Federal Courthouse

[doormanpoet]

Regards to what is built, it is important that something be built. This project will be a catalyst to greatly improve a much blighted area in downtown. We need residential, retail, office, and recreational opportunities for my hotel guests without having to send them to second avenue and lower broadway all of the time.

My wish:

The courthouse is built soon. No more delays... This leads to:

An office tower on the Alright Parking lot behind Hume Fogg High School that is owned by Central Parking. They have just raised parking rates, the only surface lot to do so, and this may indicate something is going to happen. They want to have more cash influx before they sell the lot. Hmmmm... This leads to:

Mr. Keenan finally selling the James Robertson Apartments so as to rennovate it as a boutique hotel or a condo building...This leads to:

Someone rennovating the old McQuiddy Office Building into a restaurant or an art gallery...This leads to:

Someone filling in the parking lot next to the James Robertson with a new low rise building with retail and maybe a funky downtown out of the way bar...This leads to:

More valet parking fees and more hotel rooms for my hotel thus increasing my tips... This leads to:

A very happy doorman. Now is that not what everyone wants?

[linclink]

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. )

I agree 100000% !!!!!!!

There is enough classical (and classical knock-off) architecture in downtown Nashville as it is. I for one would love to see some great examples of modern (not ala the music hall of fame piano, nor the jetsons type convention center, but TRUE and BEAUTIFUL modern), as well as just plain contemporary. Now if they wanted to build some great buildings ala the ones from the late 1800s on to just past the turn of the century (like one sees in downtown New York, Chicago, Boston, st. louis, etc...) where there are great details and ornamentation on the buildings, that'd be great. I'd be all for it.

Here are some examples of what I am talking about (in regards to the older buiding look, but not quite Ancient Greece and Rome, old... hehehehe)

I edited this so you guys could see the image... if it still cannot be seen... just click on the links:

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixw...5/01/333446.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixw...5/10/408407.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/451698.jpg

Of course, we all know how expensive it is to get buildings like these.. so the chances are ..........

zero

zip

nada

That being the case... some great modern buildings would be AWESOME!!!!!! Something that is beautiful, but with clean lines, and done in great taste. This may not sit well with alot of people here but, I do hope that the Symphony Hall (while SPECTACULAR) will be the end of the "classical" buildings in Nashville. At least for the next 10 years or so... Once we have plenty of other styles in there... then they can add some more classical buildings... But for now, something different would be a GREAT change. And with an inclusion of many different styles, the truly great "classical' buidings will really pop and be a crowning jewel (as is the case with Chicago's Museum Campus), instead of just another classical design in the midst of many.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^None of your pictures showed up, hun. Don't worry, I've never been able to figure out how to post pics on here, either.

[NewTowner]

There is enough classical (and classical knock-off) architecture in downtown Nashville as it is. I for one would love to see some great examples of modern (not ala the music hall of fame piano, nor the jetsons type convention center, but TRUE and BEAUTIFUL modern), as well as just plain contemporary.

Problem is...the Moderns do not believe in TRUE or BEAUTIFUL. According to them, these silly non-issues are expressions of the purely subjective--"everything is relative, humans are not of the same image, etc. etc. etc". You will find CHALLENGING and INSPIRED from the decendants of the Bauhaus, but you will not hear the words TRUE or BEAUTIFUL.

You are asking the wrong question from the wrong crowd.

Also, I would like to suggest that bad knock-off classical buildings are not truly classical, because classical is not a style or a layer of applied makeup--it is a fundamental principle of design. There is a great deal of architectural vocabularly that comes with it, but this should not be confused for a "style." The concept of "style" is itself incompatible with classicism. Even if, however, bad classical buildings were classical, using them as argument against classicism places a rather heavy burden of logic on you and your friends--after all, one would not use bad parents as an argument against having a Mommy in general, nor would one use a bad sandwhich as an argument against food, or even sandwhiches.

Why doesn't someone actually explain why they want a Contemporary (I presume you don't really mean Modern) Courthouse? Is there something about Contemporary architecture which is inherently valuable, something which, like a column or pediment, bears Meaning? Or do you all just think it "looks cool"?

Here is the gauntlet, lying gently on the floor.

[linclink]

^None of your pictures showed up, hun. Don't worry, I've never been able to figure out how to post pics on here, either.

Thats weird!!!

They show up on my computer.... Does no one else see them? Let me know ok guys!!

[smeagolsfree]

It says IPB image but is not showing on the screen with no icon to click on either.

[linclink]

I edited this so you guys could see the image... if it still cannot be seen... just click on the links:

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixw...5/01/333446.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixw...5/10/408407.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/451698.jpg

New Towner

I am going to post some pics of what I am talking about in regards to both Modern and contemporary architecture, which I believe DOES have beauty. I think pictures will be the best way for us to communicate... that way my lack of architectural "lingo" won't interfere... we can each see what the other one is talking about (regardless of wether or not the "terms" are correct).

Just give me some time... I'll be sure to post a reply to your questions tonigh.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I edited this so you guys could see the image... if it still cannot be seen... just click on the links:

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixw...5/01/333446.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixw...5/10/408407.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/451698.jpg

The links aren't working, either. They read: 403 Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /files/transfer/6/2006/04/451698.jpg on this server. Any other way to see these photos ?

[jice]

The links aren't working, either. They read: 403 Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /files/transfer/6/2006/04/451698.jpg on this server. Any other way to see these photos ?

I get 403 Forbidden on the first two but the last one shows up. I'm thinkin its a problem with emporis, depending on what your ISP is. Might be best to just save the pix and host them on photobucket or somethin?

[NewTowner]

New Towner

I am going to post some pics of what I am talking about in regards to both Modern and contemporary architecture, which I believe DOES have beauty. I think pictures will be the best way for us to communicate... that way my lack of architectural "lingo" won't interfere... we can each see what the other one is talking about (regardless of wether or not the "terms" are correct).

Just give me some time... I'll be sure to post a reply to your questions tonigh.

I never argued that Modern buildings couldn't be beautiful. I only argued that the Modernists didn't believe beauty existed. Read The Athens Charter or any other founding Manifesto of 20th-century Modernism and you will see what I mean.

Contemporary buildings are a little more complicated, but it is still impossible to technically declare that your design aspires to "beauty" in 99% of the architecture schools out there, because the programs are still taught on the Bauhaus model--and this of course has ramifications on the design philosophies produced by these institutions. Progressive, cutting-edge, challenging...these are the words used to praise architecture today by the professionals and their mentors. If you think a contemporary building is beautiful, and you told the architect about it, he or she would probably thank you and immediately assume you were an aesthetic amateur (but a very sweet one).

This is less true now than it was twenty, or even ten years ago--and I am sure a bunch of people are going to post some nasty business and tell me I am wrong immediately. But check it out for yourself. Sit in on a Building Arts student design critique session in any major university today, anywhere in the world, and count the times you hear the word "beautiful" in any sense whatsoever, even the sarcastic. You will probably come up with a number similar to the one you would get if you also counted peg legs or propeller beanies. Actually...beauty would definitely lose to the latter. Stick with the peg legs.

[bnaflyer]

.

Why doesn't someone actually explain why they want a Contemporary (I presume you don't really mean Modern) Courthouse? Is there something about Contemporary architecture which is inherently valuable, something which, like a column or pediment, bears Meaning? Or do you all just think it "looks cool"?

Here is the gauntlet, lying gently on the floor.

I don't entirely buy the notion that architecture must be burdened with "Meaning" or even "meaning." This to me seems as unfair an imposition as declaring that architecture is merely functional. And despite what the modernists may have said, I am free to find (some) modern (yes, Modern) and (some) contemporary architecture beautiful. And I do. For example, Lever House looks as fresh to me today as the day it was built. Who can look at it and not be moved? It is beautiful and yes, to the extent that Meaning is required its clean lines and curtain of glass breaks through the ponderous "classical" structures in surrounding blocks--making a statement that is undeniably modern (with a little "m"). And oh yes, it "looks cool."

This isn't true of all Modern buildings and certainly not all contemporary buildings and this isn't a wholesale acceptance or endorsement of the Modernist credo, but I never understand why academic architecture always seems to insist on absolute devotion to one "side" or another. As a layman I don't have to buy into such absolutism. I can enjoy the beauty of Lever House and the stately elegance of the Schermerhorn Center. Both are "good" architecture (one ranks as "great") and to appreciate the beauty of one doesn't mean you should be forbidden to appreciate the other. At least in my opinion.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I am free to find (some) modern (yes, Modern) and (some) contemporary architecture beautiful. And I do. For example, Lever House looks as fresh to me today as the day it was built. Who can look at it and not be moved?

=Raises hand=

Lever House reminds me of one of the inspirations that begat the ghastly and soulless Internationalist style of highrise that infests way too many of our cities. It would be "OK" at best if it were one of only a few examples of the style, but I can't get too worked up over it.

[barakat]

=Raises hand=

Lever House reminds me of one of the inspirations that begat the ghastly and soulless Internationalist style of highrise that infests way too many of our cities. It would be "OK" at best if it were one of only a few examples of the style, but I can't get too worked up over it.

Forgive my ignorance, but is the AmSouth Bank building considered International style? I know it's somewhat pedestrian-hostile [tho not to the extreme like Snodgrass Tower], but I do like some aspects of building.

[NewTowner]

I don't entirely buy the notion that architecture must be burdened with "Meaning" or even "meaning." This to me seems as unfair an imposition as declaring that architecture is merely functional.

Even if I could grant you this, I would still ask you if a Federal Courthouse could be counted among those structures which are permitted to be mute. To me, the implications of that are terrifying and nearly Apocalyptic.

For example, Lever House looks as fresh to me today as the day it was built. Who can look at it and not be moved? It is beautiful and yes, to the extent that Meaning is required its clean lines and curtain of glass breaks through the ponderous "classical" structures in surrounding blocks--making a statement that is undeniably modern (with a little "m"). And oh yes, it "looks cool."

The "Modern" you speak of here definitely requires the big "M". McKim, Mead, & White's classical structures in Manhattan were just as "little-m" modern as the Lever House was when they were all built, within decades of each other. The idea that "modern" has to be "different" and "technological-looking" is Modernism with a Capital M. Remember, classical architecture cannot be called "old" or "not-modern" anymore than bread or the Indo-European languages can be described as "not-modern." They all change over time, and they are all simultaneously both ancient and completely new.

...I never understand why academic architecture always seems to insist on absolute devotion to one "side" or another. As a layman I don't have to buy into such absolutism. I can enjoy the beauty of Lever House and the stately elegance of the Schermerhorn Center. Both are "good" architecture (one ranks as "great") and to appreciate the beauty of one doesn't mean you should be forbidden to appreciate the other. At least in my opinion.

You really don't have to feel one way or the other about any of this. I am not arguing that your feelings should be swayed in one direction, or that your opinions should be formed under this or that auspice--I am merely debating the Federal Courthouse in Nashville. Nobody is forbidding you to appreciate anything, and in fact--for real--your appreciating of stuff is even not the issue at hand.

I think the Federal Courthouse should be a well-designed, contemporary classical building built with Strength, Utility, and Beauty as its objects, using a formal vocabulary that will speak to the larger principles that form our culture's system of justice, following the guidelines of decorum, and, in the end, worthy of both respect and affection. Given today's climate of constant improvization and experimentation, a dignified and articulate contemporary classical building would actually be as cutting-edge as one could get. A Modern building--and the Graves Motel Monolith truly is a product of "Modern" thinking--would only serve to further abstract our already intangible and distant system of laws...not to mention the values that informed their framing.

You see, I already buy my fast food in a cartoon--I would rather not watch a man be sentenced to die in one.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Forgive my ignorance, but is the AmSouth Bank building considered International style? I know it's somewhat pedestrian-hostile [tho not to the extreme like Snodgrass Tower], but I do like some aspects of building.

Unless NewTowner can correct me, it is in the International style. I always thought it to be the ugliest of our towers, save Parkway Towers (it used to be even uglier when the roof was painted turd-brown, but toned down to match the rest of the building in the '90s). I much more appreciate Snodgrass, however, if only because of its more dignified bearing and color. It also didn't used to appear as "isolated" as it does now, since there was an entire row of mid-rise buildings along the western side of 7th Avenue (including the original National Life & Accident Insurance Co. Building, a grand old Art Deco) which stood until the '80s, and the plaza was just a narrow strip about as wide as the building stretching down to Union. With the demolition of those structures, they expanded the plaza to cover the entire block. I think it's a colossal waste of space, forlorn and depressing, and I'll tell you that in my lifetime as a Nashvillian (32 years), I've only walked across that plaza precisely once.

[barakat]

Unless NewTowner can correct me, it is in the International style. I always thought it to be the ugliest of our towers, save Parkway Towers (it used to be even uglier when the roof was painted turd-brown, but toned down to match the rest of the building in the '90s). I much more appreciate Snodgrass, however, if only because of its more dignified bearing and color. It also didn't used to appear as "isolated" as it does now, since there was an entire row of mid-rise buildings along the western side of 7th Avenue (including the original National Life & Accident Insurance Co. Building, a grand old Art Deco) which stood until the '80s, and the plaza was just a narrow strip about as wide as the building stretching down to Union. With the demolition of those structures, they expanded the plaza to cover the entire block. I think it's a colossal waste of space, forlorn and depressing, and I'll tell you that in my lifetime as a Nashvillian (32 years), I've only walked across that plaza precisely once.

I walked across the plaza at Snodgrass yesterday.. it's pitiful. Lots of cracked/missing marble and weeds growning between the cracks of what seems like a vast, barren field of white. I like the base of the buliding, how the curved marble connects the plaza to the tower. Up close, it has a space-age/Star Wars thing going on. Aside from that, the plaza has got to be one of the most uninviting areas downtown. It's only reason to get close are the views away from it. And the bulding itself is filthy. Sorry so off topic.

[bnaflyer]

=Raises hand=

Lever House reminds me of one of the inspirations that begat the ghastly and soulless Internationalist style of highrise that infests way too many of our cities. It would be "OK" at best if it were one of only a few examples of the style, but I can't get too worked up over it.

This actually underscores one of my points. The real enemy isn't Modern architecure or classical architecture, it's bad architecture. While Lever House looks fresh and new (to me, at least, and to a few others!) , many of its descendants are abominations. Others are just mediocre. But these descendants are just expressions of Modernist principles in the hands of less capable architects. They are not really worthy standard bearers of Modernist architecture. Just as, say, the new drive through bank on 21st Avenue between Blakemore and 440, despite its columns, is not really a worthy descendant of Strickland's Second Bank of the United States.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I walked across the plaza at Snodgrass yesterday.. it's pitiful. Lots of cracked/missing marble and weeds growning between the cracks of what seems like a vast, barren field of white. I like the base of the buliding, how the curved marble connects the plaza to the tower. Up close, it has a space-age/Star Wars thing going on. Aside from that, the plaza has got to be one of the most uninviting areas downtown. It's only reason to get close are the views away from it. And the bulding itself is filthy. Sorry so off topic.

No, no, you are absolutely dead-on here. I think ever since it reverted to state ownership, it has gotten really run-down. It was in better shape before NL&A/American General divested itself of it. And I miss the messages, too (I considered it the "friendliest" high-rise downtown because of that).

They are not really worthy standard bearers of Modernist architecture. Just as, say, the new drive through bank on 21st Avenue between Blakemore and 440, despite its columns, is not really a worthy descendant of Strickland's Second Bank of the United States.

[doormanpoet]

I went to GSA.gov and it still lists this building as "in design." Construction could still be years away.

[smeagolsfree]

Looks as if the funds are not available for the Federal Courthouse. But, it looks as if Senator Frist will be the namesake.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0706/072106cdam1.htm

[bnaflyer]

Looks as if the funds are not available for the Federal Courthouse. But, it looks as if Senator Frist will be the namesake.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0706/072106cdam1.htm

I'll say it again--has there ever been a more ineffective Majority Leader of the Senate than Frist? He can't even convince his own party to build a needed federal courthouse in his hometown.... So much for bringing home the bacon

[cheeriokid61]

So basically, what happened, is he figured that he couldn't get the funds for it, so they told him that he could at least have his name on it, to make him happy. Why would he put his name on something that he did nothing to help fund?

[ATLBrain]

That is absolutely hilarious... of course, where's the Tennessean on something this revealing?

Let's see if I got this right: Frist couldn't get any of the funds for a courthouse that has been on the boards for years... but as a consolation prize, the courthouse will be named for him. That's as stupid as agreeing to pay for a new Porsche for your next door neighbor and being happy to allow him to park it in your driveway.

That guy can't get out of there early enough for me. Now if you can get rid of Jim Cooper in the deal, you guys may be able to get some real leadership up there. Who's running against cooper?

[ATLBrain]

One bright spot in this might be that the project gets tabled for several more years, and the Embassy Suites designed by Graves and Co. will get scuttled for a more elegant project. Also, you can hope that when the funding is passed and you actually get a building, then the name for a real building will be for someone more deserving of the honor.

Can you tell I'm a lawyer? I had hopes for a beautiful new CH in the next year or two. Hell, back in '89, John Lewis just kicked and cried a little and got a huge, new $150 million (in 1990 dollars) Federal CH for Atlanta... and he was just a Congressman.

[memphian]

well this may have an impact on the Homewood Suites for Church Street - which will not be a good thing. I was really hoping for the life that this building would bring to Church Street.