Save the 615 Peachtree Building!

[Andrea]

Whether or not the Winecoff has been functioning is beside the point. Replicas of historic styles aren't the same as historic buildings. Whether we like the history therein is beside the point. It's still history....and both this building and the Winecoff are likely better buildings than such as would replace them. I think we are roughly on the same page here.

I hear what you're saying, Tom, and I think we are in agreement to a point. I feel like a building's actual function (or lack thereof) plays a very important role in assessing its historical value. I can appreciate a pretty old building simply because it's old and it's pretty, and because it evokes images of a different era. But city structures don't exist purely in the aesthetic sense. They are also, and arguably foremost, created for their utility. We need them to house and shelter us, to allow us to conduct our transactions, to store things of value, and to define our spaces.

This is where I think the Winecoff gets low marks. It certainly presents an attractive facade from an era that I personally find quite appealing. However, for over half a century it has been tarnished by the almost inconceivable human tragedy that took place there. Perhaps it will someday overcome that, and people will forget or no longer care. In the meantime, however, it has not been an asset to downtown Atlanta. Given those circumstances, plus the fact that the style in question is still in common usage, I'm inclined to think that the Winecoff is one of the few older buildings where we might be better off starting over from scratch.

[Hybrid0NE]

Gee, Hybrid, surely we're not going to start determining a building's architectural significance by whether some people subjectively do or don't like like its design, are we?

I would hope not but seems like in the end the property will end up better off than before. Also, isn't this in the "blighted" area of Peachtree (around the connector crossing) that's been missing development dollars so far? If it becomes a magnet to attract redevelopment to the area it'll do more good in long run.

[atlmangum]

You don't think the 7 factors I've listed demonstrate the significance of 615 Peachtree's architecture and its historical relevance? You may not personally like its style but surely the building meets any objective criteria for architectural and historical value.

If not, what, in your opinion, would it take? Surely we're not at the point where we tear down high quality, well maintained, high functioning, energy wise old buildings in the heart of our cities just because we don't find them visually au courant! Especially when they epitomize the style, scale and aesthetic of an earlier, more graceful era.

Andrea, you made some excellent points. Unfortunately, I was typing my response while you were posting, so I didn't get to read your argument before I posted. I'm just not a big fan of that type of architecture. I just wish architects would have been just a tad bit more creative in their designs back then. But with soooooooo many parking lots in the area, why not use that space first.

[atlmangum]

I would hope not but seems like in the end the property will end up better off than before. Also, isn't this in the "blighted" area of Peachtree (around the connector crossing) that's been missing development dollars so far? If it becomes a magnet to attract redevelopment to the area it'll do more good in long run.

GOOD POINT!!!

[Andrea]

Andrea, you made some excellent points. Unfortunately, I was typing my response while you were posting, so I didn't get to read your argument before I posted. I'm just not a big fan of that type of architecture. I just wish architects would have been just a tad bit more creative in their designs back then. But with soooooooo many parking lots in the area, why not use that space first.

I hope y'all know I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. I'm personally not a big fan of that style of architecture either. But when it comes to deciding what we save and don't save, good arguments can usually be made both ways.

What I'm really getting at is the fact that there is often a tremendous amount of subjectivity and nuance in these kinds of discussions. They may well involve giving serious consideration to styles and approaches that would not be our personal choice (which is something I don't like to do). However, when people listen carefully to one another and try to let everyone be heard, then reasonable solutions usually prevail.

[ryanmckibben]

Andrea, you are absolutely corect that appreciation of a certain building or an entire architectural style is subjective. It can be nothing other then subjective.

You ask if architecture should play a role in what is kept and what is let go. My answer is yes, of course it should, and we as a city/region/society will know that something is significant enough architecturaly whan it crosses boundries and unifies people of different opinions. The Fox is a perfect example. Yes, this building is in better shape then the Fox was when BellSouth wanted to tear it down. Fortunately, people had the imagination and/or memory to either remember what it once was or to see it for what it could become. When a building garners that much support from the community, obviously we're on to something. This building looks as good as it ever has, and well... . I am impressed with the whole solar heating part, but there are better ways to do that now without turning a blank marble/concrete wall to our city's signature street. Think of it this way...if a developer wanted to construct that building today, they woud be overwhelmed with protest.

Someone also brought up the Winecoff, I believe that is a building that should be saved. It has a historical event tied to it. I appreciate that 615 has been operating as a bank now for 50 years, but unless it was the sight of Bonnie and Clydes first ever bank robbery, there is nothing significant about that...slightly impressive maybe, but certainly not historic.

[ryanmckibben]

one other thing, and this is to everyone who wants to know why "they" don't build on the surface parking lots first.

Here's why. In this country we have an obnoxious little thing called "private property". In laymans terms this means that only the owner of that lot may decide what to do with it. If I owned a parking lot in Midtown and I saw all this development going on around me with no end in sight, and I was already making a killing operating this piece of property as a parking lot, AND paying next to nothing in property taxes why on earth would I want to sell it?

If you want to see all of those surface parking lots developed, change the tax code to tax based on the land and not the iumprovements. This would cause the taxes paid on vacant land to be the same as one with a 25 story office/condo tower.

[catlike]

I would hope not but seems like in the end the property will end up better off than before. Also, isn't this in the "blighted" area of Peachtree (around the connector crossing) that's been missing development dollars so far? If it becomes a magnet to attract redevelopment to the area it'll do more good in long run.

This is only a block from The Fox and catty-cornered to the BOA tower. The blighted area of Peachtree doesn't really begin until you go past Crawford-Long, two blocks south. Next to the connector there is that ugly parking lot and whatnot, which would be better served if it were developed into a massive project that would both benefit the city and eclipse the Peachtree Summit building in the process.

[Newnan_Eric]

one other thing, and this is to everyone who wants to know why "they" don't build on the surface parking lots first.

Here's why. In this country we have an obnoxious little thing called "private property". In laymans terms this means that only the owner of that lot may decide what to do with it. If I owned a parking lot in Midtown and I saw all this development going on around me with no end in sight, and I was already making a killing operating this piece of property as a parking lot, AND paying next to nothing in property taxes why on earth would I want to sell it?

If you want to see all of those surface parking lots developed, change the tax code to tax based on the land and not the iumprovements. This would cause the taxes paid on vacant land to be the same as one with a 25 story office/condo tower.

Hear, hear! The tax code change and some form-based zoning. Then we'd be "cooking with gas."

Alas, I don't think that'll be happening anytime soon.

Just to put in my two cents - I'm not a great fan of that architectural style either, but it kills me that the SW corner of Ponce and Peachtree is still a surface lot. I mean, really, can't we get the developers to pry loose a few more of these surface lots before we tear down any more viable buildings?

[Andrea]

You know, I started this as a tongue-in-cheek thread to explore opinions about what we keep, what we destroy, and why and how we make those judgments, etc. I had actually not paid much attention to the 615 Peachtree building in years.

This morning I was downtown and stopped on the way back to take a closer look at it. I must say it's actually got more going for it than I recalled. The mid-rise scale, in my opinion, is good for that stretch of Peachtree. I don't like the marble facade that faces Peachtree, although I can't say it's utterly horrendous -- there are probably ways to rework it into something more attractive. The building is drawn up nicely to the street on both the Peachtree and North Avenue sides, and it doesn't look like it would take a whole lot to update the frontage on Peachtree. Several other buildings of this vintage in that area, such as the Howell House across the street, as well as some of the older buildings a block or two further north, have been retrofitted to make them fit better with the contemporary streetscape.

I honestly can't say that the building has no redeeming merit whatsoever. While I appreciate Ryan's comment about its 50 years of service as a bank in the area not amounting to anything of significance, for me it actually does bring back memories of an earlier and more genteel time in Atlanta. I used to go to the dentist in the W.W. Orr Doctors Building across the street and remember thinking that 615 Peachtree was a pretty sophisticated and impressive building. In that day it was. My grandpa worked for the Atlanta Transit Company at the Pine Street Garage around the corner, and I believe he banked there. (It was the First National Bank of Atlanta then, a source of much civic pride, although it has of course since been gobbled up by one of those giant North Carolina banks). Atlanta was in many ways still a small town in the 1960's, but buildings like 615 Peachtree made us feel like we were a bustling metropolis.

It may well be that folks simply want to leave that era behind, and I can certainly understand the desire to eradicate the 1950's and 60's. It was not my favorite period for architecture either. As the generations go by, however, I find myself disliking it less than I did 15 or 20 years ago. If there's redemptive charm in old buildings like this, I think it is that they remind me of how proud we were of them at the time, and how our image of the city has evolved over the last half century.

Nonetheless, while I might shed a tear for the vanishing past, I'm not going to cry a river if it's gone. Out with the old and in with the new, and all that.

[Andrea]

I started this thread tongue in cheek but now I'm actually getting upset.

I stopped by 615 Peachtree again today and it is really an unfortunate situation. I can't believe Cousins is going to, as the newspaper says, "put the wrecking ball to" this lovely and significant structure. There is an air of sadness about the building, as its 50 years at one of Atlanta's most prominent corners draws to a close. The parking lot still has spaces marked reserved for some of the city's prominent doctors, lawyers, banks and businesses, but I suppose the memories of those days are soon to be wiped away forever.

Has the Urban Design Commission signed off on this?! Has the Atlanta Preservation Center been advised? What about the fact that only recently Cousins was bragging on its acquisition of this building and touting its leasability?

DOCOMOMO/GA (the international organization of architects comitted to the preservation of modern architecture) has had the building on its endangered list for over a year now.

The register of other buildings DOCOMOMO has committed to preserve reads like a litany of some of America's best architecture -- the Richard Neutra House, the Case Study House, and the Eames House and Studio in Los Angeles, California; the Air Force Academy Chapel in Colorado Springs; the Gropius House in Massachusetts; the Lever House, the United Nations Headquarters, the Guggenheim Museum and the Seagram Building in New York; the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth; Dulles Airport in Virginia; and the Johnson Wax Building in Wisconsin.

In the Southeasst, in addition to 615 Peachtree, their list includes many of our most well known structures: Norris Dam, TN; the Peachtree Hills Apartments; the Atlanta Constitution Building, the Drayton Tower in Savannah, the Georgia Tech School of Architecture Building, the Georgia Center for Continuing Education, the Forty Marietta Building (First Federal Savings And Loan Association), the Trust Company of Georgia (Piebar), the Equitable Building, the Play Scapes at Piedmont Park (by Isamu Noguchi), the Fulton County Public Library (Marcel Breuer), and other signature works of modern architecture.

I realize some people don't like the 615 Peachtree Building anymore. But is the fact that a certain style is no longer popular in the eyes of some a sufficient reason to destroy one of our few remaining works of architectural significance from bygone days? Especially when the area is already blighted by concrete block buildings and parking lots? When the owner admits it has no specific plans or timetable in mind? When the owner openly states that its motive is simply "market driven"?

What's the difference between saying, "Oh, we don't like the looks of 615 Peachtree anymore, let's put the wrecking ball to it", and taking other 50, 70 or 100 year old structures and saying, "We don't care for those seedy old buildings on Marietta Street anymore, they look dated and and aren't fitting in with what we want to do now and it would probably cost money to fix them, so let's just tear them down."

I kind of like this comment on the "cult of progress" point of view, which seems to be the justification for destroying yet another piece of old Atlana like the 615 Peachtree Building:

"[some argue that]contemporary design is always better than a 60-year old derelict of a building." This, of course, is the old "cult of progress" point of view. Well, beauty is in the eye of the too often near-sighted beholder. The 1900s disparaged “Victorian,” the 1920s disparaged “Art Nouveau,” 1940's disparaged anything pre-Modern; the 1950s disparaged Art Deco; the 1960s built buildings which even they called “Brutal” and '60s architects and planners treated the city as a loci for “urban removal” and civil defense “bunker” architecture; and finally, the 1970s disparaged Modern itself calling instead for “post modern” and a return to history. In Atlanta that sparked the establishment of the Atlanta Preservation Center and the Atlanta Urban Design Commission. Today, the “New Urbanism” is all about context, respect, sensitive design, and tradition.

So where is respect for our past?

[Lady Celeste]

I guess my question to Cousin would be....

Why not retrofit this building to be a highrise condominium building with a street level grocery store...like Whole Foods? While the marble facing Peachtree is not optimal, they could have placed a nice insignia there or hanging gardens to soften the look. With all the few parking lots in downtown, could they not have placed a new building on one of those? What about the parking lot at Peachtree @ the downtown connector...or what about the parking lot next to the BOA tower. While I am glad that a new tower is proposed, I would much rather see some of those parking lots filled so we can get some critical mass going on in that part of the city.

Having said that, it's not the prettiest of buildings but that doesn't warrant it's elimination.

[Topped Out]

Andrea, your passion for this building is unquestionable. I do have a question for you on something you stated in your last post. You indicated that Cousins plans to take a wrecking ball to the building and later in your post you stated: When the owner admits it has no specific plans or timetable in mind? When the owner openly states that its motive is simply "market driven"?

I thought that any building that was going to be destroyed in Atlanta had to have a time table for the new building going up in its place. Is this not correct? Maybe I misheard this somewhere.

[Andrea]

I thought that any building that was going to be destroyed in Atlanta had to have a time table for the new building going up in its place. Is this not correct? Maybe I misheard this somewhere.

Topped Out, I don't know. I do know there are a huge number of vacant lots all over Atlanta and there have been as long as I can remember.

The only objection I've heard to the 615 Peachtree Building is that some people don't like it, or don't think it "fits" anymore. I'm certainly not knocking anyone's tastes, because we're all different, but I just hate to think that "I don't like it anymore" has now become the standard by which we demolish 50 year old, professionally acclaimed, and well kept, productive buildings. I think that's especially true when the motive behind it is "market driven." This is one of the major reasons why we have so few remnants of our past left as it is.

And if "I don't like it" is now the measure by which we destroy the past, then where do we draw the line? Can we realistically fight to preserve the "charm of old Atlanta" with one hand, while taking a wrecking ball to it with the other?

[Andrea]

Here's a quote from Atlanta architect Jon Buono, who often writes for Creative Loafing. He's talking about the 2002 destruction of Atlanta's amazing Cabana Hotel, which could have right out of Miami Beach, but his comments could just as easily apply to the 615 Peachtree Building:

Many preservationists are grappling with the fact that some of the building projects that were opposed 50 years ago may now be considered historic -- and for good cause. Proponents of the Cabana's demolition might argue that its construction probably replaced some older gem of a building -- but if the wholesale practice of tabula rasa is legitimized, Peachtree's vibrant past will be completely erased. Ironically, at a time when the nuances of mid-century design are re-inspiring art, architecture and fashion, Atlanta has lost an example of the real thing.

I couldn't agree more.

[ironchapman]

Well, I don't see what it contributes to the area. I don't remember it being attached to anything historically (some famous historic event either locally or nationally). The only significance I can see about the architecture is the passive solar design Andrea mentioned. Aside from that, I see relatively few merits in the architecture of this building, which comes off as aesthetically unpleasing to many eyes.

If it had some sort of historic significance or if it played an important role in the area (i.e. corporate HQ, corporate regional HQ, government building, retail center, etc.) I might could see a definite reason for keeping it. As of now, I could honestly go either way, but I'm leaning towards letting it fall.

Now, if this building had some historic significance (like many of those in Fairlie-Poplar were some of Atlanta's first skyscrapers), I could certainly see a definite case for keeping it.

[Andrea]

Well, I don't see what it contributes to the area. I don't remember it being attached to anything historically (some famous historic event either locally or nationally). The only significance I can see about the architecture is the passive solar design Andrea mentioned. Aside from that, I see relatively few merits in the architecture of this building, which comes off as aesthetically unpleasing to many eyes.

If it had some sort of historic significance or if it played an important role in the area (i.e. corporate HQ, corporate regional HQ, government building, retail center, etc.) I might could see a definite reason for keeping it. As of now, I could honestly go either way, but I'm leaning towards letting it fall.

Now, if this building had some historic significance (like many of those in Fairlie-Poplar were some of Atlanta's first skyscrapers), I could certainly see a definite case for keeping it.

Irony, what about the buildings in Fairlie-Poplar that weren't Atlanta's first skyscrapers, were not attached to any particular historic event, and were not corporate headquarters, corporate regional headquarters or government buildings? Frankly some of them don't even have much aesthetic appeal to me, and a few of them are downright ugly. Is it okay to tear them down, too? I don't see what they contribute to the area.

I realize you may not personally care for the 615 Peachtree Building, but a lot of us do. For the many, many reasons I've listed in this thread, there *is* a lot of historical and architectural significance to this building. In addition to my personal recollections (which I am sure are similar to many other people my age who grew up in this city and learned to love it), professional architects have placed the building on the endangered list for its architectural significance.

What about these factors?

(1) It was designed by one of Atlanta's most well known architectural firms.

(2) It has been occupied since Day One by one of Atlanta's major banks.

(3) It has been an anchor of Midtown stability, employment and commerce for generations, even in times when the area was in decline and considered seedy.

(4) Its style and scale are consistent with the kinds of buildings that have been the staple of Midtown for the last half century, as well as in many other parts of Atlanta.

(5) It has been meticulously maintained.

(6) It is recognized as endangered by architectural history groups such as DOCOMOMO.

(7) It has reached the age of 50 years in pristine condition, which is as old or older than many other buildings which have been recognized as "historic" in Atlanta, and which have been the subject of substantial lamenting and/or preservation efforts.

If this building is ripped down, it takes a part of my memories and history with it, and a part of the history of many other people who knew this building as part of our urban landscape for a long, long time.

As I've said before, do we go to a part of town that is already lacking in good quality buildings, a part of town that literally has concrete block structures and asphalt parking lots and vacant lots on the adjoining corners, and tear down a long-revered and admired (yes, by many of us, if not you all of you) building that has tons of connections with the area, which is still pefectly maintained, designed by some of the city's leading architects, simply because some folks say "Well, *I* don't find it aesthetically pleasing"? Who gets to decide what's "aesthetically pleasing"?

I'm not trying to pick on you (I think you rule, IC) or anyone else, but I cannot comprehend why it is that people holler about some buildings being so valuable and others being disposable. Is it simply a matter of whose subjective opinion happens to prevail at the moment? Is preservation of architecture and history simply a "market driven" issue? Why is that we blow off the opinions of professional architects and preservationists on this building, yet bemoan a place like the Winecoff, which proved to be fatally and catastrophically defective after only 30 years of existence, and has since sat as a blighted hulk in the middle of downtown for 60 years?

Okay, I know I'm ranting and I apologize to everyone for that. I simply see at work here the same cavalier forces that have obliterated so much of our city's past. I am really sorry for what we are doing to people who come after us. How will we answer them when we they ask us where their history went? Shall we simply say, "Oh, we didn't think it fit very well, and we really didn't find it particularly attractive."

And how do we answer the future generations, and the others who ask, "But why did I have no voice in it?"

[JB04]

i hate that building tear it down please

[Andrea]

i hate that building tear it down please

I like that building and feel a connection to it, don't tear it down please.

Who's right, me or JB04? Why is one of us right and the other one wrong, and what are the criteria by which we judge that? Whose opinion prevails, and why? What do these things say about other decisions about what we save and what we tear down?

I happen to have a bunch of architects on my side, but should professional opinions even make a difference? Should the decisions about what to save and what to destroy simply be "market driven"? Should they be governed by whose taste happens to be in fashion at the moment, or does half a century of history play a part?

I can understand that people have subjective tastes that differ from mine, and frankly I'm glad of it. But I may have some subjective tastes that differ from theirs -- do I get to approach the structures they claim are historic and charming and say, "I hate that building, tear it down please"?

[Andrea]

Just thought I'd bump this up. You know, Decatur, which many regard as the most walkable, charming urban neighborhood in Atlanta, has saved its bank towers from the 1950's and 60's, and is able to view them as an intrinsic part of the city. Here's the lovely old Decatur Federal Building, and it has barely been touched at all. Can you imagine how stunning 615 Peachtree might have been with a little TLC, instead of a wrecking ball?

By the way, for much more erudite comment than I can give on the way changes in architectural fashion lead to loss of our past, I strongly recommend Joey's post on the Skyscraper forum:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread...232#post2158232

[Andrea]

I was walking up Peachtree this evening and stopped for a while at the void at North Avenue. Instead of the handsome and widely acclaimed mid-century building that proudly guarded this corner for 50 years, we now have nothing but a huge gulch.

[Hybrid0NE]

I was walking up Peachtree this evening and stopped for a while at the void at North Avenue. Instead of the handsome and widely acclaimed mid-century building that proudly guarded this corner for 50 years, we now have nothing but a huge gulch.

[ryanmckibben]

^No, she won't. All plans for that parcel have been put on hold

[atlrvr]

It sure beats having to pay property taxes on a structure though

[perimeter285]

Okay, why would they go through the investment of demolishing the building if they were not absolutely sure they were ready to move forward on construction?

I wasn't a big fan of 615, but it's better than another empty lot - something that Atlanta has way too many of already!

That ticks me off. Is it Novare?