Support OpenDurham.org
Preserve Durham's History with a Donation to Open Durham Today!
OpenDurham.org is dedicated to preserving and sharing the rich history of our community. Run by our parent nonprofit, Preservation Durham, the site requires routine maintence and upgrades. We do not ask for support often, but today, we're asking you to chip in to help us reach our goal of raising $7,500 for annual maintenance by the end of the year. Your support allows us to maintain this valuable resource, expand our archives, and keep the history of Durham accessible to everyone.
Every contribution, big or small, makes a difference. Help us keep Durham's history alive for future generations.
Comments
Submitted by Tar Heelz (not verified) on Mon, 9/28/2009 - 3:28pm
This was, for better of worse, the style of the times. I would like to say there is a value in preserving this example of architectural site planning (although I really have to squint to see it).
While I do not know what went into the architect's decisions, I suspect the drug store believed (rightly) that putting spacious parking on display was a very good marketing tool in an area of town where commercial parking is at a premium.
At day's end, it's hard to have it both ways. We say we want to preserve old structures (and their context on a site) but perhaps we only REALLY want that because we think much of the old style is in style again. If in 2009, we think it gauche, well, then cut loose the bulldozer.
Submitted by Maven (not verified) on Fri, 10/2/2009 - 1:58am
I've thought of this building among Durham's notable eyesores for two decades. The blocks north from there to Club are on the whole quite lovely, but it's hard to see them with the image of that monstrosity burned into one's retinae.
The parking (as Heelz implies) is clearly in lieu of a giant sign (blessedly absent). Perhaps it was meant to distract the drivers of Pontiacs as they headed up to North Gate?
Submitted by matt (not verified) on Fri, 10/9/2009 - 2:27pm
In response to Tarheelz, it is more than just a complaint about style. It is about attempting to return to a more sustainable form of city planning. A style that is more pedestrian oriented instead of car oriented.
Granted though, tearing down any building puts more materials in landfills and can cancel out some of the sustainability advocates are trumpeting. I believe the pros outweigh the cons though.
Either way though, my opinion isn't about style, it's based on a desire to do my daily errands on foot or by bike and a resentment that cities have been built in such a way that saddles me with monthly car insurance, gas, and maintenance costs.
Add new comment
Log in or register to post comments.