Panel supports Georgia Tech Foundation’s plan to demolish most of historic Crum & Forster building

By Maria Saporta

This story has been updated to include a quote from a representative of the Midtown Neighbors Association.

The Georgia Tech Foundation won a major victory this week in its quest to demolish most of the historic Crum & Forster building at 771 Spring St. in Midtown.

A report from a three-person Economic Review Panel for the Atlanta Urban Design Commission submitted June 21 agreed with just about every point made by the attorneys of the Georgia Tech Foundation.

“Based on our review, the Economic Review Panel is in unanimous agreement that a reasonable economic return cannot be achieved under any methodology that involves renovating the existing structure and that the applicant’s suggested approach to saving the façade and a small component of the structure as part of a new development is both gracious and fair given the current real estate environment,” wrote John D. Shelsinger, one of the three members of the panel.

The other two members of the panel were Tom Aderhold, who had been selected by the Georgia Tech Foundation, and Scott Taylor, president of the Carter real estate firm, who was selected by the Urban Design Commission.

Historic Crum & Forster building

Under the commission’s rules, the findings of the panel must be accepted unless preservationists can convince at least three-fourths of UDC members that the panel came to the wrong conclusion and reject the report.

If the panel’s report stands, the Georgia Tech Foundation likely could go ahead with its plans to demolish two-thirds of the Crum & Forster building. Georgia Tech has announced plans to build a major development on the balance of the block, and the university had stated it could not build its project and keep the entire historic building.

“While I certainly respect the hard work of the AUDC members and their panel, it is nonetheless a disappointment to hear their findings on the Crum and Forster building,” Tony Rizzuto, chair of the Midtown Neighbors Association’s land-use committee, wrote in an email.

“Atlanta has over the years lost far too much of its historic capital to the wrecking ball — always with the decree that such buildings are too expensive or difficult to preserve or renovate,” Rizzuto continued. “Yet, across America and throughout the world, cities work to preserve their architectural heritage and do so successfully. One has to ask why is it economically feasible in cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C to engage in adaptive reuse and not here. This only begs the question of what criteria the City of Atlanta and its developer class use in making thier determination that buildings over 60 years old have no redeemable value.”

A passionate effort to save the Crum & Forster building has been underway since 2008, when the Georgia Tech Foundation applied for a demolition permit. The city gave the building landmark status and denied Tech’s demolition permit. In turn, Georgia Tech filed several lawsuits against the city. Those lawsuits are still pending.

The Crum & Forster building is an elegant three-story building with a Renaissance facade with columns and arches. It was designed in 1926 and opened in 1928 as a regional office for a national insurance firm.

The building was designed by a team of New York and Atlanta architects — Ed Ivey and Lewis Crook, both Georgia Tech graduates. As a Tech student, Ivey actually had led the effort to start an architectural program at the engineering school in 1908.

Those ties to Georgia Tech’s past have not swayed the foundation’s desire to tear down most of the building — which has stood at the corner of Spring Street and Armstead Place for 85 years.

The Economic Review Panel’s report not only supported Georgia Tech’s position that it did not make economic sense to restore the entire building. It also went out of its way to praise Georgia Tech’s contributions to the city.

“Applicant has a history of historic preservation where appropriate so the Economic Review Board felt that a great deal of thought and planning went into the decision,” the letter stated. It also added: “The proposed development will benefit the city and be an extension of the surrounding neighborhoods.”

The Urban Design Commission is scheduled to meet on June 27, when it normally would received the panel’s report. But not all members of the panel will be able to attend the meeting, so there has been a request to defer the application to a future UDC meeting when all the panel members can be present. As of now, no such date has been set.

Maria Saporta, Editor, is a longtime Atlanta business, civic and urban affairs journalist with a deep knowledge of our city, our region and state.  Since 2008, she has written a weekly column and news stories for the Atlanta Business Chronicle. Prior to that, she spent 27 years with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, becoming its business columnist in 1991. Maria received her Master’s degree in urban studies from Georgia State and her Bachelor’s degree in journalism from Boston University. Maria was born in Atlanta to European parents and has two young adult children.

18 replies
  1. Avatar
    TaximanSteveLindsey says:

    Yes!  Let’s put a glass box on the site.  What matter is beauty in our crass world of commerce?  By all means, stuff a few more cubicles in.  What matter is aesthetics?  Especially in Atlanta… Which has seen more history lost than during Sherman’s March to the Sea.

    • Avatar
      Burroughston Broch says:

       @TaximanSteveLindsey So, what would you have Tech do? Give us a solution rather than just a complaint. Or perhaps you would like to buy it with your money and maintain it as-is as a museum?Report

    • Avatar
      Frankly says:

       @TaximanSteveLindsey But ALL of the beauty of this building will remain.  The back 2/3 of the building carries zero aesthetic value.Report

    • Avatar
      Burroughston Broch says:

      Perhaps he figures that he doesn’t have a dog in this fight.
      As a question for all bemoan Tech’s plan, what do you want them to do? Make a recommendation instead of only a complaint.
      If you want it to be preserved, how do you propose to pay for it? It would be yet another item of wasteful public expense and dubious public benefit.Report

  2. Avatar
    atlpaddy says:

    ‘The Economic Review Panel’s report not only supported Georgia Tech’s position that it did not make economic sense to restore the entire building. It also went out of its way to praise Georgia Tech’s contributions to the city.’
    So, the fix was in and the game was rigged from the beginning with these three “appointees.”  Report

  3. Avatar
    joeplan says:

    I am always amazed at how proponents of historic demolitions present these requests in such a predictable fashion.  In almost every case, they present evidence from a structural “expert” that the building cannot be salvaged.  Translation:  “We could restore it, but we really don’t want to spend the money to do it”.  Rarely do you see these guys volunteering to either restore a historic structure to suit their needs, or to incorporate the historic structure into a larger, new structure.  It is always all or nothing.  The ultimate irony is that Atlanta sits a stone’s throw away from Savannah, a city which has somehow managed to protect its history “and” be prosperous.  They have figured out that either/or is a false choice.        Report

  4. Avatar
    john mizon says:

    Only through the special effort that are made by various political authorities, that we can avoid the demolition of all these ancient buildings. They once represented a part of our culture and was of great historical importance which are not the one to be demolished. <a href=”” rel=”follow”>does ageless male work</a>Report


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.