Emory applies to demo 90 yo office building

[bg7]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

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.

New York has extensive landmark protections, a commission, and historic district zoning also though. Its not just random demolition as developers wish.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by bg7

New York has extensive landmark protections, a commission, and historic district zoning also though. Its not just random demolition as developers wish.

All things that Atlanta has as well. Like NYC, it took time to put them in place.

https://www.atlantaga.gov/government...ign-commission

http://www.atlantapreservationcenter...cacy_districts

[bg7]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

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

In that case you wouldn't end up with blocks of older buildings and the atmosphere and benefits that leads to when repurposed and revitalized (as been found all over the country). It often engenders creative development and desirable locales. You'd just end up with randomly sprinkled individual buildings on there own.
Hence why so much of America is impossibly bland, soulless and boring. Its just what a developer (ie a corporation) decides should be there.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

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.

Well I certainly labor under no such delusions. But some cities had a lot more to work with than others so the damage to the urban fabric was far less compared to cities that didn't have as much to work with.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Well I certainly labor under no such delusions. But some cities had a lot more to work with than others so the damage to the urban fabric was far less compared to cities that didn't have as much to work with.

I came here to say exactly this, but your wording is more succinct than mine.

When you have very little, you have very little to spare, and destroying an old building should be a matter of last resort.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by bg7

In that case you wouldn't end up with blocks of older buildings and the atmosphere and benefits that leads to when repurposed and revitalized (as been found all over the country). It often engenders creative development and desirable locales. You'd just end up with randomly sprinkled individual buildings on there own.
Hence why so much of America is impossibly bland, soulless and boring. Its just what a developer (ie a corporation) decides should be there.

There's nothing so soulless and boring as government buildings and centralized taste police.