Jump to content

Clarence E. Lightner Public Safety Center


ChiefJoJo

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We should send a CSI unit to schools of architecture around the country to see if they can find the last curved line used in recent building design. Can't anybody do anything other than boxes or straight lines on angles?

I don't disagree with you, there should be more variation in building design, but logically speaking stuff fits better in square versus a circle. Also, it is much easier to build something that has straight edges versus curved (just try drawing some circles). When building public buildings, where the cost is always an issue, square/rectangle is going to the obvious choice. And in the same way, when private companies build something, a square building on a square lot will generally be a better use of space than a circle inside a square.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should send a CSI unit to schools of architecture around the country to see if they can find the last curved line used in recent building design. Can't anybody do anything other than boxes or straight lines on angles?

With all do respect, your request for curved surfaces on the building envelope without listing any practical advantages is almost comical. With construction costs ever rising, every square foot of space must be utilized. The building's design should best facilitate the functions within, and with taxpayers footing the bill this becomes even more important.

Spaces enclosed with curves are hard to furnish and always result in wasted sq. footage that must be heated/cooled and maintained.

I too love a gently arc-ing curtainwall now and then-(333 west wacker in chicago). But here again the curve best utilized the triangular site and had a purpose.

I like the proposed public safety center design, and wish the new justice center had more of this 21st century aesthetic. The justice center's facade looks dated, boring and tries to convey the building's purpose too literally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

N&O summary. The center will have a large assembly hall and a cafe at the bottom. Probably one of the best features is a stormwater collection system, and IIRC it may have a green roof. The city manager says the building will likely be paid for, at least partially by COPS, Certificates of Participation.

Man, I wish they would at least try for a bond, as it carries a lower interest rate. If voters are stupid, then use COPS. I understand bringing up a bond can be risky politically, but its the cheaper and therefore right thing to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all do respect, your request for curved surfaces on the building envelope without listing any practical advantages is almost comical.

First, I'm glad you have lots of respect for my hair.

I find the idea that cost-effectiveness is always more important than the building's visual contribution to the cityscape is terribly disheartening. This is another problem with current architectural trends.

What I'm looking for is some softening of the buildings themselves. Much of this can be accomplished through ornamentation or simple adjustment of design elements on the building's exterior without sacrificing the maximization of space within a largely square building footprint.

Look at the Boston Public Library or the Vienna City Hall.

Both buildings are essentially square or rectangular blocks. The BPL has curved windows that stand out from the basic facade wall, ornate wrought-iron lanterns to focus attention on the main entrance, small circular decorative stonework between the windows, and a green metal (copper?) trim on the roof that also brings some curves into the design, offsetting the heavy, solid stonework.

The Vienna City Hall has moorish/byzantine window designs with arches and circles, circular turrets on the 5 mostly square towers, arched doorways, and a circular clock. All of these touches humanize the buildings.

I'm not saying we need to build public buildings exactly in these styles, but the near complete lack of any curved lines in our current crop of new buildings is getting increasingly tired and boring. Both buildings referenced above were built by societies with much less collective wealth than ours has today.

Finally, if anyone believes modern buildings just can't be done with artistic flourishes while maximizing interior space on the public dime, please check out the relatively new Chicago Public Library, which opened in 1991.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'm glad you have lots of respect for my hair.

I find the idea that cost-effectiveness is always more important than the building's visual contribution to the cityscape is terribly disheartening. This is another problem with current architectural trends.

What I'm looking for is some softening of the buildings themselves. Much of this can be accomplished through ornamentation or simple adjustment of design elements on the building's exterior without sacrificing the maximization of space within a largely square building footprint.

Look at the Boston Public Library or the Vienna City Hall.

The big difference between the cities that you mention and Raleigh is that those cities have a long standing architectural history. Raleigh has no history at all when it comes to designing and implementing multi-story public works. Perusing old news articles about Raleigh shows that there has never been any motivation (in fact, they seem to have vociferously fought) efforts to turn Raleigh in a any kind of city at all. This has started to change over the last 15 or so years, but there are still people in the hinterlands questioning the need for and even the existance of an urban core. Boston, Chicago and Vienna over the years seemed to have built their public buildings with an eye towards representing the image they wanted to portray. Raleigh is years from this kind of thinking - if it ever happens. Not to say that grandly architected buildings aren't great - I hope that those buildings will come in time. As for now, it seems the best we can hope for is an increase in office and residential density and wait for the bar to be raised on the aesthetics of these structures as the view of Raleigh as a city (and the city's self-esteem) matures over the next 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big difference between the cities that you mention and Raleigh is that those cities have a long standing architectural history. Raleigh has no history at all when it comes to designing and implementing multi-story public works. Perusing old news articles about Raleigh shows that there has never been any motivation (in fact, they seem to have vociferously fought) efforts to turn Raleigh in a any kind of city at all. This has started to change over the last 15 or so years, but there are still people in the hinterlands questioning the need for and even the existance of an urban core.

And they have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than "I don't like change," so we shouldn't listen to them.

Raleigh has truly had enough timid incrementalism over the years. We need bigger, bolder goals.

And Jones133 nailed it above- we used to build buildings like this, here in Raleigh. We're just out of practice asking for them, and so are the architects out of practice in building them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... It's kind of unfair to Raleigh to try and make that comparison.

Its really unfair to compare Raleigh with many of the cities mentioned here. Many of the skylines in America aren't that recognizable or especially flashy or trend setting. Cities definitely benefit from 'nice' buildings but its not what makes a city, and I think we should stop implying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Design contract has been increased by $1.8 million:

http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/...8-10524914.html

Although the pricetag ($226M) is going to be tough to swallow, I like the inclusion of the 600-seat assembly hall in the project. Hopefully, it will be designed with lots of glass on the ground floor to draw wandering eyes towards the public uses inside (since, I don't think there will be any retail other than the "small cafe"). I recall the council had a tough time arguing over the proper site, but the old police station has to go, and I like the reuse of an existing and underutilized city-owned site (& maybe some of its materials).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With everything going into here, will the "Dawson" half of the existing property be unnecessary? Maybe the city wants to sell it for a Hue 2 or other development? Or move the workers in One Exchange back to Hargett after Lightner is open for business and sell it? The current council chambers are dated and don't exactly scream "world class city."

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.