the building is like a greek column...base(first floor), shaft (2-7), and capital (8th). Not being an architect I am not able to discuss classification details, but a laymans look tells me the brown brick facade is unique in this city for the time period. So don't tell me its not historic. BS. Also BS is the county claiming the building is at the end of its useful life. BTI at North Hills had Po problem stripping a building to its I-Beams and making it modern. The same happened with the Hudson. Empire properties seems to do well at at modernizing buildings while keeping the historic elements perfectly intact. Garland Jones is a little trickier. One thing that seems obvious is that marble, glass and steel have a "useful" life beyond 40 years. Garland Jones is also certainly unique. It was built in 1960. It is some sort of Moderinist architecture, though I cannot pin the exact style (Walter Gropius, care to add some insight?). In Raleigh, only the Capital Bank HQ is similar in style. Durham has a building on main street that just like it but with green where GJ is blue. I think I found one in San Antonio. One in Charlotte. There are not many. I think a redifinition of historic in the federal code would likely stretch to include some styles of the 1960's. There are already some moderist and post-modern buildings in the register. The urban form of each builing is ideal...mid-rise, present themselves to the street well, lots of windows for interior lighting. Ugly?? Both are much cooler than the boring Dawson and Paramount pottery barn style, Caryesqe crud that seems to keep popping up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks are entitled to their opinion, but lets not incorrect statements cloud the discussion or mascarade as something more than pure opinion. The Lawyers Building is one of Raleighs 7 original skyscrapers, two of which are already gone. All seven of these were built before the great depression which is generally the date cutoff for entry into the national register of historic places. The Lawyers Building would easily qualify if the owner would simply fill out some paper work. It is a classical revival style. The makeup of the building is like a greek column...base(first floor), shaft (2-7), and capital (8th). Not being an architect I am not able to discuss classification details, but a laymans look tells me the brown brick facade is unique in this city for the time period. So don't tell me its not historic. BS. Also BS is the county claiming the building is at the end of its useful life. BTI at North Hills had Po problem stripping a building to its I-Beams and making it modern. The same happened with the Hudson. Empire properties seems to do well at at modernizing buildings while keeping the historic elements perfectly intact. Garland Jones is a little trickier. One thing that seems obvious is that marble, glass and steel have a "useful" life beyond 40 years. Garland Jones is also certainly unique. It was built in 1960. It is some sort of Moderinist architecture, though I cannot pin the exact style (Walter Gropius, care to add some insight?). In Raleigh, only the Capital Bank HQ is similar in style. Durham has a building on main street that just like it but with green where GJ is blue. I think I found one in San Antonio. One in Charlotte. There are not many. I think a redifinition of historic in the federal code would likely stretch to include some styles of the 1960's. There are already some moderist and post-modern buildings in the register. The urban form of each builing is ideal...mid-rise, present themselves to the street well, lots of windows for interior lighting. Ugly?? Both are much cooler than the boring Dawson and Paramount pottery barn style, Caryesqe crud that seems to keep popping up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks are entitled to their opinion, but lets not incorrect statements cloud the discussion or mascarade as something more than pure opinion. The Lawyers Building is one of Raleighs 7 original skyscrapers, two of which are already gone. All seven of these were built before the great depression which is generally the date cutoff for entry into the national register of historic places. The Lawyers Building would easily qualify if the owner would simply fill out some paper work. It is a classical revival style. The makeup of the building is like a greek column...base(first floor), shaft (2-7), and capital (8th). Not being an architect I am not able to discuss classification details, but a laymans look tells me the brown brick facade is unique in this city for the time period. So don't tell me its not historic. BS. Also BS is the county claiming the building is at the end of its useful life. BTI at North Hills had Po problem stripping a building to its I-Beams and making it modern. The same happened with the Hudson. Empire properties seems to do well at at modernizing buildings while keeping the historic elements perfectly intact. Garland Jones is a little trickier. One thing that seems obvious is that marble, glass and steel have a "useful" life beyond 40 years. Garland Jones is also certainly unique. It was built in 1960. It is some sort of Moderinist architecture, though I cannot pin the exact style (Walter Gropius, care to add some insight?). In Raleigh, only the Capital Bank HQ is similar in style. Durham has a building on main street that just like it but with green where GJ is blue. I think I found one in San Antonio. One in Charlotte. There are not many. I think a redifinition of historic in the federal code would likely stretch to include some styles of the 1960's. There are already some moderist and post-modern buildings in the register. The urban form of each builing is ideal...mid-rise, present themselves to the street well, lots of windows for interior lighting. Ugly?? Both are much cooler than the boring Dawson and Paramount pottery barn style, Caryesqe crud that seems to keep popping up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Garland Jones will be (somewhat) protected. It was included as part of a downtown historic register, which will make it difficult although not impossible to demolish.

It's a great building. Excellent street presence, well-proportioned, and highly characteristic of its period. You can be sure that the new County building will not be as well constructed, as well suited to its site, or as thoughtfully executed as the Garland Jones building is. The renderings offered by the County have certainly indicated otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ericurbanite's post really sheds some light on the subject. I didn't know that the Lawyer's building was one of Raleigh first skyscrapers. I'm a little less gung ho about tearing it down in light of the fact that its replacement will most likely be unremarkable. As far as Garland-Jones, I had a feeling it was built in 1960. I seem to recall Charlotte having a number of building in this style that they later tore down - a style that I can only describe as '60s Mod Local Government. I have no trouble letting that one go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list I will is use is actually 9 buildings long as I think the two hotels should be included. Dates are from memory so could be off in a case or two where noted.

Alexander Building - 1907

Citizens National Bank - 1911 (Demolished 1960's)

Commercial National Bank - 1912 (Demolished what 1992?)

Sir Walter Hotel - 1924

Carolina Hotel - 1924 (unsure exact date but style clearly 1920's. Demolished 1980's)

Odd Fellows Building - 1924(?)

Commercial Building - 1924

Raleigh Building - 3 stories in 1913, 11 by 1933(?)

Capital Club Building - 1930(?)

Modern skyscraper=either reinforced concrete or steel construction

The Great Depression and WWII brought on a decided halt in large office buildings, not to be resumed until the 1950's and the accompanying "urban renewal"

Garland Jones continues to be the grey area...it has plenty of objective merit and meets my subjective gaze very well. Clearscapes could put internationally acclaimed condos in GJ of a style ala the ones in the Hudson with a stronger emphasis on modernist furnishings mixed with a contemporary utilitarianism in upfit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting Lawyers in the national register might be difficult, as it seems like the first floor of the facade was probably been heavily altered at some point. That doesn't mean it's not worth saving.

But even if you don't like particularly care for the Garland Jones or Lawyers building, I ask you to recognize that whatever gets built in their place will be a big step DOWN in quality. Has Wake County ever built an attractive building? I'm not exactly an expert on architectural inventory, but even if the architect at first comes back with a neat, glassy, modern structure, the county is not likely to pony up for much more than the cheapest facility money can buy. So the design will be value-engineered down to something mediocre or hideous.

My ideal outcome for the Justice Center would be for Lawyers and Garland Jones to remain, and something 6-10 stories, glassy, and modern like the Spertus Institute in Chicago to be built in between where the Salisbury Street parking entrance is now: (it's even more incredible in person...)

IMG_3907.JPG

I don't care as much about what gets built in the back 3/4 of the lot where the parking deck is now. If the county wants to do its value engineering, do it there, where it's not replacing something unique, historic, and beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting Lawyers in the national register might be difficult, as it seems like the first floor of the facade was probably been heavily altered at some point. That doesn't mean it's not worth saving.

But even if you don't like particularly care for the Garland Jones or Lawyers building, I ask you to recognize that whatever gets built in their place will be a big step DOWN in quality. Has Wake County ever built an attractive building? I'm not exactly an expert on architectural inventory, but even if the architect at first comes back with a neat, glassy, modern structure, the county is not likely to pony up for much more than the cheapest facility money can buy. So the design will be value-engineered down to something mediocre or hideous.

My ideal outcome for the Justice Center would be for Lawyers and Garland Jones to remain, and something 6-10 stories, glassy, and modern like the Spertus Institute in Chicago to be built in between where the Salisbury Street parking entrance is now: (it's even more incredible in person...)

IMG_3907.JPG

I don't care as much about what gets built in the back 3/4 of the lot where the parking deck is now. If the county wants to do its value engineering, do it there, where it's not replacing something unique, historic, and beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks are entitled to their opinion, but lets not let incorrect statements cloud the discussion or mascarade as something more than pure opinion. The Lawyers Building is one of Raleighs 7 original skyscrapers, two of which are already gone. All seven of these were built before the great depression which is generally the date cutoff for entry into the national register of historic places. The Lawyers Building would easily qualify if the owner would simply fill out some paper work. It is a classical revival style. The makeup of the building is like a greek column...base(first floor), shaft (2-7), and capital (8th). Not being an architect I am not able to discuss classification details, but a laymans look tells me the brown brick facade is unique in this city for the time period. So don't tell me its not historic. BS. Also BS is the county claiming the building is at the end of its useful life. BTI at North Hills had Po problem stripping a building to its I-Beams and making it modern. The same happened with the Hudson. Empire properties seems to do well at at modernizing buildings while keeping the historic elements perfectly intact. Garland Jones is a little trickier. One thing that seems obvious is that marble, glass and steel have a "useful" life beyond 40 years. Garland Jones is also certainly unique. It was built in 1960. It is some sort of Moderinist architecture, though I cannot pin the exact style (Walter Gropius, care to add some insight?). In Raleigh, only the Capital Bank HQ is similar in style. Durham has a building on main street that just like it but with green where GJ is blue. I think I found one in San Antonio. One in Charlotte. There are not many. I think a redifinition of historic in the federal code would likely stretch to include some styles of the 1960's. There are already some moderist and post-modern buildings in the register. The urban form of each builing is ideal...mid-rise, present themselves to the street well, lots of windows for interior lighting. Ugly?? Both are much cooler than the boring Dawson and Paramount pottery barn style, Caryesqe crud that seems to keep popping up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As many of us have said multiple times, objectively, this building is:

1. Solidly constructed

2. Made from quality materials

3. Basically flawless from an urban form standpoint

4. Completely unique downtown

You state that it is a shabby building, but walking by it on the street, I just don't see it. Generally speaking, marble and stainless do not a shabby building make. It doesn't look poorly constructed, shoddy, worthless, etc. It looks very solid. If the interior needs to be updated, then so what? Update the interior. That's no reason to tear the thing down.

Subjectively, I find it to be a beautiful and distinguished building. The different shades of blue are interesting and a welcome contrast to the red brick, gray concrete, and beige painted EIFS that's found everywhere, all over downtown (and is particularly overwhelming on Salisbury Street.)

By the way... you, are making an extremely subjective judgement too: "ugly." While I respect that you don't think it's an attractive building, many (most?) of us here just disagree.

I would just really hate to see these two great examples of 20th century commercial architecture replaced with yet another monolithic government/institutional structure, no matter how revolutionary its architecture may be (which, mark my words, it won't be). Especially when the county could just simply build on the back 3/4 of the lot and achieve the exact same thing that they're trying to do, at probably very minimal additional expense.

I wonder if the parking factor (as in, Lawyers and Garland-Jones have none) is playing a role in getting these buildings torn down. Probably. If so, that makes me mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed about the density, but not about tearing down GJ. Why not build the density somewhere else other than in the place if GJ? Such as, on the back 3/4 of the lot? Which would you rather have: (SF and floor heights are estimates)

1. A 12 story, 200,000 square foot justice center taking up the entire block from Wilmington to McDowell

or

2. A 16 story, 200,000 square foot justice center taking up the 3/4 of the block closest to McDowell PLUS the Lawyers building, PLUS the Garland Jones building, PLUS (eventually) another building between them.

If you say 1, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

BTW, I don't profess to speak for the whole board. Do you?

And also, remember who's building this. It's not the city, it's the county, by far the more conservative of the two. (ie: more inclined to pinch pennies) And since a good chunk of their electorate is out in Fuquay, Wake Forest, or Cary, I get the impression that they are at best mildly concerned about the aesthetics of downtown Raleigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'majority' does not mean substantial tax dollars (to the tune of $20 million) were not used as a carrot to dangle to get the Marriot built, which despite scrutiny from the city council, looks exactly like something you'd expect to see at the top of a highway off-ramp plus 10 stories, give or take. So you'll have to excuse me, again, if my faith in local government isn't exactly unshakeable when it comes to ensuring the interest of the public is well-served when approving the design of city structures.

You're right, though, a hotel and a courthouse annex are apples and oranges. If anything, the courthouse annex will probably look much worse than the Marriot (if that's even possible) regardless of whether its design falls under the purview of the city council or county. This is because the county will look to build the cheapest structure possible. And how often does that really work out esthetically? If the cost for this includes demolition of Lawyers and Garland-Jones...shame!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jones, orulz, and Capitalapts. These are fine buildings. The Lawyers Bldg is a fine example of a Neoclassical Revival skyscraper, and the Garland Jones Bldg. is a fine example of the International style. We have so very few historic buildings remaining, to tear them down is a crime. Yes, we have more historic buildings than Charlotte, but Charlotte is the very worst. We have far fewer than Winston-Salem, Richmond, Roanoke, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Charleston, Savannah, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Buffalo, Rochester, Louisville, Cincinnati, Dayton, Birmingham, ALL of which have smaller populations than Raleigh, believe it or not.

All the vacant lots and crummy one-story buildings in that area, and we have to demolish these fine buildings? SHAME!

And serapis, we have a voluminous plenty of 2008 buildings going up, thank you very much. Some are fairly nice, but not one compares to the Lawyers' or Garland Jones building as far as design, materials, and craftsmanship are concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get things confused. I hate the new Marriott. I thought as a part of the tax subsidy, the city/county would include a clause for them to have more say so on the design concepts.

I doubt it will look much worse. This will be a monumental project for the local gov't. My advice is maintain a positive attitude. If we can't push for saving the Garland Jones building, why not push for replacing it with a better, more defined structure. That's my stance. We can only push forward at this stage. Let's make the most out of it. Agreed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only "reasoning" for demolishing the Lawyers Building (JSB) and the First Federal (GJB) buildings I can find in the Wake County criminal justice facilities master plan is the following paragraph on page 8:

In the 1999 Master Plan, the development of a new Family Court on the site of the existing Judicial Services Building

(JSB), shown in Figure ES-1 was recommended. Since 1999, the County has re-examined the site possibility and

determined that the entire area from the JSB north to Martin Street and from Salisbury to McDowell is the preferred site

for a future courthouse. This 2.5 acre site includes the Garland-Jones Building, the County Parking Deck, the JSB, and

surface parking adjacent to the Public Safety Center (PSC). While the Garland Jones Building (65,000 SF) and the JSB

(18,000) currently house many County and Judicial offices, the combined space will not meet future space needs.

Therefore, the Garland-Jones Building, the JSB and the County Parking Deck will be demolished to provide space for a

new courthouse and parking facility that will meet the 2030 projected space needs.]

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.