Atlanta's Central Library, keep it or replace it? (Richland: houses, restaurants)

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by JPD

There's pretty good open space already, at least on the front side. It's clear all the way to the front door of the Georgia Pacific building. And when heading south on Peachtree and rounding the corner, the building appears in a dramatic way. Short of reclaiming three parking decks on the back and side, and a hotel on the other side, and turning them into parks, which obviously isn't going to happen, that's as much of a clearing as we're going to get.

Yes, I'm fine with the status quo. One of the building's positives is how well it relates to the surrounding environment (you mentioned the approach heading south on Peachtree; I agree). This is the hallmark of a great architect.
If they replace the decks eventually (yes, please), I can only hope that it's with something that's worthy of being a neighbor to Central Library.

[Atlanta Scientist]

It's a very underwhelming and unwelcoming building for me. I frequent the place often, the exterior and interior don't necessarily make me want to linger. It feels very dark. The view of downtown is great though. There is the homeless problem but the main library from where I from was quite open and airy and had a homeless problem as well.

More outlets and cleaner bathrooms would go a long way.
The library system in Fulton is abysmal with its weird hours that vary by branch. Took so getting used to when I moved here.

Library I frequented in Columbia, SC.

https://www.google.com/search?q=colu...w=1014&bih=947

[cqholt]

A case to preserve the Central Library
https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/...ldings/558284/

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Columbia Scientist

Library I frequented in Columbia, SC.

https://www.google.com/search?q=colu...w=1014&bih=947

That is gorgeous! I'd love to see something like that in the ATL.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

A case to preserve the Central Library
https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/...ldings/558284/

I have to agree. It may be a Brutalist concrete bunker, but it's our Brutalist concrete bunker.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I have to agree. It may be a Brutalist concrete bunker, but it's our Brutalist concrete bunker.

Damn right, and at this rate we might be the only ones who have one, so let's not be too much like Atlanta this time.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by cqholt

A case to preserve the Central Library
https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/...ldings/558284/

Well, this guy seems to get it.
All buildings are a projection of the Zeitgeist in their time; they are a physical manifestation of our cultural history. Central Library was constructed at a time when the city was going through a architectural renaissance that was largely led by John Portman; we were opening ourselves to new ideas as to what the city could be, and were poised for an emergence onto the world stage.
I'm not a fan of Brutalist architecture per se; I'm all too familiar with its presence in eastern European cities, a legacy from the Communist Era when it was intended to convey a message of oppression and anti-individualist thinking. But through the Central Library, Breuer managed to exemplify strength without oppressiveness and a self-assurance that makes the building look like it was always intended to be in its location. It is IMO a remarkable example of Brutalist style, and its preservation should not even be subject to debate.

[Atlanta Scientist]

I pass the library every day even, when I'm not using it. I often forget that it there. This is a library, something that should engage and interact with people. Its design is so off-putting. Form should follow function.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Columbia Scientist

I pass the library every day even, when I'm not using it. I often forget that it there. This is a library, something that should engage and interact with people. Its design is so off-putting. Form should follow function.

Even Louis Sullivan, the man who is credited with coining the phrase, was not really on board with the concept.

"The phrase "form (ever) follows function" became a battle cry of Modernist architects after the 1930s. The credo was taken to imply that decorative elements, which architects call "ornament", were superfluous in modern buildings. However, Sullivan himself neither thought nor designed along such lines at the peak of his career. Indeed, while his buildings could be spare and crisp in their principal masses, he often punctuated their plain surfaces with eruptions of lush art nouveau and celtic revival decorations, usually cast in iron or terracotta, and ranging from organic forms like vines and ivy, to more geometric designs, and interlace, inspired by his Irish design heritage. Probably the most famous example is the writhing green ironwork that covers the entrance canopies of the Carson, Pirie, Scott and Company Building on South State Street in Chicago. These ornaments, often executed by the talented younger draftsman in Sullivan's employ, would eventually become Sullivan's trademark; to students of architecture, they are his instantly recognizable signature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_f...n#Architecture

And how does Central Library not accomplish that, anyway?

Time to trot out some Howard Roark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDI-afx6ejk

[JPD]

Originally Posted by Columbia Scientist

I pass the library every day even, when I'm not using it. I often forget that it there. This is a library, something that should engage and interact with people. Its design is so off-putting. Form should follow function.

One of the primary functions of a library is storage of books and other materials. Sunlight degrades paper. So in that sense, the form is following the function to the highest possible degree.