Bloomsbury Estates: 19th Century France or 21st Century Raleigh?

RaleighRob
10/31 12:41 PM

While I too have concerns about the slow pace of its construction, I can’t really say anything negative of the architecture until I see it finished.  Either it’ll be nice and someewhat authenic or cheap replica.  I’m hoping the former.
I’m just glad to see something different.  Too many of the condo buildings in Raleigh these days have that “Birthday Cake” architecture that you see in The Dawson, Paramount, Oberlin Court, etc.  Originality deserves some credit.

geebus... really?
10/31 01:05 PM

Originality? It’s the same exact postmodern historicism that’s expressed in The Dawson, Paramount, and Oberlin Court. Perhaps worse, in this case it was the builder’s express goal to transpose symbology irrespective of context. That’s a significant step up from slapping a cornice on in hopes of making it feel warm and homey.

150
10/31 03:41 PM

I almost don’t care what it looks like, really, just get this thing up.  This project (and Sidetrack Pub) is taking forever.

Jim
10/31 05:03 PM

While this is not quite the Raleigh McCondo that we are all familiar with (Dawson, Paramount, whatever that thing is on Glenwood that is indistinguishable from the Dawson, etc.), it’s close.  Aside from the turret and quasi 2nd empire stylings, I see very little originality-it’s not like this building has really set itself apart. 

Most importantly, it’s a hugely wasted opportunity when it comes to linking Boylan Heights with Hillsborough St./warehouse district/Glenwood.  Rather than appeal to pedestrian traffic coming up the street, bloomsbury is a fenced-off fortress that is about as inviting as central prison.  It screams “keep out, rich people live here, not you!”  Hopefully the sidetrack will mitigate this effect. 

This article was a great criticism.

brian_M
10/31 05:27 PM

Turd on an overlook.

150
10/31 06:03 PM

Interesting take, Jim.

I personally don’t agree, though.  I think it helps pedestrian traffic, not hurt it, even if it does say “rich people live here” to some.  Right now, I personally go out of my way to avoid walking down Hargett Street to the warehouse district at night, due to that stretch over the train tracks.  At night, you’re asking to get mugged there (no human traffic, very little vehicle traffic).  The Bloomsbury will at least increase the human presence there, and with the Sidetrack Pub, it should make that part of Hargett a little more inviting.

Jim
10/31 08:17 PM

150:

Just to be clear, I definitely don’t mean to impugn wealthy people who will live at bloomsbury (I recall the base price for one of the units was at least high $200Ks, if not $300K, so it’s pretty clear folks with much $$$ will end up there).  What I intended to convey by the “rich people live here” comment was that the design of the building, to me, is very exclusive to the outsider/fellow/gal walking by it on the street.  It lacks a neighborly air in an area that has a great neighborhood right beside it.  Why not enhance this, at least somewhat, with the design?  It just seems to turn its back to its environment (hence the exclusivity). 

I think that sidetrack is going to have a much bigger impact on human presence at that intersection than bloomsbury.

Sam
10/31 09:32 PM

“It would have been the artist’s task to find a new formal language for new materials. Everything else is imitation. ” -Adolf Loos The status/ image based design of this complex reminds me of the Early 20th century buildings in Vienna that Loos criticized. His criticism was largly based on the fact that many of the apartments built at that time (pre/ during the industrial revolution) appeared more like baroque mansions than apartments. I know this is a different style, but style is pase and will fade. An honest architecture is forever. I have a few more logistical criticisms besides my general disdain for pretensions and inaccurate historical simulations. If you have eyes on the street people won’t get mugged. What is that fence keeping out? And It’s a little pathetic that the best view of our fair city’s skyline is wasted through such small windows that almost certainly will be draped in red velvet.

Betsy
11/01 12:38 AM

The “architecture” of this building is pathetic; the suburban-style site layout is pathetic; and the waste of this beautifully situated building site is pathetic. 

I would rather live under the Boylan Avenue Bridge.

meredith
11/01 12:59 AM

I enjoyed this article. It makes me think about how this happens all the time. A local school, Cary Academy takes a hint from Neoclassicism, (TJ’s UVA) which derives from the Greeks and Romans. So, that implies the schools are using this architectural style to convey ideals of academic tradition and order. I also think of neighborhoods like Bedford and its attempts to re-create some neighborhood ideal through architecture (note this quote from Bedford’s website,” The idea of neighborly socialization is built into the framework of the community, where wide front porches encourage casual interaction and the town center features an iconic clock tower and public area.”) So, the developers/builders are using architecture to sell an image, right? It’s funny to think that the Second Empire style reflects the dictator tendencies of Napoleon III, like the article mentions. Is Bloomsbury Estates selling power, supremacy?

brian_M
11/01 02:11 AM

It’s selling *McMansion*, and in the City! It really has great style! It *pops*!

Really, is there an architect that has their name attached to this thing?

go go girl
11/01 12:05 PM

I feel the esthetic and cultural criticisms of this building are very valid.

*** When people are asked to select their favorites, they choose buildings and designs that symbolize the culmination of their ideals about innovation, community, progress, history, and beauty.****

Innovation, progress and history are valid points of debate - but an individual’s sense of community can be quite unique and beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder.

So, when the style Nazis arrive to legislate “taste” - whose “taste” will be permitted?

gogo

Robert E Leebowitz
11/01 02:42 PM

This building reminds me of the Paris Casino, or New York, New York Casio in Las Vegas and even worse: that horrible Greco-Romo bank at Cameron Village. A facsimile of something that has nothing to do with the setting.  It is indeed different from the other condo projects in Raleigh but it is also different from good.  Nice post. I especially like the excerpt about the neighborhood’s drunken and rowdy past. Joel Lane’s lobbying to locate the Capitol City on this land was cinched by an evening of plying dignitaries with cherry brandy at the Joel Lane House.  Otherwise, Raleigh would have been built on a horribly scenic overlook of the Neuse River.

Dana
11/01 05:28 PM

Some people will never be satisfied. We finally get projects that aren’t 3 story apartments in the burbs and they get blasted. Apparently nobody likes any of the new residential developments downtown so let’s just quit because they aren’t world-breaking original architecture.

Let’s build it, and 10 more with variations. Whatever. Analyzing this stuff to death is what made Raleigh build non-descript boxes throughout the 70’s and 80’s. Not every building needs to be some groundbreaking, original iconic trophy. Most people in Raleigh are ecstatic this building is getting built.

Where’s that article about how the Velvet Cloak is a cheap suburban rendition of something in a walkable area of New Orleans? What about the article about how Greek architecture has no place in DT Raleigh because we don’t have a Greek history? OR for that matter, most of Washington DC is a “cheap” redux of old European architecture. Oh well. I guess it’s easy to moan about something people actually are looking forward to.

brian_M
11/01 05:44 PM

Oh no, not the dreaded “most people”...spoken like a true Fox News fan.

JZ
11/01 08:08 PM

A champion of mediocrity….the building and our Fox News Fan….

Please site examples of urban conditions that were successful with a consistent employment of this approach.

Please cite your sources of “most people”.

I know this ain’t Wikipedia, I’m just sayin’....

Javier
11/01 08:15 PM

I’m not going to chime in on the high-brow architectural debate, but I do find it necessary to point out the fallacy presented by the statement in the article that asserts that developer uncertainty is driving the moves from “planned condo buildings to apartment buildings or towards office & retail”.  This has occurred in only a very few projects (712 Tucker & the L), and in each case, market anxiety was not the cause.  The L converted to office & retail because they could not satisfy residential open space requirements without blowing their pro forma.  712 Tucker identified a burgeoning market opportunity for rental market, thus changing the asset class from short-term to long term.  FTI - the Downtown market has a 98% occupancy rate for market-rate rental properties, and the demand will continue to grow, especially in hot spots like Glenwood South.

Additionally, the national norm of the downtown being home to the creative class and urban pioneers is dated.  This was the case when downtowns were the recipient of widespread disinvestment, causing rents and building costs down.  Downtown markets across the country have long since shifted towards for-sale purchases because of developer confidence in groups (singles, seniors, young couples, empty nesters), that now comprise 60% of the american households.  These folks are looking for lifestyle alternatives to the traditional suburban model.  Unfortunately for downtown Raleigh, its reemergence occurred about 5-10 years after national trends, meaning that lower cost renovations, new rental developments, etc. that usually preceeded for-sale condo development were priced out in favor of condo developments that offer a quicker return on investment capital. 

The shift of 712 Tucker should be regarded as a great thing, as the opportunity to live an urban lifestyle will again be reopened to groups that do not have the resources to afford condos @ $275 / square foot.

Dana
11/01 08:20 PM

In running a blog with 3,000 viewers a day, I spoke to many, many people about this project. (I did not tally each one of them, so don’t even ask what the exact number was.)

BTW, it is not incorrect to say “most people” because I, having contact with a large sample interested population, have not heard much criticism of this project until reading this very small sample today.

I also did not mention anything about Fox news. Please stick with the subject.

JZ
11/01 08:28 PM

Please cite examples of urban conditions that were successful with a consistent employment of this approach.

JZ
11/01 09:06 PM

Rather than expressing the aspirations of our time and place, we have naively applied the “wardrobes” of other cultures assuming they can somehow speak more meaningfully than what we can offer to ourselves.  By tracing the history of the Second Empire style, Mark has demonstrated how far removed the original message is when placed in 21st Century Raleigh. Its no different than saying the sky is yellow.

Maybe there’s some truth to 3,000 bloggers in Raleigh getting excited about a project of such blatant cowardice.  But I think it makes a greater statement about a lack of cultural sensitivity and invention than it does about the project’s worth. 

Is there any ground floor retail to foster greater street activity?  What kind of semi-public spaces are being generated, or is all that green space turned inward and made exclusive for the privileged few residents?  What kind of responsible materials are being used in the making of the structure?  Are they from renewable resources?  Is the structure energy conscious?  Does it employ active or passive solar control?  Responding to some of these questions positively demonstrates a capability of contributing worth in Downtown.  Since for Bloomsbury ALL these answers are in the negative, the building does not function properly and responsibly.  It’s appearance is a superficial move to make something appear more than it really is. Its a classic developer magic trick to lure individuals to assume quality when there really is none, preying upon the person more interested in the talent and imagination of some dead Frenchmen than of any of Raleigh’s creative class.

Robert E Leebowitz
11/01 09:30 PM

Pointing out the Velvet Cloak’s lack of originality and sense of place doesn’t justify the same failures in the Bloomsbury.  “Some people” are very happy with the design of hotels like The Umstead Hotel or The Franklin Hotel.  I didn’t feel the need to mention the “I Likes” when criticizing this building but now I don’t want to be lumped in with the “Some people” who are never satisfied.  I spend half my time in the shadow of this building and upward of 80% of the comments I hear about it are negative.  But I have no doubt that from outside the neighborhood looking in, the opinions may be just the opposite. My mom loves it!

some guy
11/01 09:40 PM

brian_M and JZ:

Why don’t you change your name to “Kid in the corner smoking a cigarette with nothing but shitty things to say” ?  Why not advance the discussion instead of throwing cold water on it? 

Anyway, it seems to me that it’s really about what Raleigh’s architectural identity is and what it says about us.  How does a young city like ours define its identity out of thin air?  How did other “model” cities get to where they are?  What can Raleigh do to follow some of those footsteps and realize its own potential?

some guy
11/01 09:44 PM

Sorry JZ… I spoke too soon.

brian_M
11/02 12:30 AM

Due to its location, this project had an unparalleled opportunity to make a prominent statement about the present and future of Raleigh. Instead will be a permanent example for the School of Design architecture students in sheer laziness and nouveau riche bad taste. I feel bad for architects in the immediate vicinity (several who are prominent and have many years of inspiring and forward-thinking projects to their credit) who walk out of their offices and have to look up at this mess.

brian_M
11/02 12:42 AM

“Most people” is straight from trashy reporting 101, and is a lame attempt at trying to sway opinion by connecting your weak arguments to group think, pretty sure everybody knows this. It worked over at Raleighing, why take the show on the road? This is a sharper bunch over here, who aren’t going to fall for it.

Dana
11/02 01:59 AM

Nice try brian_M. Of course, feel free to post the URL to your Raleigh blog. The more the merrier.

brian_M
11/02 12:02 PM

Who cares, now that there’s this one, which is about Raleigh proper and not some developer’s pet project, there’s no need.

erin
11/02 01:04 PM

isn’t raleigh’s sister city compeign, france?  maybe the compeign lobbyists had something to do with this!

(im trying desperately to figure out why they thought this fits in raleigh.  it is better than a lot of the other condo buildings in raleigh.  but that doesnt mean much.)

150
11/02 01:05 PM

Just have to point this out, because the claim is rediculous.  It’s from high school english class.

If you are going to claim “most”, you need evidence of >50%.  If you don’t have that evidence, then it is incorrect to use it.  “Many” is just fine.

Back on topic, though.  Why is the Bloomsbury being likened to an architectual “mess”?  Even if it isn’t to everyone’s liking, it’s a ton better than the empty lot that used to be there.  I don’t mind the project at all, really.

JZ
11/02 02:55 PM

I do support that it is better than an underutilized paved lot (which it was, correct?).

However, for my bleeding heart, I rather see an unpaved vacant lot that minimizes runoff, absorbs air pollutants and supports downtown wildlife to remain than to be disturbed by poor specimens of design. 

Also, I’d like to hear some thoughts of why this project is “better than other” projects in Raleigh.  I wholly support personal opinion but I’d like to hear clear reasons—possibly citing examples, details, etc—as to what you’re talking about.

erin
11/02 03:06 PM

i’d say its less bland than the dawson.  bloomsbury has a lot of tacked-on detail, but it does make it more interesting.  its fake.  no doubt about that.  but it does attract the eye.  and personally, it makes me laugh because its so goofy.  the dawson makes me angry.

honestly, all these fake, stupid-looking condos are growing on me.  i went to atl the other weekend for the first time, and all their fake, stupid-looking condos didn’t bother me as much as i thought they would.  and i think its because there were people in, on, around them.  they were being used.  it was really alive and it felt really urban even though driving down peachtree was a little deja vu a la glenwood.  so, as long as there are people who want to live and use these stupid looking buildings, i really dont mind it. 

bodies in downtown=revenue for businesses=more money to spend on nicer buildings=more bodies in downtown

150
11/02 03:29 PM

JZ, yeah, it pretty much was just a vacant corner, although they did have more trees there than there are now. 

Erin, I agree with you.  That’s why I don’t really care too much about the architecture.  When the Bloomsbury has people in it, and the Sidetrack is in business, that corner and the immediate area will look a lot better than it does now, or did before.

JZ
11/02 03:56 PM

Its Bate’s Mansion….NOOOORMAAAAN!!!!

pablo
11/02 09:41 PM

Interesting thread. I don’t have an architectural background, but consider myself a post-modernist (in the social science sense) and realize that Raleigh is going to have a faux landscape because nothing original has happened her YET. At least the project helps create density rather than sprawl (The lot used to be storage area for CAT buses). The area (old concrete plant, etc.)in general has great potential to help bind Hills St./Glenn S. to the Whse district. Looking forward to the future and wishing I was younger, you just don’t know how bad it was…

yogaboat
11/03 08:57 PM

I’ve always lovingly referred to this project as the Addam’s Family Condos. In my eyes it’s a hideous conglomeration of I-Don’t-Know-What-I-Am architecture. Which ironically echoes the ongoing vibe in Raleigh that it,too, doesn’t know it’s identity, and wonders if it should claim one, and if so, what, and more importantly - why exactly do we even need one?

This building is Fugly, if I may join the smoking teens in expressing so. It’s not purely any one style, but an awkward mix of things that don’t even compliment each other. What’s with the rectilinear modern balconies (elevator lobbies?) crammed in the crook of the building, flanked by ornate arches/no arches - we can’t decide - features? Then there’s the Gazebo at Random feature that is a geometric entity all its own.

I could almost, *almost* accept it if it were purely Hinsdale/Second Empire on a larger scale, but it’s not. About the only other thing true to Raleigh’s character with it is the brick. If one is to give a respectful nod to a certain style, at least make it authentic and convincing.

It will serve as a nice west-ish end marker for the Hargett strip, I suppose.

I agree that it’s a missed opportunity on a highly visible, elevated site that a more modern building like 630 North would better have served.

erin
11/04 04:43 PM

what is the name of the condos on the other side of the progress energy building, redbrick/green trim?  i like those.

JZ
11/04 05:31 PM

Palladium Plaza:

palladiumplaza.com

i agree there is something appealing about it….for me there’s an intensity and density that is much more urban feeling than the other projects….the two story plans seem efficient and straight forward, but i have no idea what the finishes are like…..and is there a two story cafe going in on the corner?

y’all may have seen this, or even linked to it in a previous post, but its new to me….a running list of existing, in progress and proposed projects with links to their respective sites:

raleighcondoandloft.com

JZ
11/04 05:35 PM

actually, there’s a photo gallery on the Palladium website…interiors appear to be developer spec with an slightly forward look…..nothing spectacular or unique…anywhere USA, in some respects….. but maybe a good base to build off of if one can afford to after footing the 300K +/- cost of purchase…...

ErnstStavroBlofeld
11/06 09:40 PM

Well, they could always knock it down and park buses there like it was for 20 years and then you guys could complain about that.  The diesel fumes and smoke should get at least 3 complaint blogs going.  Get Tom Crowder to propose that to the CC for a vote.

Dana
11/07 05:52 PM

“Despite spelling and grammatical errors…”

This is a statement by the author that keeps showing up in the RSS feed. It refers to John Bruckel’s vision for the project, and I think needs explanation. This personal attack on Bruckel’s intelligence is unjustified and doesn’t belong with the author’s otherwise well-written piece.

plan B?
11/07 06:56 PM

Your initial arguments didn’t find any sympathetic replies, so now it’s off to defend the developer’s poor grasp of the English language?

You’ll have to go back to the unabridged quote in order to see the spelling errors, but they’re there. As for the grammar, it’s riddled with errors in both versions.

Dana
11/07 07:22 PM

I cannot find this passage, which (for some reason) keeps showing up as a “fresh” RSS entry.

“?My vision is to make a positive impact on the skyline of Downtown Raleigh? Our approach is different. We are focused on quality design, ambience, quality building and craftsmanship, in an excellent location with the greatest view of the Raleigh skyline. One hundred years from now I would love people to look up the hill from downtown Raleigh and observe that this building started the second wave of beautiful historical structures in Raleigh.?-John Bruckel, Bloomsbury Estates Developer Despite spelling and grammatical errors, there are so many things wrong with this statement.  This developer?s thinking is flawed at the very core of the ?approach.? Here?s why:”

So, WHAT unabridged version? I don’t even see the abridged version in the posted article! Like I said, the article is well written and well-researched, I just disagree with many of its conclusions.

I’m not defending the developer’s English skills, I just don’t see what this has to do with his abilities to pull off a quality addition to downtown.

BTW, no! I still stand by my claim that most of the more than 300 people I’ve talked to about this project are excited about the design. If you all want to continue to parse my words, I’ll confidently define “most” in this case: >95%. Most are ITBers who never, ever would have considered living downtown.

Not all projects are for all people. While some very modern piece of architecture may inspire some to get involved in downtown, an entirely different look will get others excited about downtown. Remember, the name of the game here is getting people in suburbia to consider downtown as a part of their lives. Perhaps they’ll opt for a downtown location that nobody ever previously wanted.

Finally, let’s drop these name handles. We’re all adults here, right?

Mark
11/07 07:47 PM

For clarification, the quote from the RSS was included in the article summary, not the main article, found here.

JZ
11/07 07:56 PM

This conversation, Dana, is going nowhere….I’m not sure you’re efforts are offering any progress simply because you have not produced any concrete examples or evidence of why this type of development should be acceptable.  I understand the “it’s better here than out in suburbia” concept, but I’m not one for the “lesser of the two evils” strategy; especially as the ONLY strategy. 

Also, the notion that it has value because so many people have told you that they like it, does not make it RIGHT.  Lots of people like McDonalds, too, but I don’t observe health care professionals recommending you eat it.

erin
11/07 08:13 PM

“Also, the notion that it has value because so many people have told you that they like it, does not make it RIGHT. “

what is ‘right’?  in terms of its moral-value/sensitivity to its environment or what will be embraced by those who will buy it?

this has become such a bickering match between people who think “well whatever, if they are sold, then its working” and people who think “oh my god if its not mindblowing art then its disgusting and vile.  i think ill spit on it”

what is raleigh style that would be embraced by everyone?  does this city even have a style that you can go to if you want something people like and can relate to?  why cant the city throw up some shit to see what sticks?

JZ
11/07 08:27 PM

This is not about some arbitrary issue of taste. I believe that Mark did a great job highlighting the disconnect between the form and the content of this project. 

If your dentist told you that you needed a root canal, you would trust his judgment.  How different would the world be if we actually respected the authority of our design community.

This is not a homecoming dance where we parade all styles of history out for a public vote.  I believe the bickering is more about the issue of ideology than it ever was about the Bloomsbury.

Dana
11/07 09:46 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Mark!

I didn’t go to architecture school or design school, but I’m sure that one of the age-old philosophical arguments centers around artistry vs. pragmatism. I tend to be more pragmatic. Does that make me dumb? To point to another art form, music, for sure the most popular products are not necessarily the best, and countless examples of genius go unnoticed.

An even deeper discussion is “what is the PURPOSE of architecture?” For me there has to be a populist level of success with a project for it to be a success generations later.

One other aspect I failed to mention earlier is that artist’s renderings are sometimes misrepresentative of the details of the final product. The rendering may look fine but could look like some stack of Jim Walter Homes in practice, or could be a proud product with the exact same rendering.

At last count there are just over 150 sites in downtown Raleigh to place a building such as the Wachovia tower. I think we need to be a little more enthusiastic about quantity before we get too picky about quality.

Please do not lump dentists with the art community. The roles are very, VERY different. Root Canal Therapy is a procedure to answer a series of cut-and-dry tests. There is really no gray zone or interpretive realm. A room full of 100 dentists should be in 95% agreement when it comes to RCT.

Also, just for clarification, every natural tooth has a “root canal”, so it isn’t accurate to say that a tooth “needs a root canal”. It’s like saying your leg “needs a knee” (<rant>Same with “TMJ”; temporomandibular joint. You have 2 of them and if either has a disorder, you have TMD, not TMJ</rant>)

Nevertheless, I understand the point about how we should let the architecture establishment guide us. The only fallacy here is that we may end up with a downtown that is the equivalent to NCSU’s campus. On the contrary, we want people to be attracted to downtown Raleigh for generations to come, and the best way to get there is to stop the out-of-scale negativity and naysaying that has plagued this town for so many years. This project is not THAT bad, y’all. You make it sound like something worse than the former Purina facility on S Wilm. St.

erin
11/08 01:23 PM

i can’t believe it but i agree with dana.  also, I DID go to architecture school AND I tend to be more pragmatic.  there are practical people in design school who understand the populist notion you talk about (and also the importance of giving the client what they want even if its not what you necessarily would do with that money)  please dont think otherwise.

JZ
11/08 01:42 PM

you’re right…its a free and populist country, peppered with folks who don’t need the expertise of the architect to guide them….we just give ‘em what they want…no need to educate them, or show them the potentials and capabilities of the medium, or tell them how UNFUNCTIONAL a building of this appearance is…......must have missed something in MY architectural training….

but thank you dana for making my point for me:  you’re a dentist and i’m an architect.

you know what a root canal is.

i know what architecture is.

and this ain’t it.

end of story.

later…

go go
11/08 03:37 PM

An architect can make a building personal, maybe even unique, hopefully pleasant to look at and at times maybe even a real show-stopper that might last a millennium and be the precursor to a new school of design that can then be ridiculously mimicked, distorted and abused sometime in the future for the predilections of the masses.

But architects work for other people ? folks with much deeper pockets then their own - and if history is any lesson it?s the money that talks.

Some people don?t care about architectural history, design rules or someone else?s esthetics, they like what they like for reasons they do not feel obliged to defend or explain. It?s their money.

This is not new. There is a long history of architects? frustration with the tastes of their clients, but it?s the owner?s dollars that will decide what gets built.

No doubt there are licensed architects that have mortgage payments, retirement accounts and kids tuitions to pay who may have sold their soul to the design devil for a steady income, a life, security and serenity. There might actually be architects out there that do not live and breath architecture; it’s just the thing that pays the bills.

Hopefully some of the more talented, passionate and inspired architects will find willing and enthusiastic local patrons for the benefit of Raleigh - the more the merrier - but it would be naive to believe that each and every structure added to the Raleigh skyline will be an architectural gem, that Raleigh will develop block after block of nothing but the finest, most cutting edge design the world has ever seen.

I feel that the Bloomsbury is nightmare of pretension placed on an arresting and enviable site.

I also feel that some people, with no interest in architectural purity laws, will enjoy that building very much.

I am also grateful there are so many people passionate and paying attention to the future and to Raleigh’s urban development - it can only be a good thing.

Dana
11/08 03:55 PM

“you?re right…its a free and populist country, peppered with folks who don?t need the expertise of the architect to guide them….we just give ?em what they want…no need to educate them, or show them the potentials and capabilities of the medium, or tell them how UNFUNCTIONAL a building of this appearance is…......must have missed something in MY architectural training….”

That’s not what I said, and I’m sure that an architect of some type was involved in the project. Your statement implies that none was used, so it seems you’re playing “I’m a better architect” when the issue really seems to be about tastes, especially given your Bates Motel note.

However, I want to hear about how “unfunctional” this building is. By “unfunctional” do you mean that it has ornaments that serve no purpose in light of today’s technology or do you mean that it doesn’t properly serve the development pattern of downtown? Don’t forget the strangely omitted recent suburban development behind Joel Lane (which is a perverted neo-colonial design in the shadows of a true historic structure) in this context.

As far as I can tell, the overwhelming sentiment from a few here is that we should never try to recreate the general Victorian era in the modern day. The era was loaded with unnecessary, ostentatious ornaments, and the arguments against Bloomsbury’s design seem to be left over from the Modernist period when old Meredith College was razed.

Personally, I see no reason why previous eras of architecture cannot be revisited in moderation, even if only with a hint. Some of Raleigh’s most popular houses are Colonial Williamsburg reproductions with unnecessary dental moulding, beaded masonry, and beadboard siding. Some of it’s most popular public buildings are throwbacks to ancient Greece, and contain superfluous technological relics.

blue_suede_jeans
11/08 06:30 PM

Second Empire/Victoria/Colonial Architecture was never built with Metal Stud walls with cast in place concrete and huge construction cranes….this building is.  Therefore it is not being “true to form or history”.  AKA “perversion of design”.

It’s not about taste, it’s about progression and pushing the world forward VIA design, which is what all professions do (architecture, dentistry, medical, etc.)

It’s like using old technology with a comtemporary skin on the building.  We would never do that so why would we use New technology for structure with old skins. 

Let the past be the past and the present lead to the future.  This isn’t a hint of the past, this is perversion of the past, with current technology (kinda like those fake pyramids in Vegas, NOT BUILT WITH STONE)  Progressiveness is what we ask for in the design world and if you are going to evoke the past, make it better, not worse.

What if our doctor/dentist/surgeon tried to use medicine from the 18th century on our bodies.  Would we trust them?  Would they even be in practice?  Probably not.  We rely on current medicine to cure the problems we have discovered in the past few years.  Antibiotics change daily, therefore we use the new ones, not those from 2 years ago.  So why use buildings from over 100 years ago?  Are we that attached to our (well France’s) past.  Geez.

Just because an architect “worked” on this project doesn’t mean much.  So many buildings that are developer based were never “designed”, they were specified by a style to make money, not a design.  The sad part is that try “googling” bloomsbury estates and architect.  You won’t find anything.  If this was pure architecture, an architect would want their name all over it.  But….for some reason all you see is a developers name attached to it. 

Money vs. Design - The Ultimate Question.

lone gunman
11/30 05:07 PM

A friend showed me this site a few days ago and I have found it to be quite interesting. I must admit, being a layman in the world of blogs, I hope that I do not warrant the sophomoric retorts that some other typists have incurred during this debate on Bloomsbury Estates after my first attempt is read. I agree with Alfalfa when he stated, ?normally, I’m a lover, not a fighter??
Although not a formally educated architectural critic, I do, like many others, naturally have certain biases and views of the built world around me. In this instance, I wish to lean on the expertise of the field of critics, which frequent this blog in order to understand the positions of said critics on the review of this project beyond pure emotional or subjective taste. In order to do this, I had to do a bit of homework, as it were, to set the stage for my inquiries.
I first needed to be assured that this was indeed architecture. This fact seems on the surface to be silly endeavor, but one blogger stated that this building ?is not architecture?. So I had to first insure that my terminology used herein is grounded in known truth; which is paramount (pardon the condo pun). I researched and found that the definition of architecture, according to Webster is: ?the art or science of building; specifically: the art or practice of designing and building structures, especially habitable ones.? With this fact now set in my mind, I then focused on the design of the building, which I see as the true lighting rod here - due to the simple fact that this project is usable, not just sculpture. ?A structure becomes architectural, and not sculptural, when its elements no longer have their justification in nature.? ? Gullaume Apollinaire. 
I then did a bit of research on the Second Empire style and found out that, in the United States, this style had basic tenants. But, interestingly enough, the projects that used these tenants actually varied greatly in their final application. In short, the Second Empire style in the US almost exclusively combines a tower element with a steep, but short, mansard roof, the roof being the most noteworthy link to the style?s original French roots. This tower element could be of equal height of the top most floor, or could exceed the height of the rest of the structure by a story or two. The mansard roof crest was often topped with an iron trim, sometimes referred to as ?cresting?. The exterior style could be expressed in either wood, brick or stone. Often in larger projects, floor levels were expressed thru the fa?ade with material or color changes, which created a banding effect. More elaborate examples frequently featured sculptured details around the entrances, windows and dormers. Although these sculptural details often made correlation to actual structural details (ie. cornice brackets being the decorative carved ends of roof structural members) they were designed and installed as pure ornament which was intended to make the structure appear imposing, grand and expensive.
With these tenants in mind, I then tested the design to see if the architect followed the above-mentioned tenants in the project. Standing in the parking lot of the future Sidetracks brewpub, I could observe the implementation of the design to some degree. Although the South, East and North facades are only partially constructed, I dovetailed these images with the computer renderings on the website (which are lacking in true realism ? aren?t we getting spoiled in this computer age?) and got a better idea of what the final project may look like. I must admit, although I am not a fan of any one style of architecture over another, I do see some specific correlation between the project and these basic tenants. Do you, as architects, see the building as one that follows the basic tenants of the style? 
If not, the Architect has strived but failed. But, if so, then the architecture does then fit in the parameters of the Second Empire style; at least as much as other projects done in the same style in the US. So, in effect, the rub must then be in the style itself, or is the style off-limits for use in our modern age?
I think these units as well as other condos in Raleigh are selling for more than $300.00 per foot which is way out of my league, but I would hazard a guess that people putting down that sort of jack would expect something grand and expensive, wouldn?t they? I might go out on a limb here but I believe that most fellow members of the architecturally uneducated public would probably admit that we enjoy details in buildings, which, in truth, have no other purpose to exist beyond just being pure ornament; simple eye candy. I will even go out on a limb and say that some would heartily agree with the critic John Ruskin who stated: ?no architecture is so haughty as that which is simple?.
So, if the real rub on Bloomsbury a criticism of a style of architecture, we, as people stand at a crossroads. Do we travel the path of diversity and freedom or control? Can architectural styles be revisited like clothing, cars, jewelry or hairstyles? Is there need of an architectural review committee with real teeth, well beyond our City Council, Appearance Commission, and the dudes down at Livable Streets to insure that styles that are deemed dead or unattractive be banned from use in the City of Raleigh? If so, what would come of design itself, if it were legislated and controlled? And, if such control is placed on the architectural world, what then of the other arts and sciences? Where will it end?
In conclusion, I can?t help but give the architect some credit, obviously actually doing something, in lieu of us, just typing about what he has done.
I must quote Teddy in his speech given in 1910 (ironically given in Paris, France): ?It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.?
Let us continually analyze the world in which we live to be sure, but let us not be the cold and timid.

Robert E Leebowitz
11/30 05:25 PM

It just seems sad to have your face marred with dust, sweat and blood in pursuit of a replica.  Restoring a great example of this style would certainly have merit, in my opinion, but this design seems analogous to skinning a new automobile with the body of a 1905 steam powered car.  It doesn’t seem like such a heroic pursuit.

JZ
11/30 09:38 PM

Webster’s is unable to truly define architecture with its limited efficiencies.  I encourage you to have a lengthy one on one dialog with an practicing architect to learn more about the Architecture’s complexity. 

Also, as one of the men who “is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood”, I speak confidently when I say that to build structures such as the Bloomsbury is reactionary at best.  I find it fascinating that we hail our pioneers who make steps forward in the realm of auto design, PC gaming or even the next generation of cell phone, and then bestow accolades to an architect who cowers in the shadows of historical pastiche.

There are TRAINED, PROFESSIONAL architects that do not cower and, in turn, spend effort beyond what is the bare minimum (such as myself, taking time out of my day), in order to help the layperson come to know what is possible when we begin to imagine what is possible when we stop COPYING the past and find our own voice to speak.

By copying the past in style or function devalues the authentic specimens from the period and it devalues our culture by denying our capacity for creativity.

brian_M
12/01 01:56 AM

Bloomsbury Estates…we rockin’ the gold package up on the hill, yo.

CJT
10/31 06:43 PM

Were it a copy of a historic building that once existed on that site or nearby, then there would be reasoning for the style.
-
Otherwise, there really is no reason to copy a style of architecture that has come and gone. 
-
Do I hate it?  No.  It’s a hell of a lot better than the pseudo creative style-smashing exhibited by many of our new structures.  At the very least…it IS cohesive.
-
Good design does not start with a style of architecture.  It starts with the purpose of the structure.  So the developer really has no concept of how to achieve his intentions.
-
CJT
-
http://ginkotron.com

Enigma
10/31 08:04 PM

Is there anyone on this site that’s been engaged by a developer in a project similar to Bloomsbury as the Architect of Record, that’s actually been built and sold? 

It would be enlightening to see examples of their work, versus their negative comments about how bad another architect’s design is.

Rusty
11/01 10:51 AM

I wish I could come up with some fantastic Ellsworth Toohey defense for this building. Claiming that it is a reclamation of downtown for the people, and a symbol of years of the finest architectural traditions throughout the history of man.

But I can’t. I’m afraid you’ve hit the nail on the head Mark. The building is in a great location and is a genuine attempt at bringing some people into downtown.

Despite the attempt at evoking a certain period of Architecture, I’m afraid the connection between this style, and the long and rich history of Architecture in both North Carolina, and Raleigh specifically… is thin at best.

Here’s to hoping the Bloomsbury is an improvement over the sprawl Raleigh has seen in the past decades, and part of a larger trend that we can be proud of in the future.

arthurb3
11/01 03:09 PM

Remind prospective buyers that the train comes by every night at about 1am.

John Morris
11/01 03:42 PM

Arthur - To many, that would be a selling point.

Matthew Brown
11/03 04:04 PM

Actually, if there is any style of urban architecture that Raleigh has a historic claim to, it is the Second Empire style. Of course, the native style of this area is the wooden triple-A farmhouse, but that is unsuitable for a large urban building. But the Second Empire style was in fashion during Raleigh’s first urban boom, and several of her oldest surviving buildings are in that style. Most notable is the Century Post Office on Fayetteville St., designed by Alfred Mullett, famous for the Executive Office Building in Washington, and other Second Empire masterpieces.

The Heck mansion on Blount St. and three of the oldest and finest houses in Historic Oakwood were in the Second Empire style, designed by Goerge Appleget. However, they are not copies of French buildings. They are adapted to the North Carolina climate with the addition of the ample porches, which one does not see in Paris. And of course, there is the Dodd-Hinsdale House, home of the Second Empire restaurant, which is a very North Carolinian version of the style. And there were many more examples that have been torn down.

Of course nobody would mistake the Bloomsbury Estates building for an actual Second Empire period building; it is clearly a revival of the style. The revivals are always different from the originals, in materials, details, and/or size and massing.

But some seem to think that we should be restricted to designing buildings in the current style of our time and place. Well, for commercial buildings that would be large one-story cinder block boxes with one entrance and no windows, possibly decorated with EIFS (hard plastic foam). And for multi-family residences, that would be two or three story buildings sided with vinyl and built of Styrofoam and beaverboard, with minimum detail. For single-family houses, that would be the multi-gabled style, built of the same materials and detailed with whatever the contractor can get cheap. Some people seem to have no problem with the miles and miles and acres and acres of these buildings, but I would far prefer to look at the Bloomsbury Estates building than any of these. Even some of our “better” recent urban buildings, which I don’t need to specify here, are just very large cinder block boxes. Is that really the best we are allowed to build?

Why shouldn’t we let ourselves build in revivals of earlier styles? What about the State Capitol? How about Christ Church? Broughton High School? Wiley Elementary? The Mordecai House? What about the Duke Campus? The Washington Monument? The University of Virginia campus? The Woolworth building? Are all these buildings illegitimate but the Wal-Mart is legitimate?

I’m sorry, I just don’t like most of the architecture that embodies the current age, because the current age is an age of “make it as cheap as possible because it will be torn down in twenty years anyway and we will have already cashed the check.”

And please don’t tell me that the ten or twenty “cutting edge” buildings in Raleigh are in the “style of our time.” They may be wonderful, but they are not in the style of our time. The “style of our time” means “the style that most buildings in our time are built in.” Less than one tenth of one percent of new buildings in Raleigh look anything like these “cutting edge” buildings. And in twenty years, these buildings will not be emulated, so are they really “cutting edge” anyway? Can something be the cutting edge if there is no knife behind it?

There is nothing that would please me more than to see a truly new and wonderful style get born in Raleigh and come to dominate our construction trade. But I ain’t holding my breath for that. In the mean time, the Bloomsbury Estates building is about the last thing I’ll be complaining about.

highjoeltage
11/03 06:27 PM

I agree that connecting Raleigh’s downtown is a good idea, I don’t think that one building is going to do that. Raleigh has a driving culture, not a walking one. Have you ever walked around on a saturday during the day? Its like a ghost town. I also think that it’s funny that these deluxe condos go up a couple hundred yards from where the homeless sleep under the overpass.

David
11/03 07:47 PM

This site DOES NOT hold a candle to the ol’ Raleighing, thats for sure.

John
02/20 02:39 AM

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this project is coming to the city that allowed the tear down of the Catalano house in 2001(“House of the decade” in the 50’s)in favor of a few more McMansions off of Ridge Rd.
The best thing I can say about this project is that it isn’t The Hue or 222Glenwood: which are extraordinarily heinous and blah in my opinion.