I don’t always know which topics will spur a discussion on this streetcorner.
Sunday’s legal notice about the abandoned historic property on Main Street started slowly, then suddenly accelerated into a spirited debate over the nature and suitability of new construction downtown. Meanwhile, Monday’s human rights rumination elicited a few insightful comments, but didn’t reach critical mass.
Many thanks go to Lawguy for sharing at least some of the plans for new construction at 3rd and Main. There certainly is consensus that a building standing at the corner is preferable to the gravel-strewn scar currently occupying the space, and looking at the west side of 3rd between Main and Market, we hope that the building and renovation bug spreads inward from his firm’s job site.
One comment of Lawguy’s caught my attention:
It would be nice to have the resources to build a marvelous italianate design, or something equally exotic to compliment the Parthenon building a block away. However, in the end, it is an office, not a museum, so some amount of daily practicality will inevitably have to prevail.
Ironically, when it was built almost two hundred years ago, the Parthenon wasn’t a museum, either. It was a bank – an office of the time. How many of us have marveled at the epic scale and loving detail of buildings built in the city’s “imperial” era? Did the planners and builders of the day have the same discussions as we had yesterday about resources and practicality?
Something about this idea of exoticism vs. practicality strikes very closely to the heart of a topic that arises here with clocklike regularity, and perhaps mirrors a similar strain in the nation as a whole. Exactly how is it that our city’s founders “could do,” and did, and we chronically “can’t do,” and don't? Supposedly we’re far more advanced in every manifestation of knowledge and skill, yet we seem incapable of the simple feat of imagining qualities of bigger and better.
This rumination shouldn’t be taken as a swipe at Lawguy’s new building at 3rd and Main. I’ve not seen the design, and as noted yesterday, it is my fervent hope that the structure leans more toward the instincts of Columbus than Madison. Even as we observe the necessary protocols of historical preservation, which I personally find quite worthy, it remains that each era of human habitation should have its own signature -- and will, whether we always approve or not.
Ultimately, my favorite places are those where the different signatures of different eras each exhibit a similar conceptual exuberance and an explicit recognition of the striving toward the potentialities of excellence that should preface all our activities as people.
Make us proud, Lawguy. I’ll be happy to see the gravel displaced and the activity begin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I would have to say that the architectural details on the older houses and buildings in the downtown/ main street area are so aesthetically appealing to me, that the typical brick “boxes” commonly built these days are just so boring by way of comparison.
I think that the character of the older buildings are so unique, all of the details of the building come together in a way that moves the structure from a habitation to almost a work of art. The colors of the buildings as well lend to the visual appeal of them, when you put all the buildings that are so different from one another together, they all meld into what could be the equivalent to comfort food for the eyes, all so different, but work together to paint a picture of better times “back in the day”.
Do not get me wrong, any new construction would probably be better than a trash strewn empty lot, or a structure that through neglect is beyond restoration.
But I do think that the character of the surrounding area should be a strong consideration when designing a new building. It should compliment the surrounding architectural designs, not necessarily mimic the surroundings, because as you said, each generation of structures kind of serves as a fingerprint for that stage of a society, but anymore it would seem that our finger print is sterile, and with out much character. This does not mean it would not be a beautiful structure; it may in fact be a more energy efficient, space efficient design, and 100 years from now, when New Albany is a coastal city because the sea levels rose so much, people may be saying how unique that building is, because they used 90 degree corners, straight up and down exterior walls when everything switched to round buildings, or domes, or who knows what.
I've been working to document and restore a collection of modern buildings on Cape Cod for a few years, by architects like Gropius, Breuer, Chermayeff, etc. I'd be over-joyed to see a true modern building go up downtown a la Columbus. But that takes vision and guts. The only vision the people with the resouces to construct new buildings have given us here are low-slung windowless residential looking wastes of space. Sorry guys but about 50 years ago some idiot had the horrible idea of destroying an amazingly well-constructed old city so they could replace it with whatever cheap crap some developer could quickly slap down. I say if parking is your main concern, then you should build in the suburbs. That's the whole point of the suburbs isn't it? This topic really makes my blood boil as you can tell. What kind of town destroys itself over time?
What bothers me a great deal are the gravel lots. This is where city planning and zoning should step it. No way should the City of New Albany allow a property owner to demo a building and leave the lot a gravel-strewn eyesore.
The building on that site was demolished, so a permit must have been obtained to do so. Why was the owner allowed to just haul in a bunch of gravel to cover it? Or taking it further, were they given guidelines pertaining to buffering and paving that they chose to ignore? It wouldn't be the first time.
The new building proposed for this site will have to undergo a review by the Historic Preservation Commission prior to construction. I have faith that they will make appropriate recommendations. We have a number of sharp, historically educated people on the board. When the East Main Street area was the site of a new apartment building, the HPC required a number of modifications to the plans to fit into the district. The result is, in my opinion, a very pleasing structure, which replaced the unkempt parking lot previously there.
Instead of gravel, why not just green space?
Exactly. Or a buffered, landscaped and paved lot.
I must admit, I like the green space next to St Marks instead of the old marble bank building. I know lots of folks hated to see that building torn down, but all in all it looks good.
For weeks we have been hearing the pile driver at Scribner Place, it will be so good to see steel start to rise from the now very large hole in the ground.
On a sad note, if you have been downtown this past week, the daffodils have sprouted on Market Street, a couple of months early! This cold snap should put the brakes on them! Just wonder if we will get more in the spring!
Gina, we just seem to be on opposite sides of this one, no matter how hard we try to find common ground. In ruminating over your thoughts, a few questions follow...
You mention "cheap crap" in reference to something, presumably downtown, that a "developer could quickly slap down". What exactly are you talking about, as far as the downtown district? I wont argue that the shopping centers erected along State Street (north), or on Charlestown Road, or even the in Highlander Point have anything unique, historic or even interesting about them. But, as far as downtown....what are you referring to in particular? I do have a guess, as you do seem to be "boiling" over something....what in particular has you so angry?
I suppose I think its a little unfair to suggest that anyone who does not desire to build something reflective of the architectural styles of the past century should be banished to the suburbs. The only thing certain in life (besides death and taxes) is that periods of history and their accompanying styles, trends and benchmarks will continue to change as the years go by. So long as we preserve what needs to be preserved, as well as incorporate the present (and the future) alongside our past in a thoughtful and tasteful way, there's no shame in blending old with new.
Besides, without trying to be a smarty pants, parking HAS to be a concern for anyone running a business - whether downtown or in the burbs. It doesnt matter whether its a law firm, an antique store or a restaurant. I'm sure our moderator would agree that its essential that those folks wanting to patronize his wonderful establishments must have somewhere suitable to park their vehicles. Since we do not live in a city where public transportation is an option - the only way customers, clients and restaurant patrons are going to head downtown is via their cars.
Downtown Charlottesville, Virginia decided years ago to end traffic (and the flow of cars) in its downtown district to create a "downtown mall". Having been there a dozen times in my life, I've watched as an interesting idea slowly caused the businesses to dry up and move away. Its just a simple fact that all businesses need parking. As a society, we're all not willing to park several blocks away and walk to our destination. Its sad but true.
And for what its worth...while I would have preferred not to have used up any of our lot for parking (in exchange for more green space, or a fountain, or a courtyard), it is my understanding that the city does require some amount of parking for a business. I'll admit the numbers and/or details escape me, but it was something we were required to consider.
My final thought is that until you've sat down and met not only with an architect, but with general contractors and whatnot to design & praice the cost of building something marvelous in this day and age, you have no idea what it really requires to get it all done. I have been consistently amazed (or dumbfounded, more aptly) as I've watched the project grow and seen all that went into it.
Besides, its all well and good to opine what other people should do with their money as far as the grandeur of a downtown project, but as in life, its always much easier to suggest ways to spend someone else's money that one's own, true?
All I will say, Roger, is that rest assured, NOTHING with this project is being done on the cheap. We'll try hard to do you proud.
I'll try to scan and download a few elevations from the plan showing the various facades of the plans. The entryway, along main, is absoutely marvelous with its columns and linear lines, the windows (yes, there are MANY windows) are large, and the ironwork along the rear of the building is unique and unlike anything I have ever seen.
The City demo'd that property, if I remember correctly, under Overton's administration. I'm not sure if they placed a lien on the property taxes or not for that tear down. The City also filled in one of the "underground tunnels" there. Also, there are laws on the books about "no gravel lots" -- just ask WATCO! Simply another example of lack of enforcement we all bitterly complain about.
Be careful in this area concerning sewers. In 1999, the entire City was "smoked", and there were no sewers in a few blocks down that way, especially that block. Steins Glass is shown to run across the street to the Mobile Home Shop, and they have a septic which flows to the Church. Somehow the "tunnels" are playing a role in those few blocks downtown, but no one is talking and the EPA feels the tunnels being filled in (and something has got to be done because we still have some septics down on Main St in a two-three block area) are outside their scope. The tunnels are historical, only to us.
Knowing that more than a few people are aware of the existence of the "tunnels" and where they are, etc., sure leaves us scratching our heads.
The studies I mentioned are located inside the new Sewer Plant, volumes upon volumes. If you need help, holler. Good luck.
In defense of Gina's comments, she did say that she'd love to see something truly modern built downtown. The names that she threw out let me know that her opinion of what consitutes quality within a modern framework isn't uninformed.
It's sometimes possible to build something with enduring modern sightlines for less money than what many spend to build nondescript, architecturally insignificant structures. Better design, technological advances, and prefabrication are actually reducing costs, increasing aesthetic, and proving more ecologically friendly (read: cheaper to heat and cool).
For a better idea of where I'm coming from, check out the fablist. It's aimed mostly at the residential market but many of the building systems are easily adapted for commercial use. A well-informed architect could point someone to even more options.
With all that said, I've no idea what the proposed legal office building looks like. As such, this isn't meant as a criticism of that project or anyone in particular. It's just a lament that most people don't actually consider a wider range of alternatives- or even the general impact of the built environment- before deciding what a project's costs are and whether or not they're affordable.
lawguy - challenge accepted - I'll photo some buildings on the "cheap crap" scale and post them on my blog this week. Yes, bluegill, having lived in Boston and Europe and having personally added three modern structures to the national register (see Architectual Record Aug 05) I can attest to the rich urban fabric that results when old and new intermingle. If I were to build a building here it would be modern, bauhaus modern, not Vegas modern I would add. What town wouldn't want some of Columbus's fine buildings? Sadly all this town has gotten is a whack from a wrecking ball and a handful of ill-advised faux suburban residential-type buildings which are not only bad for the town, but are an insult to architecture. By the way, I loved Bob Applegate's whimsy even though some of it is looking alittle bleak with time.
Well, yeah, but did anybody famous ever sleep there? ;-}
Seriously, it's great that you took the intitiative on the buildings. I'll have to look up the Architectural Record.
If we ever built, it'd no doubt be modern. Having grown up in a more rural area, that was actually what we were planning on doing before we met this crazy bunch in New Albany and decided that preaching New Urbanism while tearing up greenspace didn't make much sense, regardless of how it was built.
I'd still like to tackle a loft project someday for fun but I'm happy in our bungalow. As a transitional piece of sorts, it suits my mixed up preservationist/modernist leanings. If Victorian is a novel and Bauhaus is a poem, I figure we got a short story.
We were able to salvage a couple of Barcelona chairs from a sale at the library. Mrs. Applegate was one of the few who recognized them.
I grew up in a Bob Applegate designed home so I'm really quite fond of him. I recall he and his wife Janet were the kind of "characters" we need more of! Bluegill - love the analogy of bauhaus to a poem...so true. At one time I built out a loft in boston - 7000square feet of soaring space and it was fun fun. Kinda want to do that again here too.
Lawguy wrote:
I'll try to scan and download a few elevations from the plan showing the various facades of the plans.
If you wish, send them to me and I'll post on the marquee with your commentary.
The discussion engendered here has been entertaining and enlightening. There has been a worthwhile exchange. We need something similar in the Tribune so as to expose a larger slice of the population to these issues and trends.
Mr. K, have you been reading?
Post a Comment