1072 West Peachtree | 61 FLR | 733 feet

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

I agree with you. Also, the facade materials are poor quality and misaligned. I don't like anything about it and I'm surprised they spent so much on height only to cheap out on everything else.

I was a critic a month or so ago, thinking they were topped out. But goddamn, let it get finished before it gets bashed.

[Julien]

[numacs]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

I agree with you. Also, the facade materials are poor quality and misaligned. I don't like anything about it and I'm surprised they spent so much on height only to cheap out on everything else.

We do love our Brutalist buildings in Atlanta!

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by bigstick

I was a critic a month or so ago, thinking they were topped out. But goddamn, let it get finished before it gets bashed.

The design was finished long ago (I didn't like it then either ), and the facade is already on. It's not going to improve.

I don't hate it. It's mediocre, not offensive. I'm just surprised, because a 60+ floor building is extremely expensive to build. Longer construction time, more robust foundation, complicated elevator system taking up a lot of floor space, etc. It's not just basic infill. Projects like this are normally a statement with great design and quality. That's not the case here at all. The only thing it has to say is "I'm tall." Otherwise, it's probably the least interesting addition we've gotten in this cycle.

I hope they're not cheaping out on the interior, at least. If it gets a bad rep and has trouble leasing, it will probably be an eternity before anyone risks a skyscraper again.

Originally Posted by numacs

We do love our Brutalist buildings in Atlanta!

I actually do love Brutalism, but this is not Brutalist

[ArchKid]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

The design was finished long ago (I didn't like it then either ), and the facade is already on. It's not going to improve.

I don't hate it. It's mediocre, not offensive. I'm just surprised, because a 60+ floor building is extremely expensive to build. Longer construction time, more robust foundation, complicated elevator system taking up a lot of floor space, etc. It's not just basic infill. Projects like this are normally a statement with great design and quality. That's not the case here at all. The only thing it has to say is "I'm tall." Otherwise, it's probably the least interesting addition we've gotten in this cycle.

I hope they're not cheaping out on the interior, at least. If it gets a bad rep and has trouble leasing, it will probably be an eternity before anyone risks a skyscraper again.



I actually do love Brutalism, but this is not Brutalist

It's interesting that this guy（numacs） hasn't really understood the definition of Brutalist architecture. The most famous Brutalist building in Atlanta is the Atlanta Central Library, designed by Marcel Breuer. Brutalism is simply a design style — not synonymous with cheap, poorly designed buildings.
On the other hand, the skyscraper at 1072 West Peachtree clearly suffers from design issues. The entire design feels stuck in an outdated style from decades ago, and it doesn't resemble a thoughtfully designed landmark that reflects current architectural trends. On top of that, the façade materials don't look premium, and the construction quality might also be subpar. Once it's completed, it will probably just be the tallest among Midtown’s many low-grade buildings — with little to no lasting impact in the coming decades.

[ArchKid]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

The design was finished long ago (I didn't like it then either ), and the facade is already on. It's not going to improve.

I don't hate it. It's mediocre, not offensive. I'm just surprised, because a 60+ floor building is extremely expensive to build. Longer construction time, more robust foundation, complicated elevator system taking up a lot of floor space, etc. It's not just basic infill. Projects like this are normally a statement with great design and quality. That's not the case here at all. The only thing it has to say is "I'm tall." Otherwise, it's probably the least interesting addition we've gotten in this cycle.

I hope they're not cheaping out on the interior, at least. If it gets a bad rep and has trouble leasing, it will probably be an eternity before anyone risks a skyscraper again.



I actually do love Brutalism, but this is not Brutalist

I completely agree with one of your points—that Atlanta, especially Midtown, is now saturated with far too many mediocre infill developments that lack thoughtful design. These are not serious works of architecture. Of course, there are a few standout projects with decent design quality, but considering Atlanta's ambition to be recognized as an international metropolis, the number of such high-quality developments remains far too low.

Many of these bland infill projects are driven purely by profit. Their developers are unwilling to invest in proper design or construction, settling instead for cheap, perfunctory, and poorly conceived buildings simply to turn a quick profit. Others may have a reasonably designed architectural massing, but are often paired with massive, hideously ugly, and sometimes even tastelessly garish parking podiums at street level—creating an overwhelming amount of visual pollution from the pedestrian perspective.

As a result, more and more cheaply built high-rises lacking genuine creativity or thoughtful architectural intent continue to rise, and what they leave behind is not a lasting architectural legacy with aesthetic value, but merely buildings, not architecture. This aggressive form of development is actively damaging the city’s visual and cultural identity.

I fear that, years from now, we may wake up to the painful realization that the architectural character of Atlanta has become comparable to that of a random city in South Africa—something far beneath what Atlanta aspires to be. That would be truly disheartening.

[MdtwnATL]

Originally Posted by ArchKid

I completely agree with one of your points—that Atlanta, especially Midtown, is now saturated with far too many mediocre infill developments that lack thoughtful design. These are not serious works of architecture. Of course, there are a few standout projects with decent design quality, but considering Atlanta's ambition to be recognized as an international metropolis, the number of such high-quality developments remains far too low.

Many of these bland infill projects are driven purely by profit. Their developers are unwilling to invest in proper design or construction, settling instead for cheap, perfunctory, and poorly conceived buildings simply to turn a quick profit. Others may have a reasonably designed architectural massing, but are often paired with massive, hideously ugly, and sometimes even tastelessly garish parking podiums at street level—creating an overwhelming amount of visual pollution from the pedestrian perspective.

As a result, more and more cheaply built high-rises lacking genuine creativity or thoughtful architectural intent continue to rise, and what they leave behind is not a lasting architectural legacy with aesthetic value, but merely buildings, not architecture. This aggressive form of development is actively damaging the city’s visual and cultural identity.

I fear that, years from now, we may wake up to the painful realization that the architectural character of Atlanta has become comparable to that of a random city in South Africa—something far beneath what Atlanta aspires to be. That would be truly disheartening.

This 100%. Why can't the very heart of the city get O4W quality architecture? I don't understand it.

[RocketSurgeon]

Yeah, honestly, O4W and West Midtown are getting all the truly good stuff this cycle.

Probably the land costs are so high in Midtown that they feel they need to cut somewhere else. Society Atlanta paid $20 million for their tiny lot, and it was just parking at the time. You can't cut engineering and code compliance, so aesthetics go first.

[ArchKid]

Originally Posted by MdtwnATL

This 100%. Why can't the very heart of the city get O4W quality architecture? I don't understand it.

This has a great deal to do with the developers’ own competence and sensibility—after all, they ultimately hold the core decision-making power over how a project is developed. If a developer is someone with no architectural taste or appreciation—essentially a philistine—then they won’t know how to choose the right, talented architects or how to develop a beautiful and timeless project. If the developer is driven purely by profit, lacking even a basic sense of responsibility for the city’s architectural character and heritage, and simply wants to achieve the highest return with the lowest investment, then they are unlikely to spend money hiring capable architects or investing the proper amount of capital to build a high-quality, refined development. The truth is, there are far too few truly capable developers in Atlanta. Only a very small handful are able to deliver quality projects, while many others are an unregulated mix—some producing cheap and ugly developments that do nothing but leave architectural wounds and scars on the city.

[ArchKid]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

Yeah, honestly, O4W and West Midtown are getting all the truly good stuff this cycle.

Probably the land costs are so high in Midtown that they feel they need to cut somewhere else. Society Atlanta paid $20 million for their tiny lot, and it was just parking at the time. You can't cut engineering and code compliance, so aesthetics go first.

That’s because these few developers are quite competent themselves and understand how to choose architects and position their products effectively. For example, Jamestown hired New York–based Handel Architects for their project in Old Fourth Ward. New City Properties also developed projects in the same area and brought in firms like S9 Architecture from New York, Olson Kundig from Seattle, Morris Adjmi Architects from New York, and later Barkow Leibinger from Berlin. Allen Morris hired Oppenheim Architecture and Royal Byckovas, both from Miami, for their project in West Midtown. Portman Holdings engaged KPF (Kohn Pedersen Fox) from New York for their Midtown development… These architects are generally quite solid—some with distinctive personal styles.

Additionally, I believe it is incredibly foolish and absurd to try to offset high land costs by cutting other expenses such as design fees and construction budgets. Take The Henderson project in Hong Kong as an example: Henderson Land Development acquired the site at a record-breaking price, yet they made no compromises when it came to selecting the architect or investing in design and construction. Instead, they put their full effort into creating a high-quality and visually stunning project, with top-tier architecture and landscape design. In contrast, if some developers in Atlanta end up producing cheap and poorly executed projects just because of high land costs, isn't that laughable? If that's the case, perhaps they shouldn’t even be developing at all.

[MarketsWork]

Originally Posted by ArchKid

I believe it is incredibly foolish and absurd to try to offset high land costs by cutting other expenses such as design fees and construction budgets... if some developers in Atlanta end up producing cheap and poorly executed projects just because of high land costs, isn't that laughable? If that's the case, perhaps they shouldn’t even be developing at all.

Architects are paid (or not paid) to dream, design and opine, and those are wonderful things. But their beautiful dreams come with no financial risks - which is why so few dreams survive intact against the harsh realities of costs, business cycles, and return on investment. It is easy to spend other people's money, presume to know more about other's businesses better than they do, or to criticize real risk takers when one has no skin in the game. We rightly celebrate the occasional home run projects but conveniently shrug off the many strikeouts and disastrous double plays that developers suffer. In the end, cities are largely built on singles and doubles which will be heralded as "fabric" long after their detractors are gone. I'm thankful for architects whose visions show us possibilities most of us cannot see, AND equally thankful for developers with the guts to risk it all to build those dreams to their practical extent.

[12.rover]

How many floors is the building currently at and does anyone know when the next/last crane raise will be?

[numacs]

Originally Posted by ArchKid

It's interesting that this guy（numacs） hasn't really understood the definition of Brutalist architecture. The most famous Brutalist building in Atlanta is the Atlanta Central Library, designed by Marcel Breuer. Brutalism is simply a design style — not synonymous with cheap, poorly designed buildings.
On the other hand, the skyscraper at 1072 West Peachtree clearly suffers from design issues. The entire design feels stuck in an outdated style from decades ago, and it doesn't resemble a thoughtfully designed landmark that reflects current architectural trends. On top of that, the façade materials don't look premium, and the construction quality might also be subpar. Once it's completed, it will probably just be the tallest among Midtown’s many low-grade buildings — with little to no lasting impact in the coming decades.

The hallmark of Brutalism -- at its most basic -- is the exposed concrete. The term "béton brut" literally means "raw concrete." I was referring to the giant slab of raw concrete we see with the south-facing and west-facing sides of the podium. But, yes, the middle part of the building looks just mid-century utilitarian boring. And then the top part looks like a plain ol' International Style glass box. But since you know everything, I'll defer to your breathtaking insights.

[ArchKid]

Originally Posted by numacs

The hallmark of Brutalism -- at its most basic -- is the exposed concrete. The term "béton brut" literally means "raw concrete." I was referring to the giant slab of raw concrete we see with the south-facing and west-facing sides of the podium. But, yes, the middle part of the building looks just mid-century utilitarian boring. And then the top part looks like a plain ol' International Style glass box. But since you know everything, I'll defer to your breathtaking insights.

You're right about some points — this really is a very “boring” building. Once it's completed, I imagine the criticism will only grow over time.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by ArchKid

...the construction quality might also be subpar.

That's a pretty wild accusation to make without presenting any evidence.

[ArchKid]

Originally Posted by shivtim

That's a pretty wild accusation to make without presenting any evidence.

“Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon View Post
I agree with you. Also, the facade materials are poor quality and misaligned. I don't like anything about it and I'm surprised they spent so much on height only to cheap out on everything else.”

Someone has already responded.These construction flaws are already visible to the naked eye—what more evidence is needed? I only said there “might be” some issues. If everything had been up to standard, there really shouldn't be any problems that are visible to the naked eye.
And what evidence do you have to judge that what I said is absurd?!

[RocketSurgeon]

Originally Posted by numacs

The hallmark of Brutalism -- at its most basic -- is the exposed concrete. The term "béton brut" literally means "raw concrete." I was referring to the giant slab of raw concrete we see with the south-facing and west-facing sides of the podium.

Those windowless walls are finished facade panels, not concrete. As someone else mentioned recently, they're required by fire codes because of the lot line.

When I mentioned the facade I was talking about the obviously fake masonry with misaligned corners on the street side

[numacs]

Originally Posted by RocketSurgeon

Those windowless walls are finished facade panels, not concrete. As someone else mentioned recently, they're required by fire codes because of the lot line.

When I mentioned the facade I was talking about the obviously fake masonry with misaligned corners on the street side

Oh....then it just looks like raw concrete from a distance.

[Julien]

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

Based off the fogginess of the clouds this seems to imply this building might end up appearing taller in the skyline probably due to being on a hill.