Are we building Public buildings "on the Cheap"

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpaer
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 30
  • Views: 318
  • Off-Topic 
mpaer

mpaer

Iconic Member
ZZL Supporter
Messages
2,231
I am old enough to see "big" public buildings built in my life get demolished-cause they are worn out. Lots of NC Govt buildings in downtown Raleigh are being demolished-or there is plan to demolish them. Great big multistory"icons" of the 60s
Where I went to high School the next year a new High School opened.Now it has been replaced (50 years)
Meanwhile they are still Public buildings built 70-80-90 years ago that stand-much longer than that in some cases
Is this because in the growth of Public buildings (including UNC Campus-say Hamilton Hall) in the 60s-70s we just built them Cheap?
Can we do better in the future?... It will be interesting to see how the gazilion dollars worth of Health care buildings built the last 30 years -in the Triangle for example hold up over time..How will the new Centential campus at NC State hold up-versus the 200 year old buildings at UNC main campus /
 
mpaer said:
I am old enough to see "big" public buildings built in my life get demolished-cause they are worn out. Lots of NC Govt buildings in downtown Raleigh are being demolished-or there is plan to demolish them. Great big multistory"icons" of the 60s
Where I went to high School the next year a new High School opened.Now it has been replaced (50 years)
Meanwhile they are still Public buildings built 70-80-90 years ago that stand-much longer than that in some cases
Is this because in the growth of Public buildings (including UNC Campus-say Hamilton Hall) in the 60s-70s we just built them Cheap?
Can we do better in the future?... It will be interesting to see how the gazilion dollars worth of Health care buildings built the last 30 years -in the Triangle for example hold up over time..How will the new Centential campus at NC State hold up-versus the 200 year old buildings at UNC main campus /
Click to expand...
There's also lead paint, asbestos, inefficient and outmoded HVAC, inadequate insulation and wiring of all types that are completely inadequate as well as newer and better plumbing options. All can be remediated but there's a pretty hefty price tag to do it and you still are going to be settling in cases. It needs to be a significant building, in my mind, to be worth it.
 
My guess is that it isn’t about cheap buildings as much as a desire for new shiny things. I imagine there are things that are desirable today that were not decades ago especially relating to technology.

What gets me is the professional stadiums that seem to get replaced every 30 years. The Commanders are building a new stadium and I remember when the one that Cooke built was new. (Given the new RFK would be a far superior location than in Maryland.). Same with the Rangers.
 
We build cheap, and not meant to last. Unfortunately. And you always hear: “It’s cheaper to tear it down and build new”. One reason is for tax write offs. Not sure, but I think you get a better deal spending $1mil on new construction than if you spend $1mil on renovating an old building. Could be wrong about that…

All I know is it’s always astounding to me when I walk into a building in Europe and over the front door the Keystone is carved “1342” or something like that. I always think “Damn! This place has been here since 1342 AD! A solid 150 years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue!” And what’s even more astounding is when you walk into that old building and it’s totally renovated and modern with all the conveniences… new plumbing, wiring, internet, communications, etc.

But here in America we build cheap and tear it all down 30 years later.
The Charlotte Colosseum near the airport comes to mind. Built in the late 80’s and already gone by 2007. Sad and stupid really…
1746448348619.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0835.jpeg
    IMG_0835.jpeg
    604.1 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
One of the things that really made me realize how old I was getting was when South Square was demolished. I worked on it when it was coming out of the ground in my early 20s. Watching it go through its entire commercial cycle and be reborn got to me a bit. And that wasn't just yesterday that it happened.
 
Centerpiece said:
But here in America we build cheap and tear it all down 30 years later.
The Charlotte Colosseum near the airport comes to mind. Built in the late 80’s and already gone by 2007. Sad and stupid really…
Click to expand...
The sad and stupid part with that building was that they built out by the airport in the first place, and the building was outdated when it opened with no suites, etc.
 
Centerpiece said:
We build cheap, and not meant to last. Unfortunately. And you always hear: “It’s cheaper to tear it down and build new”. One reason is for tax write offs. Not sure, but I think you get a better deal spending $1mil on new construction than if you spend $1mil on renovating an old building. Could be wrong about that…

All I know is it’s always astounding to me when I walk into a building in Europe and over the front door the Keystone is carved “1342” or something like that. I always think “Damn! This place has been here since 1342 AD! A solid 150 years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue!” And what’s even more astounding is when you walk into that old building and it’s totally renovated and modern with all the conveniences… new plumbing, wiring, internet, communications, etc.

But here in America we build cheap and tear it all down 30 years later.
The Charlotte Colosseum near the airport comes to mind. Built in the late 80’s and already gone by 2007. Sad and stupid really…
1746448348619.jpeg
Click to expand...
It is one of the things I love about having a family home in Beaufort. Lots of historic homes. I often wonder how much citizens' understanding of, and appreciation for, history and legacy in a country relates to how much exposure they get to old buildings, statues, art, etc.
 
From a purely aesthestics standpoint the 60s-70's multistory buildings that were mostly "concrete" on the outside with few windows-always made me ill. i suppose todays choice of mostly glass has it's real limits in durability ?
I remember Chancellor Hooker saying he wanted to tear down Hamilton hall and Howell hall becuase they were eyesores....Wish that could have happened
 
farce© said:
The sad and stupid part with that building was that they built out by the airport in the first place, and the building was outdated when it opened with no suites, etc.
Click to expand...
The worst part about the old Charlotte Coliseum was leaving an event. You’d have to spend about 30-45 minutes in the parking lot before you got out of it. And then once you got out, you’d have to sit in traffic for a while because the routes leading to and from the Coliseum were so limited. If you realized you had to use the restroom once you got to your car, you were screwed.

Thinking about that really makes me appreciate the ease with which you can get to and from the Spectrum Center. In addition to having so many parking options at various points all around the center city, you have the options of the light rail, the streetcar, or a bus. The old Coliseum has no public transportation options and only that one giant parking lot with nothing else around it. Not to mention, you can get an Uber, Lyft, or cab to drop you off right in front of the Spectrum Center. Obviously Uber and Lyft didn’t exist when the old Coliseum was in use, but if you took a cab, you’d have get dropped off/picked up at the parking lot entrance, which was a good distance from the Coliseum and not an enjoyable walk.
 
mpaer said:
From a purely aesthestics standpoint the 60s-70's multistory buildings that were mostly "concrete" on the outside with few windows-always made me ill. i suppose todays choice of mostly glass has it's real limits in durability ?
I remember Chancellor Hooker saying he wanted to tear down Hamilton hall and Howell hall becuase they were eyesores....Wish that could have happened
Click to expand...
Yeah, that 60s/70s architecture is truly awful. Not sure how anyone ever thought it looked good to have a big concrete box with tiny windows.
 
mpaer said:
From a purely aesthestics standpoint the 60s-70's multistory buildings that were mostly "concrete" on the outside with few windows-always made me ill. i suppose todays choice of mostly glass has it's real limits in durability ?
I remember Chancellor Hooker saying he wanted to tear down Hamilton hall and Howell hall becuase they were eyesores....Wish that could have happened
Click to expand...
Brady Corbet Oscars GIF
 
This is what I'm talking about. These are some pics I took back when I lived in Europe. First one built in 1467 (renovated in 1675); second one built in 1593 (latest reno in 1979); Third built in 1640 (no markings for reno). Perhaps I should share these on the thread "Photos I took" or whatever. But my point is, when you walk into each one of these buildings they've been totally renovated and updated with all of the modern conveniences. And yes, that's my reflection in the glass...

olde door 1467.jpg1593 doorway.jpgOld door 1640.jpg
 
I don't believe it's simply that the buildings were built cheap and must be demolished, in most cases.

As mentioned above there are so many advances in building components and materials. There's the change in demographics dr8ving the need for some buildings. Tax incentives, astectics, cost of renovations, etc. There are many driving factors.
 
Just think in residential building codes you could simply nail the deck support beam on the outside of your siding with nails 25 short years ago. Now, due to multiple decks collapsing, that main support has to be bolted to the house.
 
Icky Mettle said:
The worst part about the old Charlotte Coliseum was leaving an event. You’d have to spend about 30-45 minutes in the parking lot before you got out of it. And then once you got out, you’d have to sit in traffic for a while because the routes leading to and from the Coliseum were so limited. If you realized you had to use the restroom once you got to your car, you were screwed.
Click to expand...
Now UNC is going to recreate that with the new Dean Dome on MLK
 
UNCatTech said:
Just think in residential building codes you could simply nail the deck support beam on the outside of your siding with nails 25 short years ago. Now, due to multiple decks collapsing, that main support has to be bolted to the house.
Click to expand...
50 years ago, in Chatham County, you didn't have to flash a deck. I made a lot of money in Polk's Landing about five years later replacing rotting sills.
 
Last edited:
Icky Mettle said:
Yeah, that 60s/70s architecture is truly awful. Not sure how anyone ever thought it looked good to have a big concrete box with tiny windows.
Click to expand...
I have a Facebook friend who often posts about how much she loves brutalist architecture. I guess there has to be one person who likes it.
 
UNCatTech said:
I don't believe it's simply that the buildings were built cheap and must be demolished, in most cases.

As mentioned above there are so many advances in building components and materials. There's the change in demographics dr8ving the need for some buildings. Tax incentives, astectics, cost of renovations, etc. There are many driving factors.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting how until perhaps the mid-90s, so many big office buildings were built with a very basic lobby (pretty much just a security desk with a couple benches), and other than the entrance to the lobby there was nothing about the building open to the street. Now there is a lot more thought put into the design of the lobby and the bottom level of the buildings have things like restaurants in them that open up to the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top