ATLANTA | Development Thread VI

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

The loss of the Equitable signage is significant. Wasn't that built into the tower? It's another example of Atlanta not preserving its architectural history. A digital sign is kind of cool, though. Better than just stationary Georgia's Own signage.

it is built into the building. i think they're just going to slap this over it, so there's still the possibility for future building owners to come to their senses and restore the original.

[Pemgin]

Well, that's a relief that it's not permanent.

[Ant131531]

You know you're a city without a significant architectural history when a basic sign in a fairly bland late 60s skyscraper is considered architecture "worth preserving". If this was NYC, Chicago, or SF, no one would care. Let's be honest.

[BlueSangha]

I don’t care, tear that sign down.

[cabasse]

^it's part of the facade of the building - integrated into it, not like the coastal states building sign... plus it's probably our only good example of international style modernism in the city (of which there isn't much at all, lol)

[sbrptree]

Originally Posted by cabasse

^it's part of the facade of the building - integrated into it, not like the coastal states building sign... plus it's probably our only good example of international style modernism in the city (of which there isn't much at all, lol)

I'm all for historic preservation (like the CODA / Tech building that was (partially) saved, but seems like this is a stretch. While I'm on it ...the Civic Center too...why is that nasty complex all of sudden something that needs to be saved (since it's been under utilized for like 30 years). Tear that crap down and let's do MUCH better!

[testarossa50]

I think it sucks because the Equitable sign is classy and Georgia's Own Credit Union is a tacky lame thing to put on top of a skyscraper.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

A Magaritaville just broke ground in Nashville, but I thought the rendering was pretty tacky (in terms of appearance).

Nothing tacky about the Margaritaville Nashville

https://www.margaritavillehotelnashville.com/

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

Nothing tacky about the Margaritaville Nashville

https://www.margaritavillehotelnashville.com/

That's the latest rendering, which is an improvement ftom the original.

https://www.google.com/search?client...liEqxKOtxAWbM:

It's still "blah!" though. It's like some value engineered junk that belongs along the suburban Miami coastline IMO.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

That's the latest rendering, which is an improvement ftom the original.

https://www.google.com/search?client...liEqxKOtxAWbM:

It's still "blah!" though. It's like some value engineered junk that belongs along the suburban Miami coastline IMO.

With all do respect S-17, it is not meant to be in the same class as the luxurious 5-Star SpringHill Suites Centennial Olympic Park.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

You know you're a city without a significant architectural history when a basic sign in a fairly bland late 60s skyscraper is considered architecture "worth preserving". If this was NYC, Chicago, or SF, no one would care. Let's be honest.

Its a textbook example of mid-century International style by SOM-- Far from a bland insignificant building. The tenants (except the credit union) pretty much hate the idea of changing the building signage.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

Well, that's a relief that it's not permanent.

Of course its permanently attached to the facade of the building-- so yes its permanent.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Verge

Its a textbook example of mid-century International style by SOM-- Far from a bland insignificant building. The tenants (except the credit union) pretty much hate the idea of changing the building signage.

How does changing the logo at the top of the building, diminish or take away for the overall architecture/International style of the building? Honest question - 0 sarcasm.

[Verge]

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

How does changing the logo at the top of the building, diminish or take away for the overall architecture/International style of the building? Honest question - 0 sarcasm.

Because the sign is an integral part of the facade- part of the architecture as much as windows or the street facade. The Equitable building in Chicago had its sign removed a few years ago-- but it wasn't integrated into the architecture, just applied-- there is a difference. There is also historical and cultural significant to the sign as well-- kind of like the Citgo sign in Boston, which is an official city landmark--

[cabasse]

^yup. a big part of modernism is proportions, since there's no ornamentation... the proportions of this digital sign are just odd.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Verge

Because the sign is an integral part of the facade- part of the architecture as much as windows or the street facade. The Equitable building in Chicago had its sign removed a few years ago-- but it wasn't integrated into the architecture, just applied-- there is a difference. There is also historical and cultural significant to the sign as well-- kind of like the Citgo sign in Boston, which is an official city landmark--

Honestly, I fail to see the significance of changing the logo on the building. I guess you could argue if said Coca-Cola one could defend the historical value to the CoA, but Equitable Life Insurance was not based in Atlanta.

[montydawg]

Originally Posted by cabasse

^yup. a big part of modernism is proportions, since there's no ornamentation... the proportions of this digital sign are just odd.

Prediction: 25 years from now the billboard will be removed. Look at the interior of grand central terminal in the 1980’s. Nothing is permanent

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by montydawg

Prediction: 25 years from now the billboard will be removed. Look at the interior of grand central terminal in the 1980’s. Nothing is permanent

hopefully. all of this digital advertising signage is like internet banner ads all over the real world, and maybe there will be a backlash at some point.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by Verge

Because the sign is an integral part of the facade- part of the architecture as much as windows or the street facade. The Equitable building in Chicago had its sign removed a few years ago-- but it wasn't integrated into the architecture, just applied-- there is a difference. There is also historical and cultural significant to the sign as well-- kind of like the Citgo sign in Boston, which is an official city landmark--

What is Citgo doing in Boston?

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by Verge

Of course its permanently attached to the facade of the building-- so yes its permanent.

Nothing in this Universe is permanent. Nothing.