The City PAC presentation was about proof of concept -- hey, we really could put a nice facility downtown -- and on that level it was quite convincing.
But although the first section was headlined "A Work in Progress" and the word "conceptual" was used early and often to describe both the design and the site, people were quick to weigh in on the architecture of the building, pictured and possible.
Which is great, because you have to get the design right from the start.
This image shows one of the challenges of the Bellemeade site: On one side you've got a modern glass-clad office tower, and on the other (per Professor Wharton) a Richardsonian Romanesque revival church. Similar issues would arise on Washington Street, with the boxy N&R building on one side and our lovely old train station on the other.
Another concern is that the big parking lot makes it look like we might be building a suburban building in an urban setting. This article about the new Barnes Foundation in Philly deals with that same problem -- amazing new building, cut off from its environment.
Wharton continues:
That kind of architectural setting deserves some very careful thought. Just putting something up that's just "sleek and modern" won't make the kind of statement that Greensboro needs to make here. People are watching. Are we going to be hasty and dull? Sophisticated and daring? Stodgy and traditional? We need to at least have a public conversation about it. This building will help define our city for a couple of generations.
Cities often have architectural competitions for this kind of thing. Why not us?
Recent Comments