Atlantic Station, what exactly are you doing?
Decatur Metro | June 15, 2008‘Sup Atlantic Station? It’s been a while since we last talked. (Apparently I’m into taking to buildings today. That’s normal, right?)
I believe the last time our paths crossed I questioned why no one seemed to walk down your streets outside the shopping district. Since then you’ve opened an H&M and continued on your quest to build glassy condos, regardless of whether there’s demand.
But that’s not what I’m interested in today. Today, I’m wondering…what the hell is this?
No…not the guy or the mailbox with the hand-written number. I’m referring to that thing behind him. Is that the Arc de Triomphe? Did you steal the Arc de Triomphe from the good people of France and add an observation deck at the top? Why would you do that?!
Oh…its not the Arc? It’s a $15 million Arch financed by Atlanta families that was first supposed to be built in D.C.? And you let them build it amidst two walls of distinctly 21st century-style condos? Why did you do that? What about Atlantic Station screams “we need an over-sized Roman arch? And why did you put it in the residential district? Any why is it named the Millennium Gate when it was built in 2007/8?
I’m wondering what it symbolizes and says about Atlanta other than “We have no identity!”? It doesn’t evoke its history or its character. Heck, you can’t even drive under it! Instead, its just another $15 million man-made object that says to the world unconvincingly yells “Atlantic Station is the Paris of brownfill development!”
But this is a good lesson for the kids. If anyone ever offers to build you a $15 million arch because he likes Roman architecture, think first about whether it makes ANY sense at all.
(Photo courtesy of the AJC)
I’ll bet I can give a stronger rationale for the gate than anyone can give me for the condos immediately adjacent. Whether those with a modern bent acknowledge it or not, Greco Roman Classicism is the symbolic architecture of democracy. If you want to make a statement of democratic ideals — freedom, victory over oppression or, in this case, a belief that democracy functions best when provided enduring public spaces in which a genuine public discourse can take place, Greek/Roman Classical is the way to go.
Can anyone provide an equally meaningful rationale for the design of the adjacent condos? They’re pastiches of the worst kind of post-modern kitsch. Hundreds or thousands of years from now, based on other built evidence, any archaeologist will be able to determine what the gate stands for. As for the condos, in all their EIFS glory, the only thing anyone will be able to surmise is that they represent a culture more concerned with temporary comfort than with lasting value.
Given that, which is more ludicrous?
Scott
I agree that the condos are terribly uninspiring. But I still like the arch even less.
And I’m not sure that any intent of building that thing had anything to do with displaying a symbol of democracy. Greco-Roman can be just as poorly executed and unsympathetic as a Craftsman-style McMansion.
I do think there’s a democratic element. The foundation behind it describes their mission as one “to further the cause of classically responsible and inspirational urban design, assisting in a renaissance of urban centers which have been, throughout American and world history, a cradle of human culture” and the arch contains a museum detailing (paraphrasing a bit) the founding of the US, how Truth and Reason were at the core of the effort, and how our form of government is an enlightened one, regarded at its inception as quite revolutionary.
As for the design itself, it got positive nods from Robert Stern and Leon Krier, among others. Those fellers are hardly thematic style merchants. That’s some fairly esteemed company. Certainly it offers some level of cred, even if one’s not a fan.
I don’t want to perpetuate a style-based point/counter point. Some folks like it old school, some new, and that’s all good. My point is that every piece of architecture constructed to date at Atlantic Station has been arbitrary or, perhaps worse, referential in a cartoon way. This is the first thing that, whether you like it or not, is neither.
Maybe I just have a polar opposite opinion. To me, the arch is the one thing at Atlantic Station that actually says something coherent. It’s everything else that’s outta place!
When I went to Atlantic Station after it opened, all I could think was “This is just like Epcot”- it all seems so fake to me. Kinda like Las Vegas. But Atlanta does tend to tear down the old and build new- some designed well, some seemingly not designed at all.
So a seemingly out of place arch fits right in with the rest of the bad idea called Atlantic Station. Maybe they will build a little Eiffel Tower there soon.
Yeah, no kidding – Atlantic Station is ugly. So what? To this point, it’s financially successful. To even go down the road of proposing that it was built or even decorated to underscore higher ideals is silly. It was built to make money for the investors. To use architect-snob language to describe Atlantic Station also is silly. As with the 17th Street bridge (that should have been an interesting design and wasn’t built specifically as an investment), Atlantic Station is ugly, but it works – and thus meets Atlanta’s pathetic standards
B. Steal
As you said Scott, we can certainly disagree on this particular topic, but in my view, the arch is what’s arbitrary. Yes, most of the development is 21st century cartoonish mixed-use. But to me, that says a lot more about our culture than an arch transplanted from D.C. that tries too hard to fit in.
Doesn’t that mission statement sound a bit stretched?…trying to justify something completely irrelevant within a new urban setting. In the process it comes off like the developers are giving themselves a premature pat on the back for building a successful urban environment from the ground up and I’ve yet to see the feet on the sidewalk to prove that.
It’s a minor point, but an interesting one to debate.
That’s cool, and worthy of a multi-beer discussion. You can certainly question the reasoning or validity behind their choices. That’s where the real debate is (one thing… the Atlantic Station developers aren’t the ones doing it; it’s a private foundation). My point was simply that, agree or not, the stylistic choices they’ve made do, in fact, have a reasoning behind them. I don’t think anything else there does (other than the default reasoning of “what’s cheapest to build?”).
Your point on the absence of feet on the ground is the true measure. My gut tells me the details aren’t superfluous to that.
It’s not an either/or, Brad. A huge percentage of the most successful and desirable urban environments and neighborhoods in America were built by developers as money-making ventures. There’s a whole slew of developers around today who study those kind of places, looking to find keys to not just their initial profitability but to their *long term profitability.*
Because they’re philanthropists? No, because they want to maximize their returns.
Country Club Plaza in Kansas City was in some ways the Atlantic Station of its day (1920s). It was profitable immediately, in much the same way as AS, but it has remained a money-maker now for 85 years. Many have argued that this longevity is because of the quality and detailing of what was built. Will Atlantic Station have the same staying power? Time will tell.
I’m all for developers. Hell, they’re a solid part of how I make my living. But I have little patience for the blow and go crowd. Forgetting for a moment the crap they leave behind, they’re content leaving a lot of money on the table. That’s just bad business.
As a native of metro D.C. I’m a big fan of Greco-Roman classicism, but I think, in its context, the Atlantic Station arch looks odd. I really like Atlantic Station’s underground parking system, proximity to IKEA, and (just opened!) H&M, but the arch definitely adds to its Disney World-like feel.
Congrats on your 100,000+ visitors!
Great reference to Country Club plaza Scott. I used to call it home and always appreciated the great detail in the structures. Even though the stores are largely the same as AS (or any other generic mall), spending time on the plaza always somehow seemed like an improvement over the typical shopping expereince.
As for the arch de shopping, I’ve been scratching my head about that as well. I can’t say I like it, certainly don’t understand it, but I suppose that anything different or slightly out of place will attract derision from the peanut gallery (myself included).
I like the arch. It’s interesting — great conversation piece, and brings some character to that area. They’ve constructed it to last (it’s stone, not EIFS). While the surrounding condos aren’t great, the arch will look good with the completed Atlantic tower. Most monuments are not well received by the masses when first built, but become appreciated over time. I think that will be the case here. The cheap condos on either side of it are temporary, 20-year apartment construction. When you build a monument, you are thinking longer term than that. The arch will be there long after the condos are gone and replaced by something better. Would you feel differently if they’d built the arch in downtown Decatur? I think we have another (smaller) arch in Atlanta, if I recall. On Peachtree near the Suntrust tower.
What a dissappointment Atlantic Station is. Gosh, it is so ugly…who in the world would want to live there? I don’t get it. Though I always ask myself who would want to live in a development on the side of a highway. You think after a while the freeway starts to take on that comforting hum…kind of like the ocean?
this guy is the biggest [edited] to come out of atlanta since john fitzgerald page. http://johnfitzgeraldpage.com/default.aspx
what a pathetic display of look-at-me under the transparent film of philanthorpy and “supporting” the arts. it’s a shame. $15MM could have really been used to do something significant.
good work [edited].
Atlantic Station was a great idea for Atlanta especially as it relates to the Live and Work (Quality Growth Development) created throughout the country. The concept is fine, however the issue of Atlanta’s identity remains questionable since I moved here from Chicago. We have culture, bridges and arcs that compliment the city, rather than asking the question of “what the hell is that?” when people look at the architecture. That’s exactly the question my boyfriend asked when he noticed the Arc de Triomphe. There is a little thing called Urban Planning that appears to be lacking to make sense of all this growth. You just can’t build a development in most cities unless it makes sense to the overall theme.
Once Atlanta decides to choose its theme as a growing city where they are not youthful, but not New York, fake but not LA, traffic ridden but not DC, new, but not Las Vegas, things will be better for us all. It’s a basic marketing question, “what is the scope”? It has yet to be defined, which is why we have architecture elements that fail to compliment one another. Spanish Colonial, Lofts and Georgian homes just seemed confused on one street.