I recently wrote a letter to Atlanta's urban Design Commission, Executive Director, Doug Young, arguing in favor of preserving an historic landmark in midtown Atlanta that is presently being threatened with demolition by the property's new owners. Details of the threat are posted
here on the Atlanta Preservation Society's website.
The contents of the letter are presented below:
July
17, 2012
Doug
Young, Executive Director
Urban
Design Commission
City
of Atlanta Office of Planning
55
Trinity Avenue, Suite 3350
Atlanta,
GA 30303-0331
RE: Preserving Symbols That Matter: The Crum & Forster Building
Dear
Doug,
As
a resident of the City of Atlanta, and a frequent visitor and patron of Georgia
Technology Square, and as an ardent supporter of smart growth and sustainable
urban design, I support the preservation of the Crum and Forster Building in
its entirety, and I oppose the introduction of legislation that would
de-designate any portions of this landmark property.
In
reviewing the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by the
Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. (Applicant), I was surprised to learn that the
Economic Review Panel (ERP) appointed to provide evidence of the existence of a
condition of unreasonable economic return
consists entirely of persons whose professional expertise in real estate appear
to have little, if anything, to do with assessing the economic benefits of historic
preservation and instead have everything to do with assessing the financial
returns and accounting profits associated with urban real estate investment
opportunities. It is certainly not surprising that the ERP has reached a unanimous
agreement that a “reasonable economic return” cannot be achieved under any
methodology that involves renovating the existing structure. The ERP’s analysis
of investment returns and accounting profits likely does not include the
economic benefits and costs associated with the preservation of history,
architecture and culture, nor the benefits and costs associated with the provision
of public green space and adherence to urban design principles. Rather, it is
more likely the ERP’s calculation consists primarily of the income and
appreciation growth requirements needed to satisfy the Applicant’s real estate
investment objectives as stated in their own financial reports.
While I strongly support the Applicant’s goals in promoting higher education and enhancing the
campus and midtown community through responsible development, I do not
support the destruction of a significant architectural landmark on the basis of the
Applicant’s financial objectives. I believe the Applicant is fully capable of
exploring alternatives that help achieve the Applicant’s financial and
non-financial goals while simultaneously striving to preserve and protect an
important and architecturally significant historical landmark.
Current
Level of Economic Return on the Subject Property
The
ERP’s claim that a complete restoration to the subject property would devalue
the surrounding parcels acquired for assemblage, and their claim that the costs of
renovation to the subject property would be “impossible to recoup,” does not
consider all the economic benefits associated with preservation and restoration
of the subject property—nor does it consider the significant history,
architecture and culture underlying the subject property’s true value. It
appears the ERP’s directive in finding evidence of a condition of unreasonable
economic return is centered squarely on the Applicant’s financial position, changes to the Applicant’s net assets, and the expectation of cash flows produced by the Applicant’s various
investment opportunities—of which real estate comprises only five percent.
A measure of the current level of economic return on the property, as interpreted and stated in the Applicant’s
application, provides no true measure, and no true value, of the real net economic
benefits to the Applicant or the midtown community. That the Applicant and its
affiliates chose to purchase the property (and thus purchase the option to hold
for three years, or else develop) at the peak of a real estate cycle, only to suffer
a significant loss in value and loss of potential income during the recession, has
relatively little weight as a determining factor in whether or not to preserve
one of midtown Atlanta’s few historical icons. Further, the Applicant’s option
to take zero depreciation reduction because of the Applicant's plans to demolish
the subject property was a calculated investment decision. The Applicant exercised a development option that
gives the Applicant the right without obligation to defer development of the
subject property to a future period with full knowledge of the potential risks
associated with such an option, including the risk that is inherent in purchasing
an architecturally significant historic building that would potentially be subject
to imminent landmark designation if/when threatened by destruction.
The
current level of economic return on the subject property would therefore not
only include the purchase price, taxes, expenses, interest and debt service, but also the expected rate of return derived from the Applicant’s
option valuation and optimal timing of a proposed assemblage, entitlement and
redevelopment of the subject property and its adjacent parcels. Because the
Applicant took a calculated risk in forgoing the option to derive income and
depreciation deductions from the subject property in its current or rehabilitated condition during
the past three years, the Applicant cannot necessarily claim that the costs incurred
during the past three years represents an unreasonable economic hardship; nor should
the commission weigh these costs without giving full consideration to the true
value and economic benefit of the Applicant’s development options and the value
and economic benefits associated with preserving an important piece of
Atlanta’s history and architecture.
Market
Value and Feasibility of Alternative Uses for the Subject Property
The
contention that it is “not economical to use the existing building” for the
purposes intended by the Applicant does not on its face appear to include other
economically beneficial alternative uses for the building that also meet the
intended business requirements and other development objectives of the
Applicant. I hope that the commission will encourage the Applicant to explore
alternative uses for the existing building that not only serve the Applicant’s
interests but also the interests of a community that is impacted by the continued expansion and development of Georgia Technology
Square.
In
its application, the Applicant uses a tax assessed value of the subject
property of $2.1 million in its current condition to demonstrate that the
property is extraordinarily under-valued when compared to the potential
investment value of the subject property after it is redeveloped and integrated
as part of a larger project. The tax assessed value and the Applicant’s
estimated $150 million ex-ante value of the larger project—which includes destruction
of most of the subject building—does not provide the commission with an
appropriate or accurate comparison of
the estimated “market value” of the subject property in either its current condition
or in the Applicant’s planned future condition. It seems prudent that the
commission should encourage the Applicant to provide a more detailed and
accurate calculation of the subject property’s estimated market value that
considers alternative income-producing uses for the subject building. These
values can then be evaluated alongside the benefits derived from potential government
incentives and then measured against the social and economic costs of
destroying one of Atlanta’s few remaining historic landmark buildings.
The
Applicant has stated in its application that the reuse of the existing
structure is “not feasible for an expansion of Technology Square” and that the
existing structure is “incompatible with the balance of Technology Square.” It
is quite frankly hard to believe that given the Applicant’s (and its
affiliate’s) long and admirable history of successfully
preserving and integrating symbols of architectural history throughout its
campus through the adaptive reuse and innovative integration of historic buildings into new development contexts,
that the Applicant, in this instance, is somehow stymied in its ability to explore
and develop a more creative solution for the subject property.
If
the Applicant’s intention is to “enhance the viability and scope of Technology
Square,” through its expansion of the subject property, then it seems
reasonable to expect that the Applicant would take the same approach and
consideration to preserving significant historical symbols in Technology Square that are meaningful
to the Atlanta community as it would the symbols that are meaningful to Georgia
Tech's main campus. We would not expect, for instance, that the Applicant would ever consider
destroying the beautiful and historic buildings in Georgia Tech’s Old Campus and Hill District as a means to achieving investment returns.
Proposed
Preservation of the Existing Subject Building and Alternative Use of Adjacent Parcels
The
Applicant has suggested that preserving the existing subject building would
create an imbalance in the expanded development of Technology Square; and the
applicant has provided a sketch of their proposed development which presumably
describes a more balanced approach, at least from a building mass and design aesthetic.
The sketch shows a towering high-rise, which looks to be 30-stories or higher,
that flanks West Peachtree Street and which considerably dwarfs the adjacent
College of Management building and also nearly conceals the beautifully designed
southeast corner of the College of Management building. Further, the sketch
does not show any publicly accessible plaza or green space other than the
miniscule landscaping that fronts the subject property of the proposed development
along the east side of Spring Street. It does not appear that the Applicant’s proposed
development, as illustrated in the sketch, meets some of the basic tenets of
contemporary urban design principles that provide for appropriate building
height/mass/scale or some allocation of public green space. If the Applicant goal is to
provide a balanced project, it seems prudent that the Applicant ought to be encouraged
to explore alternatives that provide balance in other important areas, such as
the balance achieved through the provision of inviting public spaces and/or the
preservation of significant historic symbols.
If
the Applicant wishes to create balance and harmony with respect to their proposed project,
then perhaps the Applicant will explore the idea of forming a public-private
partnership with the City of Atlanta to provide the community and Georgia
Tech’s own employees and students with a lively urban oasis located at the southwest corner of the block at Spring and 4th Streets. The midtown
Atlanta community is in dire need of an urban renewal plan that responds
effectively to the transformation of vacant lots into green and open spaces
that serve an important community need and work to mitigate some of the density that is proposed by the Applicant’s
project and other future development. A public plaza (or campus green space) like the one shown
below can provide the midtown community and Georgia Technology Square with an
attractive and popular destination for residents, workers, students and
tourists, and will serve to boast the economic vitality of the not only the
Applicant’s expanded development but also the entire midtown community at large.
Preserving
historic and iconic elements is not always economically feasible, or even
practical, from a property owner’s perspective. However, if the element in
question is socially, historically and culturally significant to the
neighborhood or community at large, then efforts must be made to preserve the
element in its entirety by
encouraging the applicant to work collaboratively with urban design experts,
other stake holders, and a supportive community to develop an innovative
solution.
< image 1 >
photo of Jameson Square,
Portland Oregon
What’s
striking about the presently built Technology Square development, the proposed
design of building masses provided by the applicant, and many other blocks in
the midtown area, is the utter lack of public spaces that invite pedestrians to
gather and connect with each other in a well-designed and welcoming public green
space that is accessible and available to everyone in the community. Aside from
the relatively small public plaza at the corner of West Peachtree and Fifth
Streets, and the two semi-private courtyard plazas concealed within the building
mass of the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center and the College of
Management, there is not one other inviting and accessible, public green space
provided in Georgia Technology Square for the workers, students, tourists and
residents of Atlanta to enjoy.
The
Crum Forster building and the adjacent lot to the south of it provides a
wonderful opportunity to engineer a transition between public and private space,
and large and small building mass, by creating an inviting public-to-private threshold designed to serve the community and celebrate a significant piece of Atlanta’s architectural history. If the
Applicant and its affiliates prefer to build the tower along West Peachtree,
then the southwest corner of the project (corner of Spring and 4th
Streets) provides an opportunity for the City of Atlanta and the Applicant to
work together to create a much needed public space, like the green and shaded
urban plazas that are the staples of other great cities; an urban space where
students, workers, residents and tourists alike can relax, gather and connect.
Such a space would contribute immensely to the social and economic vitality of both the Georgia Technology Square development and the midtown community
at large.
Furthermore, the
planned office tower along West Peachtree, if approved, ought not destroy the
wonderful visual elements located at the southeast corner of the adjacent
College of Management building. The office tower can have a four or five story
base that is consistent with the mass of adjacent buildings in the Technology
Square area, and still provide a multi-story tower that is set back a
reasonable distance from the low-rise buildings that surround it. Locating an urban green space at the southwest corner of the project provides an
excellent opportunity to enhance the beauty of the entire Crum Forster building
when viewed from any location within and around such a space. The image below provides one
alternative to the sketch submitted by the Applicant, and demonstrates how such
a configuration solves multiple issues of “balance” with respect to urban
design, building mass and public green space provision.
< image 2 >
image of proposed design
for retaining existing building and creating an urban plaza
The
Crum and Forster Building is of Exceptional Importance to the City
Finally, the Crum and Forster Building is a designated Landmark. A Landmark
building is defined as a building "of exceptional importance to the city,
state or nation and whose demolition would represent an irreparable loss to the
city." This designation indicates that the Crum and Forster Building met
the criteria for architectural significance set forth in the Preservation
Ordinance (Sec 16-20.004).
In
its current state the Building has an exceptionally high degree of integrity
and validity with all of its character-defining elements intact. Chapter 20 of
the Ordinance calls not only for the protection of such buildings but also for
the promotion of sound design principles in areas of new development and
redevelopment. The destruction of a Landmark building runs counter
to the requirements of the Ordinance and is unacceptable from a
preservation standpoint and wholly unnecessary from a design standpoint. The
de-designation and demolition of this property should not occur and should not
provide a roadmap for circumventing the City's Preservation Ordinance nor the
City’s own urban design standards.
Sincerely,
