U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-09-2012, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Atlanta and St Simons Island, GA
21,035 posts, read 33,024,993 times
Reputation: 12701

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog View Post
Please explain its historic significance. It is old. It was never used for anything special. There is a lot of old stuff out there. That alone doesn't mean it is historically significant. Tear it down and make way for progress and an investment in technology and the urban core of midtown.
Do you expect me explain this to someone that dismisses historic buildings as 'old stuff'? I appreciate old buildings as they contribute to the fabric of a city. Apparently not everyone does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2012, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,209 posts, read 16,231,134 times
Reputation: 4923
I like the idea of building more taller, dense buildings in Midtown but in will be unfortunate to lose another historic building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Johns Creek area
9,583 posts, read 8,662,390 times
Reputation: 5087
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman View Post
To Georgia Tech

Memo:

Do not buy or accept historic buildings if owning them is problematic and burdensome.

Atlanta City-Data group

Touche!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 10:43 AM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,132,877 times
Reputation: 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog View Post
I still contend that old doesn't mean it is historically significant. Just keeping something because it is old serves no purpose. This is a great opportunity to continue to develop technology square and link GT with midtown with a dense development. Why would you hold this up for an old, historically irrelevant building?
Again, a very American attitude of clearing out the old for the new.

Honestly, I don't think it holds anything up. The project can still be built around it with almost no impact on the project's goals. Just build higher if need be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 10:49 AM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,132,877 times
Reputation: 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
I like the idea of building more taller, ...
No, just taller

Sorry, not picking on you, but people seem to be losing the ability to use comparatives and superlatives correctly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 10:58 AM
 
2,407 posts, read 2,615,644 times
Reputation: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman View Post
Again, a very American attitude of clearing out the old for the new.

Honestly, I don't think it holds anything up. The project can still be built around it with almost no impact on the project's goals. Just build higher if need be.
It is progress.

Should everything that is old be saved or should we save those historic sites that have history and relevance?

Instead of encouraging development and investment in high-paying technology job as, people are crying over an old, historically insignificant building. Unbelievable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,209 posts, read 16,231,134 times
Reputation: 4923
Quote:
No, just taller

Sorry, not picking on you, but people seem to be losing the ability to use comparatives and superlatives correctly
Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
1,262 posts, read 2,449,152 times
Reputation: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark View Post
I'm all for historic preservation, so playing the devil's advocate a bit here: I think it's the "Let's" part that is problematic. Tech was stuck with prime real estate at its development with a building that didn't serve a significant purpose, cost money to keep "safe", and prevented Tech from expanding in a natural spot for Tech to expand. So, Tech was stuck with the burden of this historic building. I think that's a significant problem. I know there are trusts which purchase and maintain some historic buildings. If so, fine (great, actually!). But a landowner not in the business of maintaining old stuff just because it's old, shouldn't be required to be stuck with it.

Okay. 'nuff from the devil.
Also, Tech has several historic buildings and are currently in use all over campus. For example, the Academy of Medicine was just completely remodeled and upgraded and is in use as an event facility for Tech.

Welcome to the Historic Academy of Medicine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 03:31 PM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,132,877 times
Reputation: 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsonga View Post
Also, Tech has several historic buildings and are currently in use all over campus. For example, the Academy of Medicine was just completely remodeled and upgraded and is in use as an event facility for Tech.

Welcome to the Historic Academy of Medicine
And preserving it was a condition of the donation. Smart move on their part otherwise Tech might have cleared it for another research center.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 03:36 PM
 
7,113 posts, read 8,132,877 times
Reputation: 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog View Post
It is progress.

Should everything that is old be saved or should we save those historic sites that have history and relevance?

Instead of encouraging development and investment in high-paying technology job as, people are crying over an old, historically insignificant building. Unbelievable.
Problem is...very little that is old is being preserved. That's the issue. Why do "old" cities have a charm that Atlanta lacks? Probably why European urban centers are much more livable.

There is still plenty of space to develop and save Atlanta's old urban core at the same time...but that opportunity has already been lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top