Monastery at Large

Category: Architecture of Atlanta and the Southeast

  • Atlanta Central Library (1980)

    Marcel Breuer and Hamilton Smith with Stevens & Wilkinson. Atlanta Central Library (1980). Atlanta.
    Marcel Breuer and Hamilton Smith with Stevens & Wilkinson. Atlanta Central Library (1980). Atlanta.

    I was introduced to the work of Marcel Breuer with the Atlanta Central Library (1980), which was designed as a conscious rehash of Breuer’s Whitney Museum in New York and is perhaps the most emblematic example of Atlanta’s consistent impulse to copy the architecture of better cities (badly).

    Breuer’s firm was hired to design the building in 1970,1 but in typical Atlanta fashion, no one wanted to pay for the new facility, even though the city’s 1902 Carnegie Library (pictured below) was in disrepair, overcrowded, and “hopelessly outmoded.”2

    In lieu of actual decision-making, local leaders spent years quibbling over where the library should be built,3 4 5 6 7 8 while simultaneously denying funds for its construction.

    In his 1973 mayoral campaign, Maynard Jackson even promised that only private donations, not tax dollars, would be used for the project,9 10 which had an original estimated cost of $13 million but, with runaway inflation, had jumped to nearly $20 million by 1974.11

    Meanwhile, the old library remained in abysmal condition, and an unusually pointed news commentary from that year said: “The dingy granite building on Carnegie Way, with its creaking floors and bulging stacks, stands as a pathetic reminder of the place of culture in this modern commercial capital.”12

    The library’s director, Carlton Rochell, was equally dismissive of the aging Beaux-Arts building, stating that “…even at its best, it was just one of about 4,500 things cut out with Carnegie’s cookie-cutter.”13 He wasn’t wrong.

    Ackerman & Ross with J.H. Dinwiddie and Bleckley & Tyler. Carnegie Library (1902, demolished 1977). Atlanta. Illustration from an undated postcard published by the Albertype Co.
    Ackerman & Ross with J.H. Dinwiddie and Bleckley & Tyler.14 15 16 Carnegie Library (1902, demolished 1977). Atlanta. Illustration from an undated postcard published by the Albertype Co.

    Rochell was the driving force behind the new library’s development, and his explanation for why he chose Breuer as the designer was the embodiment of Atlanta smugness:

    “We narrowed it down to three or four architects with enviable reputations. We settled on Marcel Breuer because we regard him as being at the pinnacle of his profession. Besides, I felt that Atlanta should have the distinction of a Breuer-designed building. There’s one other thing. Marcel Breuer is notable for living with a budget.”17

    The final two contenders were Breuer and Paul Rudolph, but it appears Rochell intended to hire Breuer all along, as he was said to be “highly enamored of the Whitney Museum.”18

    When Breuer’s conceptual design19 for the new library was approved in March 1971,20 The Atlanta Journal claimed it “borrows somewhat from the Whitney Museum of Art…”,21 which was quite the understatement.

    Concept drawing for the Atlanta Central Library
    Concept drawing for the Atlanta Central Library22

    By the early 1970s, it appears Breuer had all but given up actual design work, primarily handing those duties over to his associates while he secured commissions and cashed in on his reputation.

    With his firm increasingly cranking out retreads of past glories, Breuer showed no qualms about the derivative design of the Central Library and of its severe Brutalist style; he said it conveyed “an expression which you may call monumental.”23

    That made more sense than the firm’s official design statement for the project. If you can decipher this first-class wankery, mazel tov:

    “Admist this heterogeneous downtown texture, the library building must, somehow, be given an architectural significant appropriate to one of the chief cultural resources of a major city. The achievement of this distinctness and clarity is considered a key design challenge by the architects.

    The design response aimed at this goal is based on concepts which seek to take maximum advantage of the important circumstances that the library site is a complete block; and that the building that occupies it may thus be separated by an envelope of space from adjacent structures.”24

    Two-story window on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library
    Two-story window on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library

    Despite constant lobbying by Rochell, heavy support from the city’s newspapers, and a special commission’s recommendation to issue a bond to fund the library’s construction,25 the city council and Maynard Jackson—who was elected mayor in 1974—continued to dither on the matter.

    In April 1975, the Friends of the Library released a damning statement that cut through the heart of Atlanta’s ludicrous self-aggrandizement:

    “It is unthinkable that such a valuable asset as the public library sits like a forgotten dowager on the corner of Carnegie Way while Atlanta touts itself as the world’s next great city.”26

    Bowing to mounting pressure, the city council finally scheduled a bond referendum for December 1975,27 although its prospects for passage appeared bleak: a citywide survey released in October 1975 showed that 56% of Atlantans opposed a bond issue to finance a new library.28

    The same survey, however, found that 60% of citizens “thought Atlanta’s image is ‘very important,’”29 quantifiably proving that Atlantans are as ignorant as they are narcissistic.

    Atlantans are also too apathetic to vote, so it was a shock when 28.6% of voters—much higher than anticipated—showed up to the polls and passed the $20 million bond for the library’s construction.

    The vote was largely along racial lines: Black voters overwhelmingly voted for the library, while White voters soundly rejected it.30 That part isn’t surprising—most Southern Whites wouldn’t be caught dead in a public library.

    Central stairwell of the Atlanta Central Library
    Central stairwell of the Atlanta Central Library

    Construction and Design

    The library’s initial plans only consisted of a model and simple schematic drawings,31 and the final plans weren’t completed until early 1977.32 33

    In 1976, Breuer retired from design work entirely due to poor health,34 so primary credit for the Central Library’s design should go to Breuer’s associate architect, Hamilton Smith.

    The budget for the library’s construction was set at $18.9 million during the bond referendum, and to stay within those constraints while material and labor costs increased, Smith reduced the building’s footprint to 185,000 square feet.35

    The library’s board of trustees pushed back on the reduction, however, demanding the project remain at the larger size,36 which apparently resulted in steep cuts to the interior design budget.

    Looking up at the south elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at the south elevation of the Atlanta Central Library

    Groundbreaking for the library took place in September 1977,37 but the project faced numerous setbacks before and during construction. Among the low points:

    • City of Atlanta workers threatened a strike in early 1976, delaying the issuance of municipal bonds for the library’s construction and the negotiation of construction contracts.38
    • In May 1976, Rochell abruptly resigned as library director for a position in New York,39 40 unceremoniously tossing responsibility for the project’s development to Ella Yates, who took over the position as the library’s first Black director.41 42
    • In early 1977, a group called Save the Carnegie protested the old library’s demolition,43 44 45 although the building was ultimately destroyed in September and October 1977.46 47
    • The Breuer firm’s choice of Stevens & Wilkinson as the project’s local architects angered Maynard Jackson and city officials after a Stevens & Wilkinson employee publicly claimed that the firm was “blackmailed” by the city into working with a minority-owned firm on the construction of Hartsfield International Airport.48 The comment resulted in a federal grand jury investigation, but a resolution by the library’s board of trustees to break the contract with Stevens & Wilkinson ultimately failed.49
    • In September 1977, a tedious battle of egos erupted between city and library officials over who should manage the construction of the new building. The details are too boring to repeat, but the parks commissioner decided he should manage the project instead of the library’s board of trustees. Why? Who the hell knows? The city council backed the library board, and Maynard Jackson backed the commissioner. Finally, Jackson compromised by giving the board ultimate authority while allowing the parks commissioner to make recommendations to the mayor on library board decisions.50 51 52 53 54 55 Politics is insufferable.
    • Construction on the library was briefly halted in June 1979 when a concrete slab fell from the building and killed a worker,56 the only fatality associated with the project.
    North elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    North elevation of the Atlanta Central Library

    Built on the corner of Forsyth Street and Carnegie Way in Downtown Atlanta, the completed Central Library encompassed 250,000 square feet57 across 10 levels, with eight floors above ground, and repeated the Whitney Museum’s triple-cantilevered design.

    To accommodate Atlanta’s meager funding, the library’s exterior was covered in vertical board-formed concrete,58 a much cheaper material than the granite tiles used on the Whitney.

    A defining feature of the building is the 25×25 ft. square window59 on the front facade that spans two floors, while a trademark trapezoidal window is tucked into the north side at street level.

    Trapezoidal window on the north elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Trapezoidal window on the north elevation of the Atlanta Central Library

    Opening in May 1980, the library included such novel features as a gift shop, a cafe, a sunken garden (tres 70s), a rooftop terrace, a drive-through window, and a 340-seat auditorium.60 61

    The project’s original plan called for six above-ground floors, but Smith was able to add two unfinished “bonus” floors while staying within budget.62

    That was probably because so little was spent on the interior, which has only a few of Breuer’s signature flourishes in the stairwells and the basement level, notably bush-hammered concrete, bluestone tiles, and coffered ceilings.

    The remainder of the building’s interior spaces were finished out like a drab 1970s office building, with dropped fiberglass ceilings, fluorescent strip lighting, industrial-grade carpeting, and bog-standard furnishings.

    Coffered ceiling in the original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library
    Coffered ceiling in the original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library

    The Atlanta hype machine would have you believe the Central Library is one of Breuer’s best works, but that’s complete bullshit. It is, at best, a mildly interesting mash-up of elements from some of Breuer’s earlier projects, none of which is executed well.

    Partially buried in a slope, the library appears dreary, faceless, and foreboding, and the floating effect seen in the Whitney design is conspicuously absent.

    The two bonus floors at the top add too much visual weight, and the building is more reminiscent of a sinking tombstone than a grand public monument.

    Because Atlanta’s infantile leaders putzed around for a solid decade, by the time the library was completed, the Brutalist style was already rapidly falling out of fashion, an embarrassment for a city that so self-consciously tries to sell itself as a modern metropolis on the leading edge (it’s not).

    The building initially enjoyed ample sunlight in its windows and skylights, but that quickly changed with the construction of the nearby Georgia-Pacific Center, which has cast a permanent shadow over the library since 1982.

    Skylight in the original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library, with Georgia-Pacific Center in the background
    Skylight in the original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library, with Georgia-Pacific Center in the background

    Obsolescence and Renovation

    In 1970, Carlton Rochell stated that the planned facility would be adequate for 20 years,63 and when the Central Library was still under construction, Ella Yates confirmed: “Our new edifice…moves us into the year 2000.”64

    But 20 years in Atlanta might as well be 100, and in 2001, the library was described as “worn” and having suffered from “twenty years of decay and obsolescence.” The director at the time observed that it was “built for a different Atlanta, a different world. It was all pre-computer.”65

    Circulation at the library had dropped steeply, and since Atlanta never properly maintains its buildings, the facility had predictably fallen into disrepair. The most significant issue was a leaking planter at ground level, which caused a portion of the auditorium’s ceiling to collapse, leading to its closure for five years.66

    A paltry $3 million renovation began in 2001 and extended into 2002, consisting of little more than essential repairs, new paint and carpeting, and additional computers.67 68

    Looking out the window on the second floor of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking out the window on the second floor of the Atlanta Central Library

    In 2008, the Fulton County Commission held a referendum on a $275 million bond issue, with the stated intention to fund a new 300,000-square-foot library to replace the aging Breuer building.

    Like every Atlanta development since the 1996 Olympics, the proposed library was obligatorily described as “world-class,”69 although you can be sure it wouldn’t have been.

    The bond passed, but—no surprise—Atlanta’s leaders waffled about the library’s fate for nearly a decade.

    With the threat of destruction pending, local, national, and even international protests by architects and preservationists mounted, and in 2010, the Central Library was placed on the World Monuments Watch list.

    Finally, in July 2016, the county commissioners opted for a full renovation of the building instead of demolition.

    However, their decision was motivated more by money than any desire for preservation: the new library proposed eight years earlier was expected to be partially funded by private donations, but those failed to materialize during the Great Recession.70

    Looking up at the east facade of the Atlanta Central Library before renovation
    Looking up at the facade of the Atlanta Central Library before renovation

    The library closed for renovation in July 2018 and reopened in October 2021.

    The renovation was designed by Cooper Carry of Atlanta, likely chosen, in part, because of the firm’s recent work on the new campus for North Atlanta High School (2013),71 which required the conversion of a hulking suburban office building completed in 1977.72

    There was a key difference between the two projects, however: the high school was housed in an unremarkable corporate structure designed by a hometown firm,73 while the library was a landmark civic building credited to an internationally renowned architect.

    That the city’s leaders decided local designers were qualified to rework a Breuer building tells you everything you need to know about Atlanta.

    Looking up at the two-story window on the facade of Atlanta Central Library before renovation
    Looking up at the two-story window on the facade of Atlanta Central Library before renovation

    Preservationists were most concerned about Cooper Carry’s decision to add strips of windows to the front of the Central Library to increase sunlight, although that turned out to be one of their better decisions—I would argue it was an improvement.

    On the exterior, the entrance plaza was obliterated: the sunken garden was filled in, and a large metal sculpture added in 1983 (Wisdom Bridge by Richard Hunt)74 was scrapped.

    Neither removal was a huge loss.

    Atlanta Central Library, after renovation and addition of new windows by Cooper Carry
    Atlanta Central Library, after renovation and addition of new windows by Cooper Carry

    The renovation went very wrong in the reworked interior, where no attempt was made to blend the new design with the original Breuer elements.

    The project’s designers were clearly more interested in leaving their mark than enhancing the building’s existing character, and the result is as awkward as it is arrogant.

    The worst decision was that the building’s original service elevators were ripped out and replaced with a swirling skylit atrium that looks like it was extracted from a Class B office building circa 2010, ineptly styled with glass railings, a tacky hanging sculpture, and a dull gray-and-brown color scheme that was already dated upon completion.

    The renovated interior has a confusing, schizophrenic design that clumsily shoehorns a sleek, sterile 21st-century atrium next to a 70s-era stone-and-concrete stairwell.

    The second atrium also removed a significant amount of usable floor space on each level, making the interior feel small and cramped—more evocative of a branch location than a flagship library.

    Atlanta architecture is third-rate as a rule, but even by the city’s own low standards, the Central Library’s renovation is particularly awful, turning an already flawed work into an incoherent mess that appears both amateurish and cheap, despite a reported $50 million price tag.

    The building’s fundamental problems remain, and the library is as grim and lifeless as ever, having all the charm of a minimum-security prison—complete with hostile security guards manning the front door.

    Original entrance plaza of the Atlanta Central Library (demolished)
    Original entrance plaza of the Atlanta Central Library (demolished)

    At Breuer’s death, Carlton Rochelle claimed “…history will show, that Breuer was one of the three greatest architects of this era”, naming the other two as Eero Saarinen and Mies van der Rohe.75

    That was a flawed assessment that hasn’t aged well. While Mies is still considered one of the most influential architects of the 20th century, Saarinen is now all but forgotten, with his gimmicky designs viewed as little more than Space Age novelties.

    Breuer is arguably even less known than Saarinen, and when Atlanta inevitably demolishes the Central Library for some hideous new structure in the future, not even the most die-hard Breuer admirers—if there are any left—will consider it much of a loss.

    Gallery

    Looking at Atlanta Central Library from the southeast
    Looking at Atlanta Central Library from the southeast
    Looking up at the south elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at the south elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Second-floor window on the southeast corner of the Atlanta Central Library
    Second-floor window on the southeast corner of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking at the north elevation of Atlanta Central Library
    Looking at the north elevation of Atlanta Central Library
    Window on the rooftop terrace of Atlanta Central Library
    Window on the rooftop terrace of Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at the windows on the west elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at the windows on the west elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at cantilevered floors on the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at cantilevered floors on the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking at the upper windows on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking at the upper windows on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking at the northeast corner of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking at the northeast corner of the Atlanta Central Library
    A window on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library
    A window on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at the south elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at the south elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at cantilevered floors on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking up at cantilevered floors on the facade of the Atlanta Central Library
    Original entrance of the Atlanta Central Library (demolished)
    Original entrance of the Atlanta Central Library (demolished)
    Sunken plaza outside the Atlanta Central Library (demolished)
    Sunken plaza outside the Atlanta Central Library (demolished)
    Looking out the trapezoidal window on the north elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking out the trapezoidal window on the north elevation of the Atlanta Central Library
    Original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library
    Original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking down at the entrance plaza (demolished) of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking down at the entrance plaza (demolished) of the Atlanta Central Library
    Board-formed concrete in the stairwell of the Atlanta Central Library
    Board-formed concrete in the stairwell of the Atlanta Central Library
    Seating area outside the auditorium in the basement of the Atlanta Central Library
    Seating area outside the auditorium in the basement of the Atlanta Central Library
    Bluestone tiles in the basement of the Atlanta Central Library
    Stairs in the original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library
    Stairs in the original atrium of the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking through the window of the rooftop terrace at the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking through the window of the rooftop terrace at the Atlanta Central Library
    Looking at the west elevation of the Atlanta Central Library from the southwest
    Looking at the west elevation of the Atlanta Central Library from the southwest

    References

    1. Nations, Hugh. “N.Y. Firm Is Hired to Design Library”. The Atlanta Journal, May 21, 1970, p. 2. ↩︎
    2. West, Paul. “Carnegie, Where Are You?” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, June 16, 1974, p. 11-B. ↩︎
    3. Bryans, Raleigh. “Architects Ask Library Study.” The Atlanta Journal, August 24, 1971, p. 2. ↩︎
    4. “Park and Library Too”. The Atlanta Journal, December 15, 1971, p. 10. ↩︎
    5. Murray, Alice. “No News on New Library”. The Atlanta Constitution, June 25, 1973, p. 6. ↩︎
    6. Merriner, Jim. “Delays Beset Library Plans”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 29, 1976, p. 11-A. ↩︎
    7. Bryans, Raleigh. “The New Library — Where Will It Go?” The Atlanta Journal, December 10, 1975, p. 1. ↩︎
    8. West, Paul. “Carnegie, Where Are You?” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, June 16, 1974, p. 11-B. ↩︎
    9. ibid. ↩︎
    10. Merriner, Jim. “Books Dry Up In a Library of Decay Here”. The Atlanta Constitution, April 26, 1975, p. 5. ↩︎
    11. ibid. ↩︎
    12. ibid. ↩︎
    13. Bryans, Raleigh. “The New Library — Where Will It Go?” The Atlanta Journal, December 10, 1975, p. 1. ↩︎
    14. “Carnegie Library Commission Awarded To Ackerman & Ross”. The Atlanta Constitution, December 23, 1899, p. 1. ↩︎
    15. “Will Begin Work Next Week”. The Atlanta Constitution, May 8, 1900, p. 12. ↩︎
    16. “Local Talent Is Secured”. The Atlanta Constitution, February 22, 1902, p. 7. ↩︎
    17. Crown, Jim. “Both Function and Beauty Could Be Ours”. The Atlanta Journal, November 18, 1970, p. 26-A. ↩︎
    18. McCarter, Robert. Breuer. New York: Phaidon Press Limited (2016). ↩︎
    19. West, Paul. “Carnegie, Where Are You?” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, June 16, 1974, p. 11-B. ↩︎
    20. Coffin, Alex. “Trustees Approve Plans for New Library.” The Atlanta Constitution, March 10, 1971, p. 9. ↩︎
    21. Bryans, Raleigh. “New Library Drawn”. The Atlanta Journal, March 10, 1971, p. 2. ↩︎
    22. Stevens, Preston. Building a Firm: The Story of Stevens & Wilkinson Architects, Engineers, Planners Inc. Atlanta (1979), p. 61. ↩︎
    23. Bryans, Raleigh. “New Library Drawn”. The Atlanta Journal, March 10, 1971, p. 2. ↩︎
    24. Crown, Jim. “Marcel Breuer’s Design First Rate for Atlanta”. The Atlanta Journal, March 10, 1971, p. 22-A. ↩︎
    25. Merriner, Jim. “Books Dry Up In a Library of Decay Here”. The Atlanta Constitution, April 26, 1975, p. 5. ↩︎
    26. ibid. ↩︎
    27. Head, John. “$49 Million City Referendum Voted”. The Atlanta Journal, October 7, 1975, p. 1. ↩︎
    28. Allen, Frederick and Jim Merriner. “Library, No; Streets, Yes, Atlantans Say”. The Atlanta Constitution, October 3, 1975, p. 1. ↩︎
    29. Allen, Frederick. “Atlantans Kinda Like It Here—Survey”. The Atlanta Constitution, October 3, 1975, p. 18-A. ↩︎
    30. Ezell, Hank. “Whites Say No, Blacks Say Yes”. The Atlanta Journal, December 10, 1975, p. 1. ↩︎
    31. Gray, Jim. “Library Project Coming Along Slowly”. The Atlanta Constitution, August 5, 1976, p. 9-A. ↩︎
    32. Cash, Sarah. “‘It’s Like a Fairy Tale’”. The Atlanta Journal, January 31, 1977, p. 3-B. ↩︎
    33. “Expensive Nostalgia”. The Atlanta Journal, March 15, 1977, p. 14-A. ↩︎
    34. McCarter, Robert. Breuer. New York: Phaidon Press Limited (2016). ↩︎
    35. Woolner, Ann. “Shrinkage of New Library Halted”. The Atlanta Journal, December 16, 1976, p. 2-A. ↩︎
    36. ibid. ↩︎
    37. “Library Under Way”. The Atlanta Constitution, September 29, 1977, p. 4-A. ↩︎
    38. Merriner, Jim. “Delays Beset Library Plans”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 29, 1976, p. 11-A. ↩︎
    39. “Rochell Quits”. The Atlanta Constitution, May 20, 1976, p. 4-A. ↩︎
    40. “Carlton Rochell”. The Atlanta Journal, May 21, 1976, p. 26-A. ↩︎
    41. Woolner, Ann. “Shrinkage of New Library Halted”. The Atlanta Journal, December 16, 1976, p. 2-A. ↩︎
    42. Taylor, Ron. “Ella Yates Named Library Director”. The Atlanta Journal, November 24, 1976, p. 2-A. ↩︎
    43. “Save-Library Move Gets Boost”. The Atlanta Journal, January 28, 1977, p. 3-B. ↩︎
    44. “Plea Made to Save Library”. The Atlanta Journal, February 9, 1977, p. 20-A. ↩︎
    45. “Expensive Nostalgia”. The Atlanta Journal, March 15, 1977, p. 14-A. ↩︎
    46. Martin, Lyn. “Joint Firm To Get Nod On Library?” The Atlanta Constitution, September 2, 1977, 18-A. ↩︎
    47. Cross, Marcia. “New Home For Atlanta Public Library”. The Atlanta Voice, October 29, 1977, p. 1. ↩︎
    48. Garner, Phil. “Joint-Venturing: A Piece of the Pie”. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution Magazine, September 28, 1975, p. 8. ↩︎
    49. Merriner, Jim. “Delays Beset Library Plans”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 29, 1976, p. 11-A. ↩︎
    50. Booth Thomas, Mary. “Library Matters to Go Through Trustees”. The Atlanta Journal, September 9, 1977, p. 1-B. ↩︎
    51. Woolner, Ann. “Library-City Controversy Raised Again.” The Atlanta Journal, September 2, 1977, p. 20-A. ↩︎
    52. Booth Thomas, Mary. “Panel Wants Building Reins In Hands of Library Board”. The Atlanta Journal, September 16, 1977, p. 11-B. ↩︎
    53. “Construction Decision Delayed for Library”. The Atlanta Journal, September 20, 1977, p. 7-B. ↩︎
    54. Booth Thomas, Mary. “Mayor Blocked Library Vote?” The Atlanta Journal, September 22, 1977, p. 7-C. ↩︎
    55. Martin, Lyn. “Mayor Tells Library Board It Has Power of Decision”. The Atlanta Constitution, September 23, 1977, p. 2-C. ↩︎
    56. Lewis, Angelo. “Probe Halts Construction At Library”. The Atlanta Constitution, June 7, 1979, p. 1-C. ↩︎
    57. Crawford, Tom. “Jackson, Other Officials Tour Library Structure”. The Atlanta Journal, April 30, 1979, p. 2-C. ↩︎
    58. McCarter, Robert. Breuer. New York: Phaidon Press Limited (2016). ↩︎
    59. ibid. ↩︎
    60. ibid. ↩︎
    61. Burnett, W.C. “Vital Asset Added to Atlanta’s Future”. The Atlanta Journal, May 18, 1980, p. 1-E. ↩︎
    62. ibid. ↩︎
    63. Nations, Hugh. “N.Y. Firm Is Hired to Design Library”. The Atlanta Journal, May 21, 1970, p. 2. ↩︎
    64. “A Word From the Director”. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution Magazine, September 23, 1979, p. 46. ↩︎
    65. Bennett, D.L. “Library’s Lost Luster”. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 11, 2001, p. G1. ↩︎
    66. ibid. ↩︎
    67. ibid. ↩︎
    68. Yoo, Charles. “Critics say ‘weeding more like clearcutting”. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 31, 2002, p. JN1. ↩︎
    69. Judd, Alan. “Beauty, truth and bonds: Is library a classy eyesore?” The Atlanta Constitution, July 28, 2008, p. A1. ↩︎
    70. Kass, Arielle. “Library renovation passes major step.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 4, 2016, p. B5. ↩︎
    71. Bluestein, Greg. “This high school is one of a kind”. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 10, 2012, p. D1. ↩︎
    72. Hume, Craig R. “New Home for IBM Division”. The Atlanta Constitution, July 15, 1977, p. 14-D. ↩︎
    73. Gournay, Isabelle. AIA Guide to the Architecture of Atlanta. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press (1993). ↩︎
    74. Fox, Catherine. “Hunt forges his images with soft-sell approach.” The Atlanta Constitution, April 15, 1983, p. 2-C. ↩︎
    75. Burnett, W.C. “Architect Marcel Breuer’s influence memorialized in Atlanta Public Library”. The Atlanta Journal, July 8, 1981, p. 3-B. ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On Huntsville, Alabama (1899)

    G.L. Norrman. Bienville Hotel (1900, demolished circa 1969). Mobile, Alabama.
    G.L. Norrman. Bienville Hotel (1900, demolished circa 1969). Mobile, Alabama.

    The Background

    In June 1899, The Atlanta Journal published remarks from G.L. Norrman about Huntsville, Alabama, where he had just returned “from a business visit.”

    Norrman may have visited the area in connection with plans to renovate the Lauderdale County Courthouse in nearby Florence, Alabama, a project that was ultimately awarded to Golucke & Stewart of Atlanta.1

    It’s unclear if Norrman ever completed any work in the Huntsville area, although he designed multiple projects in Anniston and Gadsden, Alabama, in the late 1880s and early 1890s.

    In late 1899, Norrman briefly considered moving his practice to Birmingham, Alabama, when he was designing the Bienville Hotel (pictured above) in the port city of Mobile, 250 miles south of Birmingham. Instead, he remained in Atlanta, and there’s no evidence that Norrman ever completed any work in Birmingham.

    Norrman’s remarks:

    “I like Huntsville very much. It’s a pretty, thrifty little town—the people there dress well and seem to be prosperous and the streets are full of elegantly dressed, handsome ladies.

    “A great stream of water, twenty-odd feet broad, gushes from rock to the tune of over a million gallons a minute. It is a most refreshing sight— this spring. This hot weather a man can almost keep cool who carries around a picture of the Huntsville spring in his mind.”2

    References

    1. “$5,000 To Be Spent”. The Florence Herald (Florence, Alabama), June 22, 1899, p. 1. ↩︎
    2. “Loitering In the Lobbies”. The Atlanta Journal, June 13, 1899, p. 3. ↩︎

  • W.T. Roberts Residence (1901) – Douglasville, Georgia

    C. Walter Smith. W.T. Roberts Residence (1901). Douglasville, Georgia.
    C. Walter Smith. W.T. Roberts Residence (1901). Douglasville, Georgia.1 2
    Front porch of the W.T. Roberts Residence
    Front porch of the W.T. Roberts Residence, Douglasville, Georgia
    Decorative frieze on the W.T. Roberts Residence
    Decorative frieze on the W.T. Roberts Residence, Douglasville, Georgia

    References

    1. The Southern Architect and Contractor, Volume 11, no. 51 (January 25, 1901), p. 1. ↩︎
    2. Roberts-Mozley House – Cultural Arts Council Douglasville/Douglas County ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On the Meaning of “Civilization” and “Christian Community” (1899)

    George E. Walker. Trinity Episcopal Church (1860). Abbeville, South Carolina.
    George E. Walker. Trinity Episcopal Church (1860). Abbeville, South Carolina.1 2

    The Background

    In May 1899, The Atlanta Constitution published this short letter from G.L. Norrman in its “Topics About Which the People Are Talking” column.

    Norrman’s own views of Christianity and society were already well-documented in his pamphlet Architecture As Illustrative of Religious Belief and as a Means of Tracing Civilization, and here he suggested that the newspaper interview people on their definition of the terms “civilization” and “Christian community”.

    The note includes an outdated and offensive term referencing people of color.

    Norrman’s remarks:

    “In all countries, where moral and social systems similar to our own prevail, two expressions are in use among all sorts and conditions of men, to which each individual man seems to give his own interpretation. These terms are used in the kitchen and in the parlor; in squalid hovels and in the most elaborate apartments; we hear them in the barroom, at the bar of justice and behind jail bars. From press and pulpit they are heard continually, and fanatics for ages have made zealous use of them while kindling cruel bonfires for the immolation of their fellow creatures. Politicians use them as a means of catching votes; trades people to sell goods; promotors of all sorts to float their schemes. Sometimes they are used by learned professors and sometimes by ignorant field negroes. The expressions I have reference to are ‘civilization’ and ‘Christian community.’ I think it would be interesting to a large number of your subscribers to read definitions of these terms from people of various pursuits and various intellectual attainments.”3

    References

    1. Trinity Episcopal Church and Cemetery, Abbeville County – SCDAH ↩︎
    2. Restoring Abbeville’s Trinity Episcopal Church – South Carolina Public Radio ↩︎
    3. “Topics About Which the People Are Talking”. The Atlanta Constitution, May 1, 1899, p. 4. ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On Music Critics (1899)

    The Background

    Following G.L. Norrman‘s previously published remarks about Moriz Rosenthal, The Atlanta Journal received several indignant letters rebuking his criticisms.

    After Rosenthal’s first performance sold out,1 he then held a second concert in Atlanta,2 which was attended by a reader of the Journal identified only as “M.E.C.”

    In a letter published on February 24, 1899, “M.E.C.” gave a rapturous review of Rosenthal’s second concert in ridiculously florid terms, while also taking several catty swipes at Norrman.

    The pertinent quotes:

    • “I had occasion several weeks ago to refer with indignation to the kind of stuff a morning paper was serving us as musical criticism.”
    • “But why should we expect every artist to have in the highest degree every attribute of other artists: A man may be an excellent architect, and yet know very little about music.”3

    Always eager to have the last word, Norrman shot back with another letter, which was published on February 27, 1899.

    In the letter, Norrman liberally quoted M.E.C.’s own words and took the opportunity to mock the Christian Science movement—keep in mind, he was still overseeing the construction of Atlanta’s Christian Science church at the time.4

    “M.E.C.” was undoubtedly Sue Harper Mims, the leader of Atlanta’s Christian Science church and an old society bitch with whom Norrman regularly traded barbs.

    G.L. Norrman. First Church of Christ Scientist (1899, demolished). Atlanta.
    G.L. Norrman. First Church of Christ Scientist (1899, demolished). Atlanta.5

    Norrman’s remarks:

    To the Editor ofThe Journal:

    “I never realized until Friday, when reading the criticism on Rosenthal by “M.E.C.” the amount of delicate perception that is necessary to be a musical critic. It requires such a delicacy of perception as to be able to distinguish a half expressed passion from an expressed passion, or from an unexpressed passion. A critic who can comprehend the “half expressed passion of a Chopin” can undoubtedly comprehend “the intellectual profundity of Schumann.” A person who is endowed with such spiritual light might almost be capable of preaching a Christian Science sermon or write poetry for a young ladies’ literary society.

    “To an ordinary person whose spiritual understanding does not extend beyond what is expressed, music, architecture or any other art is a fine art only when it is a vehicle for conveying emotions. When art is used for any other purpose it is merely a handicraft. So an acrobatic performance with the fingers on a piano is itself no more of a fine art than is an acrobatic performance with the toes on a tight rope.”

    G.L. NORRMAN6

    References

    1. “Atlanta To Have Fair”. The Macon Telegraph (Macon, Georgia), February 16, 1899, p. 2. ↩︎
    2. “Rosenthal’s Second Concert.” The Atlanta Constitution, February 16, 1899, p. 5. ↩︎
    3. “Music”. The Atlanta Journal, February 24, 1899, p. 5. ↩︎
    4. “The First Christian Science Church Built Here Will Be Dedicated Today”. The Atlanta Constitution, April 2, 1899, p. 4. ↩︎
    5. ibid. ↩︎
    6. “Criticism of a Critic.” The Atlanta Journal, February 27, 1899, p. 4. ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On Music Criticism (1899)

    The Background

    G.L. Norrman was a man with forceful and contrary opinions that often riled the ruling class of Atlanta, a pretentious pack of lying dullards who couldn’t accept the truth even if their lives depended on it.

    What no doubt baffled them the most about Norrman was that he could fully articulate his objections in a defined and intelligent manner, of which most people are simply incapable.

    In February 1899, the Atlanta Concert Association hosted a concert at Degive’s Grand Opera House by the Polish pianist Moriz Rosenthal, who was popularly referred to by his last name only.1

    Rosenthal was internationally famous, and his appearance in a backwater like Atlanta was considered a cultural milestone for the city.

    The local newspapers were expectedly fawning over Rosenthal’s performance, but a reporter from The Atlanta Journal got an earful when he asked Norrman for his thoughts.

    Norrman’s comments include multiple references to 19th-century performers, and appropriate informational links have been provided.

    However, there is scant information available about Joseph Denck (1848-1916), a pianist from Columbia, South Carolina, who primarily performed in the Southeast.

    Norrman’s remarks:

    “Yes, I heard Rosenthal, and while I do not profess to be a musical critic I don’t mind saying how he impressed me.

    “I think his technique was very good—but that his selections were poor. I am backed up by an Atlanta musician who is far above the average, in fact, almost a professional. You see, Rosenthal played last night nothing that is familiar even to the average musician much less the great body of his audience. Indeed, as a popular success his entertainment was a dead failure. Now, if he had played a few selections even from such composers as Rossini, Beethoven, Wagner, I could have followed him much better. But, as it was, I could hardly follow him at all—and, of course, the great body of his auditors could not enjoy his playing.

    “It would have been far better if he had played selections from composers more familiar to people of average musical culture and thrown in popular airs for the benefit of the great majority of his audience who could have understood them. As it was these people simply sat there got nothing for their money.

    “Perhaps there were a dozen or so persons in the audience who really enjoyed the performance. Still I couldn’t prove even this. If the bringing of Rosenthal here was to arouse an interest in music and help the people to understand it, I can’t see exactly how this object was accomplished.

    “Say, for instance, that the majority of his hearers were up in the multiplication table of music, so to express it, and I am satisfied that such was not the case—how could they even then be expected to make a long leap and understand and enjoy the calculus of music he undoubtedly gave. For his selections were all of the highest, the most difficult grade, ultra scientific and classical.

    “So, in my view, his performance was not only a failure from a popular standpoint, and was not even a success judged from the plans of average and even above the average musicians and people of musical culture.

    “For my own part, I much prefer Mr. Joseph Denck as he played a few years ago. He has a marvelous touch and always played selections from composers more or less familiar to music lovers, and his playing of popular music is exquisite. Yes, as Denck played a few years ago, when I last heard him. I like him better than Rosenthal. He is not only a wonderful pianist, but knows how to please the average musicians and the people better than Rosenthal, judged by his performance last night.”

    Reporter: How does Rosenthal compare with Padarewski?

    “He’s about as good, I think. I never thought Paderewski such a miracle of a musical genius as some people did. I saw nothing about him to lose my head over. He’s very fine, no doubt, but so is Rosenthal, I suppose—

    “But admit that Rosenthal was as fine as fine can be Wednesday night. What does it amount to him if we cannot follow him?

    “It is not good taste in a pianist to be ever so fine if his audience don’t know it—can’t take in his fineness. Just as it would not be good taste for a person to speak Greek in a parlor full of people if nobody present understood the language.

    “I am no musical critic, but I try to take a common sense view of Rosenthal, and am backed up in what I have said by a musician of far more than average ability in musical matters. We were discussing Rosenthal after his performance and found that our views coincided concerning his recital.”2

    References

    1. “Rosenthal’s Coming Great Social Event As Well As Musical”. The Atlanta Journal, February 15, 1899, p. 7. ↩︎
    2. “Loitering In the Lobbies”. The Atlanta Journal, February 17, 1899, p. 10. ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On Kissing, Again (1898)

    The Background

    Attitudes toward sex began rapidly changing in the late 19th century, and 1898 was a banner year for kissing controversies.

    Richmond P. Hobson was a dashingly handsome Navy lieutenant from Alabama who became an unlikely celebrity when he was captured and held as a prisoner of war after sinking the Merrimac steamship during the Spanish-American War.

    Following his release, Hobson went on a national speaking tour, which was attended by throngs of admiring young girls, and in August 1898, he stopped in Atlanta to give a lecture at the Governor’s Mansion,1 2 which G.L. Norrman apparently attended.

    A week after his Atlanta stop, Hobson appeared in Long Beach, California, where he was approached by Emma Arnold of St. Louis, who was visiting with a group of twelve friends.

    Arnold brazenly asked Hobson for a kiss—to which he agreed. After Hobson kissed her, Arnold then kissed each of her female friends to share his kiss with them.3

    The resulting scandal fueled a press flurry that lasted for months, and it launched Hobson’s status as an early American sex symbol.

    Hobson subsequently kissed hundreds of girls for the remainder of his tour, which newspapers began dubbing “Hobson’s kissing tour”. At one event in Chicago, he reportedly kissed 163 women, followed by another in Kansas City, where he broke his record by kissing 417.4

    Incidentally, the famous Mrs. Kingsberry of Atlanta defended Hobson as a “nice manly fellow, and modest, too”, placing blame for his kissing escapades on the loose young women who flocked to him.

    “All young girls are enthusiastic hero worshipers!” she wrote. “Poor young fellow!” she added. “To think of marching up to 400 Kansas women and kissing 267 of them! What horrors!”5

    As controversy swirled over Hobson’s incident with “the Long Beach girl”, Norrman wrote the following letter to The Atlanta Constitution.

    “Patriotism and Kisses”

    Editor Constitution—

    “Lieutenant Hobson, in a short talk at the governor’s mansion, remarked to the effect that too much ado was made over the incident of the Merrimac, claiming that all our seamen would cheerfully embrace every opportunity of serving the country.

    “From Miss Arnold’s explanation of the incident of the kiss I infer that she is equally modest and generous and gives every girl in the country credit for a desire of embracing the same opportunity of showing, with a merry smack, her appreciation of the heroism on the Merrimac.”

    G.L. Norrman

    Atlanta, August 12th.6

    References

    1. “Hobson Here; Will Lecture”. The Atlanta Journal, August 2, 1898, p. 1. ↩︎
    2. “Great Reception Given Lt. Hobson”. The Atlanta Journal, August 3, 1898, p. 5. ↩︎
    3. “How Miss Arnold Got Hobson’s Kiss”. The Atlanta Constitution, August 12, 1898, p. 9. ↩︎
    4. “Hero Hobson’s Kissing Tour Through the Wild West”. The Atlanta Journal, December 22, 1898, p. 4. ↩︎
    5. “Lieut. Hobson’s Kissing Tour As Viewed By Mrs. Kingsberry”. The Atlanta Journal, December 24, 1898, p. 4. ↩︎
    6. “Patriotism and Kisses”. The Atlanta Journal, August 14, 1898, p. 16. ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On Cursing (1898)

    The Background

    In 1898, Randolph Guggenheimer, president of the City Council of Greater New York, instituted an ordinance that prohibited swearing in public places and imposed a $10 fine on a person for each curse word they uttered.1

    The ordinance was widely mocked by the press and deeply unpopular with New Yorkers,2 and the council repealed it in less than three weeks.3

    On August 2, 1898, The Atlanta Journal published the opinions of well-known Atlantans on New York’s “anti-damn” ordinance and whether it could be replicated in Atlanta, in an article titled: ‘”Antidamn” Law For Us?” G.L. Norrman—once a sailor, mind you— was naturally opposed.

    As a representative piece of Atlanta journalism, the article repeatedly misspelled Guggenheimer’s name as “Gurgenheimer”.

    Norrman’s remarks:

    “Curse words I regard merely as adjectives used to express strong feeling. They simply emphasize what a man says and those toward whom they are applied always understand that what is said is meant. These adjectives are sometimes very useful in business, because some people persist in refusing to understand what you mean unless you emphasize it with them. These adjectives should be regulated arccording to the people with whom you are talking.

    “To illustrate: If a lady comes into the office and proves to be disagreeable, I simply excuse myself—say that I am too busy, or words to that effect: but if a book agent or lightning rod man or life insurance drummer comes in, I tell him to go to hell. I don’t believe that Mr. Gurgenheimer’s [sic] law can be enforced to advantage in New York City. My experience with New Yorkers is that you often have to emphasize your language very emphatically in talking even to them. In fact, I believe that more emphasis is needed in New York than Atlanta because it’s a larger place. Of course, I don’t think, for a moment that the ‘anti-damn’ laws could be enforced in Atlanta. Its enforcement would seriously interfere with business.

    “I admit that these adjectives are not elegant, but they form the most forcible way in which one can express himself.”4

    References

    1. “Public Profanity Must Stop.” The Rome Daily Sentinel (Rome, New York), July 21, 1898, p. 4. ↩︎
    2. “He Is Acting As The Mayor.” The Daily Standard Union (Brooklyn, New York), August 1, 1898, p. 8. ↩︎
    3. “The Board of Aldermen”. The New York Times, August 17, 1898, p. 12. ↩︎
    4. ‘”Antidamn” Law For Us?’. The Atlanta Journal, August 2, 1898, p. 5. ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On Kissing (1898)

    The Background

    In February 1898, The Atlanta Journal received a letter from an old society lady of Atlanta, Mrs. Kingsberry, who was disturbed by “the latest fad in the Gate City=kissing”.

    Repeating two rumors she’d recently heard about Atlanta girls allowing boys to kiss them, Mrs. Kingsberry wrote: “This fad of kissing is simply horrid!”1

    The letter was widely distributed and mocked in newspapers across the country,2 leading the Journal to ask prominent Atlanta citizens for their own opinions on kissing, which were published in a February 8, 1898, article titled “Is There a Kissing Craze? And If So, What About It?”

    Always good for a quip, G.L. Norrman offered his own kissing commentary.

    Norrman’s remarks:

    “Judging from my own experience, there is not much kissing going on in Atlanta. I stand in with the young ladies pretty well, but they never give me any chance at it, so I believe The Journal‘s correspondent is wrong in her opinion about Atlanta society. If the lady who made these statements will give me some pointers, I will investigate the matter, and if she is right I will be able later to tell you something about it.”

    “Abroad they are very strict in the highest society. I find that the world is the same everywhere in the same social circles. It was common among the Romans to kiss a lady to tell whether she had been drinking. They had such an abhorrence of drinking, especially among women, that it was customary to salute the women to make sure that they had not been drinking. As the origin of kissing, I cannot speak advisedly. They tell me that it is a very good thing, and may have originated with Adam and Eve, so far as I know.”3

    References

    1. “Interesting Letter From Mrs. Kingsberry”. The Atlanta Journal, February 5, 1898, p. 6. ↩︎
    2. “What the Papers Say Of the Kissing Epidemic.” The Atlanta Journal, February 10, 1898, p. 4. ↩︎
    3. “Is There a Kissing Craze? And If So, What About It?” The Atlanta Journal, February 8, 1898, p. 5. ↩︎

  • In the Words of G.L. Norrman: On His Return Visit to Europe (1897)

    G.L. Norrman. First Baptist Church (1905-16). Montgomery, Alabama.
    G.L. Norrman. First Baptist Church (1905-16). Montgomery, Alabama.

    The Background

    G.L. Norrman took a four-month trip to Europe in 1897,1 2 returning to the continent for the first time since he emigrated to the United States in 1874. In December 1897, The Atlanta Journal published some of his thoughts and observations from the trip.

    In speaking about England, Norrman referenced Lady Somerset, the leader of the British temperance movement, whom he accused of slumming, a distinctly 19th-century pastime in which the wealthy found it fashionable to tour the impoverished areas of cities to sate their morbid curiosities. Now they just cower in their enclaves.

    Norrman was also appalled to find women invading England’s pubs, quoting Alexander Pope, the English poet, from his poem Essay on Man, Epistle II, for a warning on the dangers of “sentimentality.”

    He also took the opportunity to comment on the protective tariffs imposed by the United States in 1897—Norrman didn’t support them. Who the fuck does besides imbeciles?

    Norrman’s thoughts on European architecture and history (e.g., “…a great deal of Roman history is merely romance.”) were further expounded in his 1898 pamphlet, Architecture as Illustrative of Religious Belief.

    Norrman’s remarks:

    “England, I could see, is not doing well. I was struck by existing conditions in London. There is more drunkenness there than in any other city I visited. In fact, I saw more drunkeness in England than in any other country. It seems that since Lady Sommerset [sic] has made slumming fashionable, all the women of England have gone slumming. I have seen more drunken women in England than in any other country. There they might sing the song, “Dear Mother, Come Home,” instead of “Dear Father, Come Home“. It is as common a sight to see women in saloons in London as it is to see men in our American saloons. I have often passed barrrooms and seen as many as half a dozen women standing at the counter. Twenty years ago, when I was in England, the common women of the worst streets seemed not as brazen as the well dressed women one sees on the principal streets today.

    “Sentimentality is running rampant in England, and when sentimentality goes wild it does more harm than all the vices put together that human frailty is heir to.

    “Vice is a monster of such frightful mein,
    As to be hated needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

    “Where there is no morality society begins to break down. In England disintegration of society is noticeable everywhere. There seems to be a feeling in the air there that the people are expecting something to turn up, they don’t know what.

    “Their social system is based on hypocrisy and cant.

    “I made considerable investigation along historical lines while in Europe, and am led to believe that a great deal of Roman history is merely romance. I base this opinion on the the fact that no picture of any kind, either painted, modeled or carved, can be found which illustrates any of the cruelties we read of. A people with slaves who were such great picture makers would surely have been put on record through the medium of their art, if the cruel practices of their masters had really occurred. I feel quite sure that if historians had understood architecture, ancient history would have read quite differently from what it does.

    “In the transmission of history, language is very unreliable whenever metaphors are used. For instance, if in 2,000 years from now a newspaper should be found stating that the police commissioners had cut the head off of the chief, the reader would naturally think that there were very bloodthirsty police commissioners in those days.

    “In making a study and investigation of ancient architecture I found that there are no crucifixes of any description before the fifth century. The earliest that can be found are in the Bysantin style and could not have been made before there was a Bysantin style, which was about 500 years after Christ is supposed to have lived.

    “In business prosperity the countries of Europe seem to be doing well, with the exception of England, as I have already stated. There is a great deal of improvement going on in Italy. There is as much building going on in Rome as in New York. Many blocks of old Roman buildings are being torn down and fine boulevards are being laid out. All of the blocks of houses in front of St. Peter’s cathedral have been condmened and it is intended to open a large boulevard from the church to the river. This will give a splendid view of the cathedral. Hitherto it has been obscured by the many houses around it.

    “The European countries seem to have the highest regard and admiration for the United States. I heard no adverse criticisms in regard to the policy of our government except in reference to the protective tariff. The people of Europe do not like this feature in our policy, and it is the occasion of considerable unfavorable comment among all the countries I visited. For my own part I think the protective tariff is a mistake. It produces an uncalled for antagonism, because from what I saw of American exhibits in Brussels, London and Stockholm, America can beat the world in all kinds of goods that are made by machinery in regard to both price and quantity. While it is true that European laborers do not get as much as American laborers it is also true that American laborers can do about three times as much as European laborers. I know that it is so in regard to building and I presume it is so in all other lines also. The cost of building per cubic foot is greater in Europe than here, notwithstanding that labor is much cheaper.

    “There is a great deal of building going on in Vienna and Stockholm. The style of the architecture in these places I liked very much. The old German style of architecture in Vienna I found to show a high form of art. But I believe that I liked the Roman styles better than those of any other city or country that I visited.

    “As to the result of my trip to Europe, it depends on from what standpoint it is viewed. In regard to keeping the rain out of a building, I have no new information, but as to the meaning of architecture, I have learned a good deal. I have especially given attention to the meaning of the forms used in Romanesque architecture.”3

    References

    1. “Mr. Norrman Off to Europe”. The Atlanta Journal, July 21, 1897, p. 7. ↩︎
    2. “Social Items.” The Atlanta Constitution, December 1, 1897, p. 11. ↩︎
    3. “Unique View of Old World”. The Atlanta Journal, December 9, 1897, p. 5. ↩︎