Emory applies to demo 90 yo office building (Atlanta, Decatur: zoning, design)

[magnetar]

Curbed's only bias is toward writing things that will generate a lot of pageviews. They don't even make corrections when glaring errors are pointed out in the comments. Their only agenda is generating ad impressions, which is why articles are always written in a way that maximizes (and sometimes amplifies) any conflict.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

I think that architectural distinction and historical significance should in most cases be the primary criteria for preservation, yes.

In which case, I think this building meets the criteria since we're talking about Atlanta and not Philly or Boston.

Originally Posted by bu2

Yes. Preserving everything old simply means you have a lot of mediocre outdated product.

I'm not advocating preserving every old building.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

In which case, I think this building meets the criteria since we're talking about Atlanta and not Philly or Boston.

So what makes this building so distinctive and historical? I simply don't see it, regardless of whether or not one thinks Atlanta suffers from a dearth of decrepit buildings.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

So what makes this building so distinctive and historical? I simply don't see it, regardless of whether or not one thinks Atlanta suffers from a dearth of decrepit buildings.

Look at what is happening to the Medical Arts Building //www.city-data.com/forum/48899618-post28.html. It's been vacant for decades, but now is getting a new life.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Look at what is happening to the Medical Arts Building //www.city-data.com/forum/48899618-post28.html. It's been vacant for decades, but now is getting a new life.

I do love the MAB. My pediatrician was in that building, and even as a child I marveled at the interior details. The elevator doors alone are worth the price of rehabilitation.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

So what makes this building so distinctive and historical? I simply don't see it, regardless of whether or not one thinks Atlanta suffers from a dearth of decrepit buildings.

We can agree to disagree. I just happen to think that "everyday" historic buildings should be considered for preservation, particularly in a city that has such a shortage of them.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by bu2

Yes. Preserving everything old simply means you have a lot of mediocre outdated product.

Negative. Atlanta has already demolished most of it historic buildings and has the surface parking lots to show for it. Preserving what little is left will only help to retain some architectural variety in the urban core.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Look at what is happening to the Medical Arts Building //www.city-data.com/forum/48899618-post28.html. It's been vacant for decades, but now is getting a new life.

Wow. Hopefully it pans out this time. Hasn't that building been the next big thing several times over the past ten years, or am I just making that up? I can't believe that building has sat vacant for so long.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

Negative. Atlanta has already demolished most of it historic buildings and has the surface parking lots to show for it. Preserving what little is left will only help to retain some architectural variety in the urban core.

I fail to understand why people labor under the delusion that Atlanta is somehow unique in demolishing old building stock. Every city I've ever lived in is "guilty" of the same thing, particularly New York.

[bg7]

Thats so lame. In my city these things are converted to residences - and they sell at a premium due to historic value.