Comments on: Unbuilt Peachtree

By: mc303

mc303 — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:37:28 +0000

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.

By: CSD Snowflake

CSD Snowflake — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:22:58 +0000

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.)

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:07:24 +0000

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.

By: Dedogur

Dedogur — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:27:34 +0000

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.

By: CSD Snowflake

CSD Snowflake — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:35:37 +0000

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.