Jump to content

Federal Courthouse


ATLBrain

Recommended Posts

To make a blind stab at this without substantiating research, but I can't see the Feds sharing a block with a Dukes of Hazzard Museum, period. I also can't see such a large investment for such a narrowly targeted enterprise.

My assumption (and my sincerest hopes) is that the museum will be in the FORMER location of the Toy Museum which is in a row of buildings on McGavock Pike in the Music Valley area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The NBJ article was not very well written and left much to interpretation. IJD is correct that Cooters is moving to the 'former' location of the Toy Museum near Opryland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NBJ article was not very well written and left much to interpretation. IJD is correct that Cooters is moving to the 'former' location of the Toy Museum near Opryland.

"The new Cooter's Place is the former downtown home of Nashville Toy Museum, so it already had showcases for display of "The Dukes of Hazzard" memorabilia, such as Boss Hogg bubblegum cigars and Daisy Duke shoes."

http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville.../08/story3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Sentence you posted seems clear but when you include the paragraph before your quote it reads a little different,

"Jones, who portrayed Hazzard County mechanic Cooter in the 1980s hit TV series, moved the museum and shop to a 5,000-square-foot space at 2613 McGavock Pike, where a grand reopening was held April 29 and 30.

The new Cooter's Place is the former downtown home of Nashville Toy Museum, so it already had showcases for display of "The Dukes of Hazzard" memorabilia, such as Boss Hogg bubblegum cigars and Daisy Duke shoes."

The grand reopening was just held April 29-30. The article should not have included the word 'downtown'. The rest of the article details how the area near Opryland is coming back after the closing of th etheme park and that things will only get better once construction on Briley Pkwy wraps.

"The new Cooter's Place is the former downtown home of Nashville Toy Museum, so it already had showcases for display of "The Dukes of Hazzard" memorabilia, such as Boss Hogg bubblegum cigars and Daisy Duke shoes."

http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville.../08/story3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Sentence you posted seems clear but when you include the paragraph before your quote it reads a little different,

"Jones, who portrayed Hazzard County mechanic Cooter in the 1980s hit TV series, moved the museum and shop to a 5,000-square-foot space at 2613 McGavock Pike, where a grand reopening was held April 29 and 30.

The new Cooter's Place is the former downtown home of Nashville Toy Museum, so it already had showcases for display of "The Dukes of Hazzard" memorabilia, such as Boss Hogg bubblegum cigars and Daisy Duke shoes."

The grand reopening was just held April 29-30. The article should not have included the word 'downtown'. The rest of the article details how the area near Opryland is coming back after the closing of th etheme park and that things will only get better once construction on Briley Pkwy wraps.

Thanks for pointing that out. The story couldn't have been edited more poorly, at least that portion. So I've noticed the 'for sale' sign is still posted on the Berger Building [downtown Toy Museum] -- has the goverment definately planned to purchase or purchased the property? I know it was somewhat of a hindrance to the design or at least the siteplan. I understand the need for the setbacks, but jeez it makes for a lousy and inconsistent streetscape. I swear that's the last time I complain about the FC. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no knowledge of the Toy Museum being torn down. When I spoke to the design team last Fall the expressed a strong desire to remove the building but speaking to a former City Councilman at a gathering last night he seemed to think the building was protected.

I do know that a strike price was agreed to on the building last month and they plan to use the site for offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be out of it at times. I posted an article from the Charlotte Business Journal about their Federal Courthouse on the CC thread. Sometimes I wonder about me.

Anyway the moratorium has been lifted and the architects for the Charlotte project is Tuck Hinton out of Nashville. Could it be that their may be a new design firm for the Nashville Courthouse.

http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte...22/daily25.html

Tuck Hinton website:

http://www.tuck-hinton.com/index.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing that out. The story couldn't have been edited more poorly, at least that portion. So I've noticed the 'for sale' sign is still posted on the Berger Building [downtown Toy Museum] -- has the goverment definately planned to purchase or purchased the property? I know it was somewhat of a hindrance to the design or at least the siteplan. I understand the need for the setbacks, but jeez it makes for a lousy and inconsistent streetscape. I swear that's the last time I complain about the FC. :)

I've been wondering why the city is re-doing the sidewalks there, from Church down to Commerce -- seems like if the courthouse is going to be coming along at some point, the new sidewalks will just be torn up all over again. Besides, the existing sidewalks didn't look to be in such bad condition; at least not bad enough that they couldn't have waited.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering why the city is re-doing the sidewalks there, from Church down to Commerce -- seems like if the courthouse is going to be coming along at some point, the new sidewalks will just be torn up all over again. Besides, the existing sidewalks didn't look to be in such bad condition; at least not bad enough that they couldn't have waited.

David

I've wondered that too! They are wasting our money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that their may be a new design firm for the Nashville Courthouse.

As a lawyer, I've been following this and others with some anticipation... Tuck Hinton was in the running for the Nashville CH, but they were passed over for The Graves Firm. Apparently, Michael Graves flew into town and sketched a few buildings with classical motifs... and the selection committee was enthralled. I'm sure it didn't take much to dazzle a bunch of old judges who know nothing about architecture. One of them actually said he wanted a building that looked like the Parthenon. Rumor has it that when Graves did his signature off-the-wall rendition of classical themes, Judge Robert Echols (I think is his name) stepped in and made some "suggestions" that really watered down the design... that's a rumor, mind you. The result is a suburban hotel building.

Anyway, I do think it's a shame that Tuck Hinton wasn't selected for the CH, because they've made such a mark on the Nashville area. They too have a signature style, but it's inoffensive to me. Plus, a project like the CH would have been their crowning achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a lawyer, I've been following this and others with some anticipation... Tuck Hinton was in the running for the Nashville CH, but they were passed over for The Graves Firm. Apparently, Michael Graves flew into town and sketched a few buildings with classical motifs... and the selection committee was enthralled. I'm sure it didn't take much to dazzle a bunch of old judges who know nothing about architecture. One of them actually said he wanted a building that looked like the Parthenon. Rumor has it that when Graves did his signature off-the-wall rendition of classical themes, Judge Robert Echols (I think is his name) stepped in and made some "suggestions" that really watered down the design... that's a rumor, mind you. The result is a suburban hotel building.

Anyway, I do think it's a shame that Tuck Hinton wasn't selected for the CH, because they've made such a mark on the Nashville area. They too have a signature style, but it's inoffensive to me. Plus, a project like the CH would have been their crowning achievement.

The true shame is that these judges, who apparently "knew nothing about architecture," (proof?) were hamstrung by the real troublemakers--historicist progress-worshippers who refused to fill a very good and virtuous request for a proper classical courthouse. I find it infuriating that you dimiss a request for classical architecture as the fruit of ignorance, and indeed I wish that the building had been designed as a true classical structure rather than the post-modern compromise with some cartooned and imagined "modernity" that it is.

What sort of culture do we live in when it is assumed that "a bunch of old judges" know nothing about architecture? There are a great many wise and virtuous people who would find classical motifs exciting--for reasons you have not successfully addressed in your mockery.

The building should look like a bloody courthouse--and believe me, while duplicating the Parthenon would be a shame lamented by every true classicist on the scene, it would be better than cooking up your implied alternative: something "new," that would challenge and confuse those stodgy old boring judges--presumably something that would get "attention" by being "bold" and "cutting-edge." Sort of like a built two-year-old with a Pok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a great post, and I really agree with you. I think that this design is squashed somewhere between classical, modern, and postmodern, and it would be great if it could have move completely toward one of them, and I think a classical courthouse would be great, however I see nothing wrong with a well designed modern courthouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true shame is that these judges, who apparently "knew nothing about architecture," (proof?) were hamstrung by the real troublemakers--historicist progress-worshippers who refused to fill a very good and virtuous request for a proper classical courthouse. I find it infuriating that you dimiss a request for classical architecture as the fruit of ignorance, and indeed I wish that the building had been designed as a true classical structure rather than the post-modern compromise with some cartooned and imagined "modernity" that it is.

What sort of culture do we live in when it is assumed that "a bunch of old judges" know nothing about architecture? There are a great many wise and virtuous people who would find classical motifs exciting--for reasons you have not successfully addressed in your mockery.

The building should look like a bloody courthouse--and believe me, while duplicating the Parthenon would be a shame lamented by every true classicist on the scene, it would be better than cooking up your implied alternative: something "new," that would challenge and confuse those stodgy old boring judges--presumably something that would get "attention" by being "bold" and "cutting-edge." Sort of like a built two-year-old with a Pok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you my personal favorite architectural style for a courthouse is the elaborate Second Empire style of the late 19th century. We used to have numerous examples of that style in businesses and homes in downtown Nashville, but to my knowledge, virtually none exist downtown today. I wish we could have a nice reworking of that style for a federal courthouse.

What's your opinion of the Second Empire style, NewTowner ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BIG BIG mistake here was hiring M. Graves to do a Classical Courthouse. If they hired Graves, they should have known what his signature style was. Once they hired him, they should have given him free reign. But to get him, and then expect him to tweak his style to a classical one was way off base. Personally, I LOVED M. Graves original design (remember, the little pic?). They should either have kept his original design, or fired him and hired the guy that did the Symphony hall. In the end, their actions were a disservice to M. Graves, as well as to all of Nashville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BIG BIG mistake here was hiring M. Graves to do a Classical Courthouse. If they hired Graves, they should have known what his signature style was. Once they hired him, they should have given him free reign. But to get him, and then expect him to tweak his style to a classical one was way off base. Personally, I LOVED M. Graves original design (remember, the little pic?). They should either have kept his original design, or fired him and hired the guy that did the Symphony hall. In the end, there actions were a diservice to M. Graves, as well as to all of Nashville.

That sounds like typtical "your government at work" stuff. Leave it to the government to hire an architect and "tie" his hands in such a way that the product in second rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone seen this proposal for Sacramento? It's a modern-ish looking highrise, with a "Parthenon" plopped on top!

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=39852

Luckily, the "Parthenon" was axed from the design, according to this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stor.../27/story5.html

"In my conversations around town, I never heard anyone say, 'Man, that would be really neat.' It was an eye-roller."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually,

I found the only saving grace of the sacramento building to be precisely the "parthenon" on top... hehehhe Chicago has a great building with "parthenon" on top. I think if it is worked just so, it can look nice... but I'd hate for the courthouse to be a copy of the parthenon... Just build Graves original proposal... please...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Down, boy!!!! You're barking up the wrong leg. Or do you just yelp like a Chihuahua at anyone who would suggest that a poor interpretation of a classically inspired building is always worse than a "new" style (which by the way I never said). You will never hear me (or read from me as the case would be) say that anything new is automatically better that the old classical style. So back the hell off of that assumption right now!

...

Reading your post makes me wonder if you were rejected by MIT. Just so you know, there's not one I.M. Pei building that I even remotely like (including Smithsonian Air and Space).

Why can you not debate the merits of ideas without getting all emotional and stuff? I took issue with some of the things you wrote, and with some of the ideas that you either expressed or accidentally expressed, but I didn't insult you personally. I would never call you a dog or suggest that you were rejected by a declining University. I mean, the second insult wasn't even necessary--if I was a dog, especially a Chihuahua, I would not have even been eligible to apply to MIT. More importantly, I would not have been rejected.

FieldMarshall, I love Paris. I love Mansard Roofs. I think they are brilliant. But I am not really into the whole concept of "period style." That is a relatively new and poorly assembled idea born of the modern age (I don't mean 1920s Modernist, but Enlightenment modern, mid-1700s onwards) which is very limited in my opinion. At some point, "historicism" (the idea that everything fits into a categorized timeline and is part of a progressive continuum, presumably marching towards a future human-crafted Utopia) took control of art, and people began to fashion neo-classical, Gothic Revival, Egyptian Revival, chinoserie, and all kinds of other coffee-table-book gimmick architecture that was much more concerned with the ideas of "style" and their picturesque assocations than they were with Strength, Utility, and Beauty. I dig classical architecture precisely because I think it is timeless (it was old long before the Romans used it) and because it is based upon proportional systems found in the ordered elements of nature, thus hinting at the Divine.

So...now that I've pissed everybody off again, to answer your question: I love Paris, and I would love to see a gorgeous Courthouse, and I could imagine one with much of the vocabulary used in 1850s Paris. But I would rather the architect sit down and say "let's make something beautiful using the articulate and decorous language of classicism" than "let's make a Second Empire building," even though many Second Empire buildings are, in fact, quite beautiful, articulate, and decorous.

The judges involved with the Nashville courthouse design process were probably more likely to pursue the simpler and more "naive" approach of demanding a good and decorous building than was Graves and his thousands of pop-star egoed interns. The fact that the panel was suckered by this design tells us that they may have arrived at the table with poor ideas (conceded, ATLBrain). But it may also tell us that they were afraid of being labeled "old fashioned" or "anti-progressive" by the general post-modern public, and so they compromised for the sake of that tirelessly abstract and oft-demanded "artistic progress." I roll the dice when I argue that historicist "progress" only makes sense if a defined destination is in play--like it was for the Fascists, Communists, and Anarchists.

Of course, Graves' "progress" argument probably consisted mostly of rolling his eyes and stating with minty authority that the classical "had been done already." But...now I'm pissing people off again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FieldMarshall, I love Paris. I love Mansard Roofs. I think they are brilliant. But I am not really into the whole concept of "period style." That is a relatively new and poorly assembled idea born of the modern age (I don't mean 1920s Modernist, but Enlightenment modern, mid-1700s onwards) which is very limited in my opinion. At some point, "historicism" (the idea that everything fits into a categorized timeline and is part of a progressive continuum, presumably marching towards a future human-crafted Utopia) took control of art, and people began to fashion neo-classical, Gothic Revival, Egyptian Revival, chinoserie, and all kinds of other coffee-table-book gimmick architecture that was much more concerned with the ideas of "style" and their picturesque assocations than they were with Strength, Utility, and Beauty. I dig classical architecture precisely because I think it is timeless (it was old long before the Romans used it) and because it is based upon proportional systems found in the ordered elements of nature, thus hinting at the Divine.

So...now that I've pissed everybody off again, to answer your question: I love Paris, and I would love to see a gorgeous Courthouse, and I could imagine one with much of the vocabulary used in 1850s Paris. But I would rather the architect sit down and say "let's make something beautiful using the articulate and decorous language of classicism" than "let's make a Second Empire building," even though many Second Empire buildings are, in fact, quite beautiful, articulate, and decorous.

Thanks. You do have good taste. Too bad the final design doesn't. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can you not debate the merits of ideas without getting all emotional and stuff? I took issue with some of the things you wrote, and with some of the ideas that you either expressed or accidentally expressed, but I didn't insult you personally. I would never call you a dog or suggest that you were rejected by a declining University. I mean, the second insult wasn't even necessary--if I was a dog, especially a Chihuahua, I would not have even been eligible to apply to MIT. More importantly, I would not have been rejected.

I think the reason people get pissed off is because you debate as if no one else has a valid opinion because we are not as well versed in architecture as you. I freely admit that I do not know nearly as much about architecture as you. But if you continue to try to talk over eveyone's head you will succeed and your ideas, however correct they may be, will be lost on us. It is also frustrating to read your posts because there are very very few times when you say anything positive about any design. Criticism is a great thing, but it can be overused. Surely you must realize that architects very rarely are able to design exactly what they want due to economic reasons or the demands that a project's developers place on them. If I as a taxpayer am faced with the choice of accepting this building for x price or getting a better looking building for x + $5 million, I will be choosing the cheaper building everytime. I think once you actually begin designing buildings for a living and people begin criticizing your work your attitude may change. But remember that perhaps if your posts did not harbor a thinly veiled conceit for your fellow poster's opinions you would find a less hostile environment. With that being said I enjoy reading your opinions but think you could often phrase your posts in a less confrontational manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I roll the dice when I argue that historicist "progress" only makes sense if a defined destination is in play--like it was for the Fascists, Communists, and Anarchists.

Speaking of fascists, aren't they a good example of how pedestrian architecture becomes when one just slavishly follows historical precedent? Nothing is more middlebrow than facism and middlebrow taste mostly fears and resents modern architecture.

Now I'm being needlessly provocative.

But I do think it's preposterous to suggest that we should only follow classical forms and that there is some grand conspiracy imposing a modern world view on Nashville. In fact, as I drive around town, what I mostly see are banal recreations of classical buildings. Every bank branch from here to Knoxville has a ridiculous set of "Greek Revival" or "Colonial" columns. In addition to all that slop, there have been some major buildings in the classical style--e.g., the symphony hall and the library--which are really first rate.

What's missing from Nashville is not classical architecure, whether in its high or low forms. What's missing is at least one really fine and imaginative modern building.

(And I don't mind your posts---while they are sometimes condescending I think you have some--repeat some--valid criticisms of modern architecture. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason people get pissed off is because you debate as if no one else has a valid opinion because we are not as well versed in architecture as you. I freely admit that I do not know nearly as much about architecture as you. But if you continue to try to talk over eveyone's head you will succeed and your ideas, however correct they may be, will be lost on us. It is also frustrating to read your posts because there are very very few times when you say anything positive about any design.

...

I think once you actually begin designing buildings for a living and people begin criticizing your work your attitude may change. But remember that perhaps if your posts did not harbor a thinly veiled conceit for your fellow poster's opinions you would find a less hostile environment. With that being said I enjoy reading your opinions but think you could often phrase your posts in a less confrontational manner.

What? I admit that I often talk "shop" and have a lot to say about bad designs--problem is, we are living in an age of prolific badness, and most of it is taking place in the "shop". I will happily concede to you and try to point out the positive a little more often--I suppose I have just felt unwelcome enough to avoid speaking except when I felt compelled to do so by incompetence or insanity. But I will say nice things, too, if my voice is actually desired. I am receiving mixed signals: shut up! and say something sweet.

I do not mean to talk over your head. But one of the great boo-boos that Americans in particular make is that they get all emotional and flustered when they feel like an "elite" or "college boy" is in the room, even if they themselves are secretly "college boys". Now, I would not go into pilasters and tabernacle windows at a rough riding bar in 1890s Tombstone--but why can I not do so here? Is Urban Planet too hardcore for an architectural dialogue that includes actual words? If people have a question about something I write, perhaps they should relax, take a deep breath, and then ask me to clarify instead of acting like Shirley Temple at a disappointing birthday party. If I use a word that seems vague and unhelpful, and dictionary.com doesn't do the trick, call my bluff and I will gladly explain. But I cannot, and will not, pretend I don't know and despise historicism just because most people have not yet taken the time to identify it as a thing.

I will never design buidings, God willing.

I do not possess a contempt, thinly veiled or otherwise, for other people's opinions. I respect theirs and yours and stuff. But I do play rough when it comes to the fallout of Modernism, which I believe is a bunch of evilness, and break little slack for people who make vast assumptions about architectural theory and practice without having observed the bigger picture created by the last few thousand years. It would take five minute to assemble a general take on architecture, but probably at least thirty to bastion it with history. I can help. But I am biased.

I am a classicist. That means I am anti-modern. The Moderns might have the last fifty years on their side--but I have the past four thousand (give or take), and I will act as if I do for honesty's sake as much as anything else. Again, I am not trying to talk over your head. If this all seems like gibberish to you, ask and I will clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really respect your reply. I do have a question though. I was under the impression you were in school currently studying to beomce an architect, is this incorrect? If you are in school I am curious as to your future plans if you don't mind me asking. You seem like a driven individual with at least some idea of what you plan to do for a career and I'm just curious. At some point it'd be cool if perhaps you created a post(I'm thinking it might be quite long) detailing your journey to becoming a classicist.

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.