Unbuilt Peachtree
Decatur Metro | July 19, 2009There’s an excellent article in this morning’s AJC about all of the Peachtree Street development projects that never made it off the drafting table before the recession hit. The article itself is entitled “The City That Was Never Built”, but it reads more like a wishful romp through “The City That Could Have Been”.
While I enjoyed the article and Peachtree’s development ride of the aughts as much as the next city advocate – especially Midtown’s – I am also sort of glad for the break in the action. Yes, I know that development historically comes in spurts propelled by the national economy, but I think we pretty much exhausted the market this time around. And instead of thinking too much about “what could have been”, which is a guilty pleasure shared by both progressive city advocate’s version and preservationists alike, we should spend more of our energy reflecting on all that was accomplished.
Peachtree’s transformation over the past decade has been incredible, but I for one am glad for the break in the action. Not just because supply had far exceeded demand, but also because I becoming a bit worried that our clearly 1970s downtown, would soon have two glassy, one-decade sister business districts up the street. Healthy growth is one thing, artificial growth is another.
And besides, even though we may no longer be building at a rapid pace, fulfilling that city-wide, consumerist desire, Atlanta’s next decade could prove even more interesting than it’s last. If and when these newest projects fill with residents, we could see the true revitalization of a downtown, once thought to have been abandoned forever.
Latest from Decaturish
Amen on no to “artificial growth.”
Another interesting aspect of this issue (one that fascinates me) is how we might see different parts of the city “competing” for development and investment after the market stabilizes. You’re going to have Midtown, Buckhead and the Beltline (which needs development to fund the project’s TAD).
If Georgia manages to figure out its passenger-rail program, downtown has a great chance. Most eyes are still fixed on the Gulch for the multimodal station (although there’s been talk about some satellite stations outside the urban core). Yes, it’s years off. Maybe even longer. But that area has so much potential. I really think it’ll take something substantial (and permanent) to bring people back to that great area.
You’re reference to “our (Atlanta’s) clearly 1970’s downtown” leads me to state something I have thought for sometime: namely, John Portman is one of the most God-awful architects ever inflicted upon the city of Atlanta.
From my office window, I can see four Portman buildings. First is the Westin Peachtree Plaza, which is neither unique (Portman designed a replica for Detriot) and couldn’t be any more 70’s if it had a disco ball on top to warn off low flying aircraft.
Next there is the Peachtree Center complex, a grouping of thin brown buildings with with lots of small windows resembling nothing so much as a cluster of personal computer towers extending 20-something stories into the air.
Then there is the Marriot Marquis downtown, which looks as though it should have a monorail running through it.
And the last Porman building I can see is Suntrust Plaza (formerly One Peachtree Center). At least it doesn’t look like a monument 70’s SciFi movies. No, with this dark greenish, fortress-looking colossus, Portman brought Atlanta building design firmly into the realm of 80’s SciFi with a building style reminiscent of Sigourney Weaver’s condo building in “Ghostbusters.”
Portman had one modest success with the downtown Hyatt, and it was enough to make him think he should shape the entire Atlanta skyline. And for that, aesthtics in Atlanta has paid the price.
In fairness, you are stating your opinions and stylistic preferences, not facts. Though I could not disagree with your opinions more. I understand that some of these structures in Atlanta are considered flawed for their approach to pedestrians. When viewed in the context of their time period, needs of the client, and location, he did what was necessary to make the structures successful.
Viewed in that context, it’s pretty remarkable what he did for Atlanta. He created a large company (AmericasMart) in the 1950s to bring vast amounts of people into the city when there were none. Then he proceeded to design and build destination hotels to serve these people. With this increased traffic to the city came increased economic development to Atlanta. Restaurants, entertainment, then new companies, and so on. Portman played an important role in Atlanta’s rise as a major city, and continues to do so. His company AmericasMart for instance, occupies nearly 8-million square feet of building space in downtown Atlanta (that’s nearly 6 Bank of America Towers), and is a major part of downtown’s economy, even more-so today.
Peachtree Center is brutalist architecture. It’s a style that is historically important and not for everybody–personally I love it. Suntrust Plaza may not be to your liking, but realize that many people (including myself) count this among their favorite skyscrapers in the world. Regarding the hotels, maybe they don’t suit your style, but they have been both incredibly successful and architecturally important. The Marriott Marquis is the tallest atrium hotel in the world. Have you been inside it? It’s breathtaking. The fact that it looks fairly nondescript on the outside only heightens the experience. The Hyatt was the first grand atrium hotel in the world, and has been copied countless times over. The Westin Peachtree was for a long time the tallest hotel in the world, and one of Atlanta’s most recognizable landmarks. The architecture is timeless and still the Atlanta destination hotel.
So while these structures may not suit your personal tastes, understand that they are highly successful, historically and architecturally important structures that many of us are very thankful to have in Atlanta.
Oh yes, now we’re talking. The old art vs. function argument.
Until about a year ago, I wasn’t sure who to side with on this old argument…the “history and art” folks who evoke the 50 year rule at first breath or the “function” folks who unapologetically despise most modernism and post-modernism for reasons much more concrete than opinion or taste.
The problem with all these examples of art that you cite is that they are entirely unsympathetic to their environments. And the pedestrian issue is no small thing. In fact it’s everything that’s wrong with these styles. (Peachtree Center actually hoped to remove people from the streets!) Architects of this era thought only about how these buildings would look on a postcard, sans people, and nothing about how they would actually function.
As a result, they functioned terribly and completely ripped apart downtowns. Just because Portman brought some people and investment back to downtown doesn’t mean he should be celebrated. How much money did he have at his disposal? And downtown is still floundering. Not too impressive in my opinion. Give me Atlantic Station any day compared to AmericasMart.
Of course, we can’t only fault Portman. He’s just a player in a global economy that embraced modern and post-modernism for it’s simplicity (i.e. it was cheap) and made it the “international” style, that could be shoved into unique and complex downtowns with no remorse, because someone in a far off part of the world thought it was art.
I don’t argue that some of these buildings have interiors that are truly impressive, but in my mind, that doesn’t make up for all the dead spaces and destroyed neighborhoods they blindly and willingly took out in the name of art.
A painting can’t destroy a community, but a building can. Maybe there are some things in this world more important than artistic expression.
Wasn’t aware of the Portman chap. What a tragedy.
Gosh downtown Atlanta is so ugly. Personal preference I know….everything about it says “get me out of here….life has to be better than this”.
It needs some awesome statues or glorious fountains or ‘something.’
I’m really at a loss as to how it could possibly improve given its current state.
Midtown should be the new downtown. Midtown is very nice and still has alot of potential.
Maybe I’m just old, and don’t much like downtown or the buildings (except that equaltable building) but it seems to me like these areas were sh-holes before the hotels, market buildings, and peachtree centers buildings were put in. All this talk of destroying communities and neighborhoods… Neighborhoods of what? It’s easy to be an armchair critic looking at the city with 2009 eyes.. But seems to me like any “communities” were built around these things, not the other way around. Remember 1950/1960s downtown was not 1930s downtown. If anything you could say that architect was insane for building these things at that time? Last time I was in one if the hotels downtown, I’d say the dude was on some heavy but good drugs.
I think it is kind of funny that today’s “historic preservationalists” only want to preserve the type of architecture that they like … usually pre WWII architecture and have absolutely no symphathy for architectual styles built afterward unless it was built in a pre-WWII style.
In a few years, when 1960’s are considered “historic,” will today’s “historic preservationalists” be anti-preservationalists? Will be interesting to watch.
As far as downtown Atlanta, I would agree that the Mart is awful, particularly from a pedestrian experience, but given the time and location it was built, maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea at the time, and it has been a hugely successful project. Peachtree Center is not much to look at but if you have ever been there, it is a very efficient set of buildings, and is clearly the economic engine of the northern part of downtown along Peachtree St. and is rather symphathtic to the streetscape. In fact, I’d say the pedestrian experience along Peachtree in that stretch is one of the best in Atlanta.
The hotels? What can I say? Their huge success over the years speaks volumes over the opinions of some “historic preservationalists” who have never designed anything of value.
There are some real gems downtown if you just care to look, new buildings and old buildings such as the Candler Building, Woodruff Park, the Flatiron Building, etc. Downtown better not be dead … it is the only part of Atlanta (even moreso that midtown) with an actual transit network that makes sense.
Pete, you need to educate yourself on historic preservation. Try checking out the US Dept of the Interior guidelines for National Register listings. There are definite criteria for determining what is worth of preservation. It a little subjective, but a lot of objectivity. Check it out here: http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm
Thanks Steve for your help, but I already know all of that. I’m a historic preservationalist. What I was criticizing was some historic preservationalists selectiveness for their preferred type of historic preservation, as DM freely admits below, he is a part of.
Pete, I think it’s pretty funny that you think that all preservationists are of one mind. Most in fact would cringe at my statement and then bow to your reasoning that anything older than 50 years is worth fighting for. Just to be clear.
And congrats on the individual successes of all these great buildings downtown. Too bad they can’t share that success with the rest of the area in which they function.
I am not talking about the style of these buildings. My argument is that type trumps style. It can be brutalist as all get-out as long as it sits up against the sidewalk and isn’t a nightmare for people to work or live in.
Are you saying it’s impossible to judge the functionality of a building? That it’s all based on my whim? That a 7 inch stair is just as easy to walk up as a 4 inch stair? That huge concrete plazas in front of massive skyscrapers don’t go completely unused?
Dedogur, you’re correct that many of the downtown Atlanta communities were already destroyed the 1970s thanks to the automobile, the highway system and the GI bill. But for all the money they cost, these buildings should have brought life back to downtown. Instead, they became insulated success stories, contributing nothing back to the street.
How does Peachtree Center, for example, not contrubute to the street? There are no massive concrete plazas in front. The building sits right on the street with retail at street level. It incorporates a MARTA stop into the complex. Yes, I know, some of the buildings have skybridges to get from building to building, but so what?
Sidewalks (and the mingling that goes on there) is the life-blood of a healthy city. Insulating people amongst skybridges is the complete antithesis of that.
Go by Peachtree Street near Peachtree Center anytime of the business day and you will see more people on the sidewalk, mingling, doing business, walking from place to place, than in any part of the City of Atlanta.
I object! That most active area is definitely 5 Points!!
First, regarding skybridges…any sidewalk use is in spite of the skybridge, not because of it. You asked “so what?” about the skybridges. I’m telling you why I don’t like them.
Second, how bustling is that massive complex in the evening once all the 9-5ers go home?
I think we’re confusing the success of a business with the success of a building. Fencesitter’s original critique was about the buildings themselves. mc303 countered that it was a successful business. Two different things no?
In addition to the dreadful skybridges (built, in part, because people were scared to walk the streets downtown), most of the retail at Peachtree Center is in an inner court. This also robs the street of pedestrians and creates the ghost town feeling.
Disclosure: I’m all in favor of walkable downtowns, whether they be in small Vermont towns or in Manhattan.
Having said that, I don’t know what the intention of sky bridges was–to protect shoppers from big, scarey downtown or not–but I think that tourists are the main target, not nervous suburban shoppers. I have to admit that, when I visit Montreal or Chicago or other cities with lots of indoor connections between stores, as a tourist, I find the connections convenient–they usually are better marked and have kiosks with maps plus I don’t have to wear a coat if it’s cold or sweat if it’s hot. What makes a downtown livable, walkable, and healthy for a resident may not be what entices a tourist to venture away from their conference ballroom to shop.
I’m sure there is some weather component to those bridges, it gets pretty damn hot in atl during some of those events. but my wife has participated in these markets for years and she writes: it makes immediate sense when you are a buyer there. You can be jumping to different exhibitors in different buildings and floors quite a lot. You are using a Lot more time and energy (and elevators) if you have to go from floor 20 to ground, exit building, go in another, take elevator to floor 19, sweat, rinse, repeat. All that time traversing buildings and floors is lost efficiency for both buyers and exhibitors, and more energy costs as heat and ac is lost and elevators run double time. Really the marts should have been one sears tower to solve the issue, but that would require being able to plan ahead 50 years and be able to (with budget). But to offer some credit, all their buildings started out at shorter heights originally. They built the foundations to be able to hand twice as many floors as were needed at the time they were built. Same with their newest building, which is 10 floors but can grow to 20 as needed. I think that’s kind if smart. Lastly, think of all the parking that is in those buildings… But have you ever seen it? It’s quite well hidden and blended into the structures. You can’t say that for many newer structures.
The main problem with the Mart is not its design but its location right in the heart of downtown that sort of creates this deadspace (unlike, by the way, peachtree center). If the Mart were over by the Congress Center instead of where it is, no one would have a problem with it.
Good point. The Holiday Inn in Decatur, with its parking lot and structure and low, wide design, would be disruptive if it was right on the square. But where it is, a few blocks down Clairemont, is a better fit. (Ok, many of us probably don’t love the design or footprint of this building and it’s only adequate in housing relatives who can’t be put up at home but it’s a good place for the Santa breakfast, the Book Festival, and some small conferences and meetings.)
Had the Mart buildings not been located where they are, Atlanta might not be the major city it is. It would be like taking the law firms out of Midtown. The Mart may be spark that ignited much of the development that we know today. The hotels and transportation options moved in to support the traffic, then other businesses moved in because of the infrastructure. We all have different opinions about the architecture, but this space between Peachtree Center and AmericasMart, Westin Peachtree to Suntrust Plaza and back into the Marriott Marquis and Hyatt, are some the most vibrant, urban and metropolitan spaces in all of Atlanta.
The side streets are a different matter. Atlanta’s commerce is structured around certain key roads rather than a grid like other cities. This is a matter of history and economics more than architects or architecture, and something that changes over time.