Alpharetta may get its own KSM

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

How is that? That it takes on a historical industrial loft look that is common around the area? What is significant about a 1950s school building? I can picture that look in my head as well. A textile mill would be a better look.

Would have to see renderings to decide if it were gimmicky or not.

the old school building is more significant than a textile mill because that's what was there. there was actually another old school further down kimball bridge, where bridgeway church is, but the church tore it down. you can still see the foundation where it used to be. there was also another one on hopewell road in what is now milton that was called hopewell school.

the reason that they got torn down is because those old schools were kind of oppressive. sputnik was an embarassment for the US and education became a political issue. school for baby boomers was a lot tougher than school was for the generation before, when it was a common practice to quit after eighth grade. more days, longer days, lots of homework, and lots of fighting and bullying. so when the boomer generation grew up they weren't in love with these buildings and they got the axe.

now we have one left and a younger generation who has no memory of going to school anywhere like this can look at the buildings in a more objective sense and see architectural intrigue. the marble cornerstones, brick everywhere, low-to-the-ground style inspired by frank lloyd wright, with hardwood floors and real tile, and casement crank-windows, the buildings are really kind of unique. so you make the best out of a bad memory and turn a place that was miserable for people before into a better place where people will have good memories. a lot like you'd do with a cotton mill.

but would you build a *fake* 1950s elementary school style food hall?

wouldn't that be eerie? it would just be like, intentionally adding a tiny dose of misery to people's experience there. it would just be weird. that's what i'm getting at. it's not so much offensive as it is eerie.

building a fake textile mill, it's just weird. so disconnected from reality in a way that's almost comically sadistic. i don't know why you can't see it.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

the old school building is more significant than a textile mill because that's what was there. there was actually another old school further down kimball bridge, where bridgeway church is, but the church tore it down. you can still see the foundation where it used to be. there was also another one on hopewell road in what is now milton that was called hopewell school.

the reason that they got torn down is because those old schools were kind of oppressive. sputnik was an embarassment for the US and education became a political issue. school for baby boomers was a lot tougher than school was for the generation before, when it was a common practice to quit after eighth grade. more days, longer days, lots of homework, and lots of fighting and bullying. so when the boomer generation grew up they weren't in love with these buildings and they got the axe.

now we have one left and a younger generation who has no memory of going to school anywhere like this can look at the buildings in a more objective sense and see architectural intrigue. the marble cornerstones, brick everywhere, low-to-the-ground style inspired by frank lloyd wright, with hardwood floors and real tile, and casement crank-windows, the buildings are really kind of unique. so you make the best out of a bad memory and turn a place that was miserable for people before into a better place where people will have good memories. a lot like you'd do with a cotton mill.

but would you build a *fake* 1950s elementary school style food hall?

wouldn't that be eerie? it would just be like, intentionally adding a tiny dose of misery to people's experience there. it would just be weird. that's what i'm getting at. it's not so much offensive as it is eerie.

building a fake textile mill, it's just weird. so disconnected from reality in a way that's almost comically sadistic. i don't know why you can't see it.

Because any building style 100 to 150 years old has more architectural interest than poorly designed minimalistic 50s style governmental buildings. And there are plenty examples of that dotting the landscape, some still in use, if someone needs to study that style.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Because any building style 100 to 150 years old has more architectural interest than poorly designed minimalistic 50s style governmental buildings. And there are plenty examples of that dotting the landscape, some still in use, if someone needs to study that style.

what makes them more architecturally interesting? during urban renewal from the 1950s to 1970s, buildings like mills and victorian homes were torn down by the thousands. people didn't see them as being architecturally significant at the time.

[citydwelling]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Because any building style 100 to 150 years old has more architectural interest than poorly designed minimalistic 50s style governmental buildings. And there are plenty examples of that dotting the landscape, some still in use, if someone needs to study that style.

Congratulations, you have inherited the same logic that's been used since forever to justify destroying architecture considered "outdated" but not yet "historic."

[Saintmarks]

Just because something is old doesn't mean it has architectural interest in and of itself. But age and rarity does give something more panache over time for sure. The fact that a lot of these buildings were torn down makes the surviving ones that much more unique. And it isn't just the style that makes something worthy of a tear down. Initial construction quality and maintenance make a building worthy of standing the test of time. Many of those torn down were not properly maintained over time and thus had to go.

OK I'm done. This is arguing for the sake of arguing. I think if I said the sky looks better blue, you guys would argue that.

[Saintmarks]

Well one more before I am done. Just looked at the original proposal Arjay linked. Looks like a great design that incorporates the old school nicely intermingling with a modern twist on an old industrial building now popular as loft conversions. Not incongruent with the region. You can see the 50s school building style and it merging with a modern interpretaion of an older industrial style common to this part of Georgia. The 50s modernist style still shows thru clearly in two wings. It is a style. That's all. And works in these drawings.

[Ric 0_0]

Does anyone know how/why Alpharetta is getting so much development lately. Its not close to Atlanta like decatur or sandy springs. It doesn't have any large fortune 500 hqs. I'm just really puzzled by what fuels all of this growth in Alpharetta. Does anyone know?

I'm not trying to be negative, I just want to know. Im all for this new development especially since I live near it all.

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by Ric 0_0

Does anyone know how/why Alpharetta is getting so much development lately. Its not close to Atlanta like decatur or sandy springs. It doesn't have any large fortune 500 hqs. I'm just really puzzled by what fuels all of this growth in Alpharetta. Does anyone know?

I'm not trying to be negative, I just want to know. Im all for this new development especially since I live near it all.

There may not be any actual Fortune 500 HQ's, but there are several major Divisions of them based there. There are tens of thousands of more high paying jobs than there are residents. Combine that with good schools, a high quality of life and access to the Metro and points North and you have a winner.