810 BROAD STREET

/sites/default/files/images/2009_9/dollargeneralsitemarkhamandbroad.jpg/sites/default/files/images/2009_9/markhamandbroad_NE_010957.jpg/sites/default/files/images/2009_9/800-810Broad_1959.jpg/sites/default/files/images/2009_9/dollargeneralsitemarkhamandbroad.jpg/sites/default/files/images/2009_9/dollargeneral_062709.jpg

810 BROAD STREET

810
,
Durham
NC
Built in
1900-1920
/ Demolished in
1970-1975
Construction type: 
Neighborhood: 
Type: 
Use: 

Comments

  • Submitted by Tar Heelz on Monday, September 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 on Friday, October 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 on Friday, October 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

In tours

  • This building does not appear in any tours yet.

Last updated

  • Mon, 09/05/2011 - 8:24pm by gary

Comments

810
,
Durham
NC
Built in
1900-1920
/ Demolished in
1970-1975
Construction type: 
Neighborhood: 
Type: 
Use: 

 


Looking northeast from near Broad and West Markham, 01.09.57
(Courtesy The Herald-Sun)


(Courtesy Durham County Library / North Carolina Collection)

The east side of the 800 block of Broad Street was residential throughout the early and mid 20th century.


810 Broad Street.
(Courtesy Joyce Avery)

In the early 1970s, Eckerd Drugs demolished four houses - about half the block - to build a drugstore, set far behind a surface parking lot. When Eckerd's moved north to Broad and Guess Road in the late 1990s, the former drugstore became a Dollar General.


800-810 Broad, 06.27.09

This is an abysmal land use - they don't even set drugstores behind this much surface parking in the suburbs anymore. I hope that someday this goes away, and a new building is built up to the corner.

Find this spot on a Google Map.

36.010382,-78.919349

Comments

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.

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?

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