Comments on: The Most Reclusive Building Downtown

By: Margaret S

Margaret S — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:30:36 +0000

i have noticed these buildings in many cities, always without windows. i’ve been told (this may be a myth) that they had no windows because the ‘phone company’ monopolies did not want switchboard operators looking out windows. any activity that took their attention away from the switchboards would slow down the operators’ productivity. switchboards and their operators were certainly around in 1948. is this a possibility?

By: Spatula

Spatula — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:30:27 +0000

Any chance they could punch some windows into the walls, or would that compromise the structure?

By: T. Rainey/Birmingham

T. Rainey/Birmingham — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:04:56 +0000

These comments are so funny. I never knew people cared so much about these buildings one way or the other.

Before I came to work for the phone company I never paid any attention to these buildings, in the phone comany world they’re called Central Offices or COs for short. They have few if any windows and they are built to take bad weather and nuclear attacks. As tough as they are we still lost a few in New Orleans from Katrina.

Every city has them, you just might not notice. Look for buildings with no windows and an at&t logo on the side and you can bet it’s full of phone equipment.

And yes, downtown Birmingham has a giant one across the park from the Civil Rights Institute.

By: Jay Coop

Jay Coop — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:52:05 +0000

I always wanted to know what was in that building. I remember walking past it as a kid coming from Halifaz Court, headed home to Walnut Terrace. You could hear the humming noises from the sidewalks.

By: Bill Culbertson

Bill Culbertson — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:26:10 +0000

The Eisenhower Administration asked AT&T to harden all their central offices against the electro-magnetic pulse from nuclear weapons.

Thankfully, that never happened, but AT&T wound up with alot of ugly buildings. They have tried to re-model some of their buildings since the newer technologies take up much less space, but they are often stuck with bricked-up windows and faceless facades.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:07:54 +0000

These central offices can also contain cellphone switches and internet backbone gear too, so just because you don’t have a landline, doesn’t mean they should knock the building down.

By: Synaesthesiac

Synaesthesiac — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:34:04 +0000

It’s true, nearly every major city in this country has one of these big AT&T monoliths down town. When I first saw one of these it left a similar impression as the author’s. A little research revealed that the building was built in that way in order to protect sensitive equipment, so your phone calls could continue to come through crystal clear (something that has lost value since our adoption of cellular convenience).

I’m sure everyone would love it if Raleigh could look like a sea of restored cotton mill apartments, high-rise condos, and abandoned-but-beautiful art deco offices. Personally, I’m much more concerned with the influx of new structures that are poorly conceived and lack integrity of design and purpose–I even question the transformation of classic buildings in to condos and office spaces, as I’d much rather see them serving their original purposes.

A city shouldn’t be built like an arbitrary creative class (*YUP 2000) playground. A city is an ecosystem. The AT&T building was designed based on a specific ecological need. Unlike other buildings, its ugliness can’t be chalked up to Gen X tastelessness and the marketing-to-mediocrity of the last two decades. This building is now a monument to the cold, hard necessity of post-war America and mid-century technological innovation.

That said, the building and its purpose are clearly out-of-date, and a city should certainly evolve to suit new needs. Perhaps the building could eventually be replaced with something akin to Shanghai’s Oriental Pearl Tower? Until then, however, this building shouldn’t prompt bad-mouthing when there are many newer concepts that are much more deserving.

By: NCSU

NCSU — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:22:04 +0000

Thanks Raleigh Boy.

That explains why I don’t remember that building as being as old as described. At some point during my youth, it went through a complete transformation. The upper portion shown in photo 1 looks much more modern than 1948.

By: Raleigh Boy

Raleigh Boy — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:34:35 +0000

As I recall, in the mid ’60s the original, 3-story, 1948 brick structure at the corner of Morgan and McDowell still had windows in the now sealed-up openings. The building was unpainted, and the natural brick walls accented by natural limestone architectural detailing was really quite attractive.

In the late ’60s or early ’70s, a large steel-framed concrete addition raised the height of the building by two floors, and the window openings in the original structure were bricked up. Shortly thereafter the entire building was painted a drab gray (now it is a drab beige). Subsequent additions added in the ’80s and ’90s gave us the windowless behemoth we see today. Whenever I go by there now, the building’s cold and univiting appearance evokes an image of cold war East Berlin. So yes Michael — one great expansive bunker.

By: netposer

netposer — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:10:11 +0000

at&t should commission an artist or artists to decorate that building and make it more visually interesting.

I can look out the windows where I work and see that monstrosity…so a change of scenery would be nice.