Historically and architecturally significant buildings razed by governments - Page 3

Steely Dan · #41 Posted **Oct 29, 2009, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Tacky orange thing?

. . .

yeah, i know, i rolled my eyes at that comment as well. calder's flamingo is my favorite work of public art in the city, second only to the picassso.

i know, i know, we're all supposed to be wild about the bean over in MP, but i still prefer those two older classics. maybe it's their settings beside some of the absolute creme-de-la-creme of skyscraper modernism on the planet.

nouveau_Mauvilla · #42 Posted **Oct 29, 2009, 9:57 PM**

The old Mobile Al, County Courthouse. Built in 1889; demolished in the 1950's

http://collections.alabamamosaic.org...SOBOX=1&REC=19

nouveau_Mauvilla · #43 Posted **Oct 29, 2009, 10:15 PM**

The Cawthon Hotel

http://collections.alabamamosaic.org...SOBOX=1&REC=14

Boys Industrial School

http://collections.alabamamosaic.org...ISOBOX=1&REC=8

Jewish Temple

http://collections.alabamamosaic.org...SOBOX=1&REC=12

Empire Theatre

http://collections.alabamamosaic.org...ISOBOX=1&REC=6

Yankee · #44 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 12:58 AM**

^^^

All very beautiful, thank you for posting. Let me guess what's in their place now - parking lots? Darn you post-WWII development, for destroying America...

JManc · #45 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 1:08 AM**

perhaps it was the 20 years of cheap knock-offs that water downed the impact international style architecture but mies' building does not hold a candle to the structure it replaced. chicago is full of glass boxes but not too many federal style buildings.

Lakelander · #46 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 2:20 AM**

In Jacksonville, FL, the most architectural significant loss would be the old DT post office. It was demolished in the 1950s for a department store that has been vacant for 20 years or so.

The vacant building on the right is what replaced the building in the black/white images.

Nowhereman1280 · #47 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 2:22 AM**

^^^ What do you mean by that? Chicago still has tons of ornate neo-classical buildings left and none of those give a big old "fuck you" to pedestrians like the Federal Building did. For example, the Jeweler's building which puts the old Federal Building to shame:

flickr

(Note: Jewelers Building is still standing and is not in threat of demolition)

My point about the old Federal building is not that its inherently ugly (though in my personal opinion it is) but that it is culturally and architecturally insignificant and contributed nothing to our city's history. The Mies buildings, on the other hand, are masterpieces that have actually contributed to the history of Chicago architecture.

CraftTeutonic · #48 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Tacky orange thing?

. . .

agree to disagree

TarHeelJ · #49 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 7:14 AM**

The Piedmont Hotel in Atlanta was demolished in 1966 and replaced by the Equitable Building.

Piedmont Hotel

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1005472...06038/sizes/o/

Equitable Building

http://www.flickr.com/photos/procrast8/207660550/

wrab · #50 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 12:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ What do you mean by that? Chicago still has tons of ornate neo-classical buildings left and none of those give a big old "fuck you" to pedestrians like the Federal Building did. For example, the Jeweler's building which puts the old Federal Building to shame:

flickr

(Note: Jewelers Building is still standing and in threat of demolition)

My point about the old Federal building is not that its inherently ugly (though in my personal opinion it is) but that it is culturally and architecturally insignificant and contributed nothing to our city's history. The Mies buildings, on the other hand, are masterpieces that have actually contributed to the history of Chicago architecture.

The Jewellers Bldg is under threat of demolition??? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Sullivan's Jewellers' Building down the street? And since when is that under threat of demolition? I'm not saying that you're wrong - I just haven't heard about it.

wrab · #51 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 12:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMancuso

perhaps it was the 20 years of cheap knock-offs that water downed the impact international style architecture but mies' building does not hold a candle to the structure it replaced. chicago is full of glass boxes but not too many federal style buildings.

Right - so the trick is to peel back all of those negative associations and to look at the complex critically but with fresh eyes. Maybe a docent-led walking tour with the Chicago Architecture Foundation the next time you are in town?

JManc · #52 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 3:32 PM**

didnt do the walking tour but i've been to that complex.

Tom In Chicago · #53 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee

He's talking about that abominable "flamingo" sculpture.

Abominable??? It's sad to see so many people on this forum with such poor taste in public art

. . .

J_M_Tungsten · #54 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Abominable??? It's sad to see so many people on this forum with such poor taste in public art

. . .

Its sad to see someone judging somebody elses taste in art. Art is extremely personal and just because two people don't agree on the same piece being a masterpiece, doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, its just a difference of opinion.

Yankee · #55 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Its sad to see someone judging somebody elses taste in art. Art is extremely personal and just because two people don't agree on the same piece being a masterpiece, doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, its just a difference of opinion.

Correct! Thanks. The whole debate over the old federal building here has been just that - a different in taste.

But I shouldn't have called it abominable, sorry about that.

I'm glad the thread is back on topic.

wrab · #56 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 7:32 PM**

http://www.petelit.com/images/2007/0...ck37before.jpg

This is an archival picture of the (infamous) "Block 37" in Chicago, which the city took through eminent domain and then razed completely in order to facilitate development.

The parcel is even more cursed than the Cubs. Although the city razed the entire block in 1989, development proved elusive and the block sat vacant until several years ago, when construction began on a now-foreclosed mixed-use project.

Tom In Chicago · #57 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee

Correct! Thanks. The whole debate over the old federal building here has been just that - a different in taste.

I guess that's my point. . . someone's taste in architecture was not built into the equation when they demolished the old Federal Building and replaced it with what currently stands in it's place. . .

. . .

ue · #58 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 9:01 PM**

It's a little unimaginable that Edmonton had this architecture at one time but...

Edmonton's original Central Library

https://archivesphotos.edmonton.ca/P...f=&ph=VHJ1ZQ==

And was replaced by in the late 60s...

TELUS Plaza

http://www.emporis.com/application/?...ding&id=112767

And our current central library is the Stanley A Milner

http://www.flickr.com/photos/conniecrosby/141061724/

Nowhereman1280 · #59 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrabbit

The Jewellers Bldg is under threat of demolition??? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Sullivan's Jewellers' Building down the street? And since when is that under threat of demolition? I'm not saying that you're wrong - I just haven't heard about it.

No, I specifically said it wasn't going to be demolished. I was just posting it so people would see that the Old Federal building was pathetic compared to some of the gems Chicago has preserved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

I guess that's my point. . . someone's taste in architecture was not built into the equation when they demolished the old Federal Building and replaced it with what currently stands in it's place. . .

Oh burn, Tom's got a point, you can't possibly tell people not to deride other's taste in architecture when you just started a thread about judging how bad other people's taste in architecture was when they tore down other buildings. Remember all the people who were just saying how we are wrong for thinking the Mies buildings are better...

StarScraperCity · #60 Posted **Oct 30, 2009, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

No, I specifically said it wasn't going to be demolished. I was just posting it so people would see that the Old Federal building was pathetic compared to some of the gems Chicago has preserved.

I have to admit, I was confused by the wording of your post as well.
(Note: Jewelers Building is still standing and in threat of demolition)