Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

DT: The Carnegie (236 FT/16 ST/2008)


  • Please log in to reply
321 replies to this topic

#51 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 15 August 2006 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Aug 14 2006, 09:52 PM) View Post

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Aug 14 2006, 09:21 PM) View Post

Now directly back on topic: The building is being designed by David Schwarz. I did not see the rendering on Channel 11.


Yay! I know I'm unpopular in this regard, but I like his buildings. He does well with pedestrian interaction in these situations.


Im with you on this one Atomic. New York is full of Water towers and what-not sticking out of it's roof. I don't say I love the look but adds a "City Feel" IMO. ST said it will add another silhoette to DT Fort Worth at 236 feet . I don't think so. But happy to get some infill. They also talk about 2 or 3 places for retail.Thats good also. I do love the Carnegie. It has a Fort Worthian feel to it. Anything highr than 30 stories should however be in Glass IMO.

Johnny and Mr Roberts please put down your bricks. But in the very same story it talked about the TU project. Some of us wanted to know more about this after all. And says it looks like it will be about 30 stories. If so, it with Omni will help our eastern side of DT a great deal. Fort Worth so need some infill
on our eastern half of our skyline............NID...........IS NOW RUNNING FROM BRICKS............ ph34r.gif

#52 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 15 August 2006 - 02:24 PM

I'm a fan of all of Mr. Schwarz's buildings that I've seen in person (everything in Fort Worth, and his stuff in Dallas). I prefer odes to the past over modern stuff, as the modern stuff just doesn't float my boat nearly as well. Then again, I'm a vintage kind of guy - I'll take the Golden Era in architecture, music, movies, cars, clothing, and more over what I feel is the junk of today. YMMV, of course, but I'll always be stuck in the past - and LOVING it. smile.gif

- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#53 DrkLts

DrkLts

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Fort Worth

Posted 15 August 2006 - 10:28 PM

I think the new building is great, especially for some "infill" like someone said earlier. Thing is (as nice as it may be) it doesn't stand out. It just looks like a clone of the FW club.
I know we need some new Class A office, but when I keep hearing FW is almost 100% "busting-at-the-seams" occupancy rate, all downtown can muster up only a measily 16 stories??? Any developer would make a fortune if he built something 50+ stories high. What is the risk? If there is a real demand for office space like it's been mentioned, then what's holding a developer back?

#54 DrkLts

DrkLts

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Fort Worth

Posted 15 August 2006 - 10:35 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 15 2006, 12:35 PM) View Post

QUOTE(WTx @ Aug 15 2006, 10:58 AM) View Post

Its really hard to look at Carter Burgess, City Center, The Tower, or Burnett Plaza with enduring affection.

You're right about that, FW's attempt at the modern skyscraper has been disastrous. But I've seen many new "old" buildings built in other cities that are tons better than Schrwarz's designs. I don't have a problem with Sundance SQ. wanting to continue the historic bldg look, but for pete's sake find another architect.


C'mon you two, are they that hideous? I know they aren't gonna win any architectural awards or design of the year, but they aren't that bad. I would simply call them plain. Again, what exactly makes them "disastrous"???

#55 Redshirt

Redshirt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hurlburt Field, FL
  • Interests:I am and always will be a Texas resident. I was born and raised in Fort Worth. Currently, I am in the Air Force working on the CV-22 Osprey, supporting the Fort Worth economy by working on those Bell heliplanes. :) I am currently stationed at Hurlburt Field home of the Air Force Special Operations Command.

Posted 15 August 2006 - 11:29 PM

QUOTE(DrkLts @ Aug 16 2006, 06:28 AM) View Post

I think the new building is great, especially for some "infill" like someone said earlier. Thing is (as nice as it may be) it doesn't stand out. It just looks like a clone of the FW club.
I know we need some new Class A office, but when I keep hearing FW is almost 100% "busting-at-the-seams" occupancy rate, all downtown can muster up only a measily 16 stories??? Any developer would make a fortune if he built something 50+ stories high. What is the risk? If there is a real demand for office space like it's been mentioned, then what's holding a developer back?


I get the impression that although Fort Worth is almost at 100% for downtown Class A office space, there doesn't seem to be anyone else battling to get in there. Possibly everyone who would wants to be downtown already is? Let's hope not, of course. But if downtown Fort Worth is such a hot place to be in the US, then why does the city council keep having to make these huge deals to get anyone to build, or stay for that matter. I'm no economist, and I know that other cities do it too, but it seems to me that such a "hot location" shouldn't have to bribe people to invest in it's future unless there were some reservations about it's future. I love Fort Worth but sometimes wonder why it's so slow to progress compared to other cities.

#56 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,497 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 15 August 2006 - 11:49 PM

FW has to find a way to make downtown a more appealing option than the Alliance corridor or Westlake or Las Colinas.

#57 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 August 2006 - 06:01 AM

Redshirt, you raise some interesting questions. Could it be that downtown really isn't as good or as appealing as it is promoted? Maybe you are right: everyone who wants to be in downtown already is there. Maybe other developers don't want to compete with the Bass Family.

As previously referred to in another thread, maybe our downtown vacancy numbers have been erroneously reported and the real vacancy rate is much higher that what we think. Along this same lines, to make Dallas look worse, their numbers might be skewed, as well.

Although I am involved in the construction of new buildings, and my firm does work in downtown, I don't know the answer to these questions.

Finally, be careful what you wish for. With very few buildings in downtown having no more historic protection than 180 day Demolition Delay, a developer could come in and wipe out some of our beautiful and older skyscrapers to build two or three 50 story office buildings and associated parking garages.

#58 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 16 August 2006 - 06:56 AM

QUOTE(JBB @ Aug 16 2006, 12:49 AM) View Post

FW has to find a way to make downtown a more appealing option than the Alliance corridor or Westlake or Las Colinas.


Two possible reasons why downtown may not be the best location from some companies, especially those with large call/data centers:

-lack of large data/call center appropriate buildings (for remodel)

-the parking game

-the risk of disaster (ie. tornados or terrorism)


#59 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 16 August 2006 - 09:41 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 15 2006, 12:35 PM) View Post

QUOTE(WTx @ Aug 15 2006, 10:58 AM) View Post

Its really hard to look at Carter Burgess, City Center, The Tower, or Burnett Plaza with enduring affection.

You're right about that, FW's attempt at the modern skyscraper has been disastrous. But I've seen many new "old" buildings built in other cities that are tons better than Schrwarz's designs. I don't have a problem with Sundance SQ. wanting to continue the historic bldg look, but for pete's sake find another architect.


You take out Chase the Green neon building and Reunion Tower. What do you have? A very boring Dallas Skyline. I do love all of Fort Worths skyscapers . It is just seeing the same thing for 20 years makes it seem boring. Fort Worth need just one stand out high tower like Dallas and It will help all towers in DT Fort Worth.

By the way I hate Reunion tower . But if it were gone. It would throw the Skyline off.

#60 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 16 August 2006 - 10:59 AM

QUOTE(Redshirt @ Aug 16 2006, 01:29 AM) View Post

QUOTE(DrkLts @ Aug 16 2006, 06:28 AM) View Post

I think the new building is great, especially for some "infill" like someone said earlier. Thing is (as nice as it may be) it doesn't stand out. It just looks like a clone of the FW club.
I know we need some new Class A office, but when I keep hearing FW is almost 100% "busting-at-the-seams" occupancy rate, all downtown can muster up only a measily 16 stories??? Any developer would make a fortune if he built something 50+ stories high. What is the risk? If there is a real demand for office space like it's been mentioned, then what's holding a developer back?


I get the impression that although Fort Worth is almost at 100% for downtown Class A office space, there doesn't seem to be anyone else battling to get in there. Possibly everyone who would wants to be downtown already is? Let's hope not, of course. But if downtown Fort Worth is such a hot place to be in the US, then why does the city council keep having to make these huge deals to get anyone to build, or stay for that matter. I'm no economist, and I know that other cities do it too, but it seems to me that such a "hot location" shouldn't have to bribe people to invest in it's future unless there were some reservations about it's future. I love Fort Worth but sometimes wonder why it's so slow to progress compared to other cities.


I suspect a lot of it has to do with available land. Most of the downtown blocks are relatively small so you pretty much have to have an entire block to make your project work. A good chunk of that space is going to be used for parking, so you have to go that much higher or shrink the floorplates. So given that you need an entire city block, how many vacant or nearly vacant blocks are there downtown? There are a few, but most of the ones I can think of are not in what most would consider prime locations. I think the Omni and Lancaster restoration will really jumpstart development on the southern end of downtown and make that area more prime.

Aside from that, the city (with possibly the help of the county and college district) could create an independent parking authority to spur development. This has many pros and cons, but is worthy of serious consideration. A discussion about this could easily fill another thread, but I'll say this: a separate parking authority could free up a lot of downtown TIF money to pay for some really good projects and infrastructure downtown.

#61 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 16 August 2006 - 11:10 AM

Did Bass try to one up Hunt HQ in Dallas by Building Carnegie higher by 6 feet? laugh.gif

#62 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 16 August 2006 - 11:16 AM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 15 2006, 01:41 PM) View Post

Im with you on this one Atomic. New York is full of Water towers and what-not sticking out of it's roof.


Many buildings have rods and electrical/mechanical equipments exposed on top of them, that's not uncommon. I just can't believe SS would allow a building to be built in the city's showplace entertainment district and not realize the importance of aesthetics in such an area. Bottom line, the mechanical box takes away from the appearance of the building...especially when said building is not very tall and the mechanical equipment can be seen from street level. I drove to work today and even along Central Expressway (an area not known for its urbanism) most of the office buildings, be it tall or short, do not have mechanical junk exposed on top. It simply makes for a more attractive building to hide it. I would more expect to see such disregard to aesthetic detail along a freeway in a cost-cutting governmental building than on a brand new office structure in a place like SS.

#63 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 16 August 2006 - 11:27 AM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 16 2006, 10:41 AM) View Post

You take out Chase the Green neon building and Reunion Tower. What do you have? A very boring Dallas Skyline. I do love all of Fort Worths skyscapers . It is just seeing the same thing for 20 years makes it seem boring. Fort Worth need just one stand out high tower like Dallas and It will help all towers in DT Fort Worth.

By the way I hate Reunion tower . But if it were gone. It would throw the Skyline off.


I think it takes more than one or two buildings to make a great skyline. I think every building contributes somewhat...even the bad ones. It's all of the buildings together that has given Dallas one of the most recognizable skylines in the country, and it even got an Honorable Mention (it's posted here somewhere) as one of the best skylines in the world. But for the record, I've never been crazy about BOA (the green building) and I've always hated Reunion Tower.

#64 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 872 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 16 August 2006 - 12:09 PM

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Aug 16 2006, 07:01 AM) View Post

Redshirt, you raise some interesting questions. Could it be that downtown really isn't as good or as appealing as it is promoted? Maybe you are right: everyone who wants to be in downtown already is there. Maybe other developers don't want to compete with the Bass Family.

As previously referred to in another thread, maybe our downtown vacancy numbers have been erroneously reported and the real vacancy rate is much higher that what we think. Along this same lines, to make Dallas look worse, their numbers might be skewed, as well.

Hoping not to go off topic here. Yesterday I was listening to an economist on KERA radio talking about North Texas. Three things caught my ear. He said Dallas was hurting because they had quit annexing land 30 years ago and were now hemmed in by strong smaller cities, where as Ft Worth got out front on annexing land and were reaping the benifits of the Alliance area.

He said jobs follow homes and that sprawl North from Dallas meant that there were now more jobs in Plano than in DT Dallas. I would say demand in DTFW may be lacking as the housing market moves out from the city center and compaines will locate their "campus type headquarters" closer to where the employees live. An example would be Burlington Northern. At one time they had over half the floors in the Continental Bank building but now 2500 employees are on sprawling campus off Western Center Blvd. where parking is free.

He also said he thought Dallas was overbuilding high priced Condo's in DTD. He thought there were only so many yuppies that could afford $500,000 and up property and that they were missing the boat by not offering moderatly priced options to appeal to older folks like himself. I would say at least in Ft Worth there are more moderate prices available.

I guess it would be interesting to know if folks are moving DT, Ft Worth or Dallas, to be near an employment center or an entertainment center.

Oh, I don't much care for the look of the Carnegie building, it reminds me of the old buildings I used to see as a kid. I'll take glass over brick any day.


#65 texastrill

texastrill

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:EFW

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:21 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 16 2006, 12:27 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Aug 16 2006, 10:41 AM) View Post

You take out Chase the Green neon building and Reunion Tower. What do you have? A very boring Dallas Skyline. I do love all of Fort Worths skyscapers . It is just seeing the same thing for 20 years makes it seem boring. Fort Worth need just one stand out high tower like Dallas and It will help all towers in DT Fort Worth.

By the way I hate Reunion tower . But if it were gone. It would throw the Skyline off.


I think it takes more than one or two buildings to make a great skyline. I think every building contributes somewhat...even the bad ones. It's all of the buildings together that has given Dallas one of the most recognizable skylines in the country, and it even got an Honorable Mention (it's posted here somewhere) as one of the best skylines in the world. But for the record, I've never been crazy about BOA (the green building) and I've always hated Reunion Tower.

The best looking building in Dallas IMO is Fountain Place.The glass buildings in FW are inferior to this one.
I guess the look of the Carnegie would suit DTFW,but anything built outside that vicinity,lets say along the Trinity,should be glass;not to mention of Fountain Place design quality.
T E X A S T R I L L - G O C O W B O Y S

#66 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:41 PM

QUOTE(Keller Pirate @ Aug 16 2006, 01:09 PM) View Post

He said jobs follow homes and that sprawl North from Dallas meant that there were now more jobs in Plano than in DT Dallas. I would say demand in DTFW may be lacking as the housing market moves out from the city center and compaines will locate their "campus type headquarters" closer to where the employees live. An example would be Burlington Northern. At one time they had over half the floors in the Continental Bank building but now 2500 employees are on sprawling campus off Western Center Blvd. where parking is free.

He also said he thought Dallas was overbuilding high priced Condo's in DTD. He thought there were only so many yuppies that could afford $500,000 and up property and that they were missing the boat by not offering moderatly priced options to appeal to older folks like himself. I would say at least in Ft Worth there are more moderate prices available.



I totally agree with with him.. Plano, Las Colinas, Frisco, and N. Dallas have all become huge employment centers, and the same could happen to FW with the continuance of sprawl. (The good thing about Dallas being closed in is it has forced massive new developments in neighborhoods that probally would have continued to decay.) But at least the new jobs would still be in the FW city limits. I personally think FW has always been a more industrial/manufacturing kind of town. There seems to be warehouses and industrial parks everywhere, while skyscrapers are hard to come by. FW is going to have to sell itself as a more white collar city and get out there and land some corporate relocations. Did you see that Dallas had representatives in China last week promoting Dallas to China as it more capitalizes its economy? That's what FW should be doing more of.

And he was so right in regards to Dallas' overpriced condo market. It's ridiculous!!! Few, if any of my friends or I could afford to purchase a condo or townhome here. They are missing out on a huge market. FW's are much better priced and I've briefly considered purchasing something there. But I'm such a skyline freak, I just couldn't look at Burnett Plaza all day.

#67 Shocker

Shocker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Downtown Ft. Worth

Posted 17 August 2006 - 01:55 PM

I really hate saying unfavorable things about Fort Worth but I can't hold it in any longer. I am greatly disappointed in what I'm seeing. Are we as a local culture so bored and uninspired that this is all we can create? I built something like this with legos when I was 7 years old. There is absolutely NO creativity whatsoever in the artist rendition that I've seen. Just a tired reproduction of 100 year old ideas. It's as though the architect just gave up. Though I much prefer contemporary glass and steel over brick, I'm not totally opposed to it. Just why does it have to be soooooo boooooriiiiiiing? How bout some imagination? To me architecture is art. I love exploring the high rise architecture in other cities (like Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle, etc.) as to me it is often a fun challenge to estimate when they were designed and built. Each era seems to have different trademark characteristics as design and techniques evolve through time. What exactly is the point of creating something new that is designed to look like something old? We've got plenty of old architecture to study around here.
I'll stop rambling, but I'm not thrilled about this. I just hope they can finish the back of this one unlike the Chase Bank building. (Puke).

#68 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 17 August 2006 - 02:15 PM

QUOTE(Shocker @ Aug 17 2006, 02:55 PM) View Post

I really hate saying unfavorable things about Fort Worth but I can't hold it in any longer. I am greatly disappointed in what I'm seeing. Are we as a local culture so bored and uninspired that this is all we can create? I built something like this with legos when I was 7 years old. There is absolutely NO creativity whatsoever in the artist rendition that I've seen. Just a tired reproduction of 100 year old ideas. It's as though the architect just gave up. Though I much prefer contemporary glass and steel over brick, I'm not totally opposed to it. Just why does it have to be soooooo boooooriiiiiiing? How bout some imagination? To me architecture is art. I love exploring the high rise architecture in other cities (like Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle, etc.) as to me it is often a fun challenge to estimate when they were designed and built. Each era seems to have different trademark characteristics as design and techniques evolve through time. What exactly is the point of creating something new that is designed to look like something old? We've got plenty of old architecture to study around here.
I'll stop rambling, but I'm not thrilled about this. I just hope they can finish the back of this one unlike the Chase Bank building. (Puke).


As much as you hate it, I'm thrilled with it. Given the size (dictated by market forces and lot size) I'm not sure a glass and steel building would have really fit in all that well. Maybe, maybe not, I'd have to see a design. I, personally, love brick. The Baker building, the Fort Worth Club, Burk Burnett. All great buildings in my mind. Although I'm not a fan of the oil and gas building or it's diminutive neighbor.

I guess it's a preference or style issue. I don't think it is in any way "bad" that some people with millions to invest like the look of a brick 16 story building. The Omni folks obviously feel differently and are going with glass. If you don't like the brick building, focus on the glass one going up.

#69 apearson28

apearson28

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mid-Cities
  • Interests:Architecture, Urban Planning, Art, Music, Reading, Photography

Posted 17 August 2006 - 02:18 PM

my thoughts exactly (Shocker). i love Fort Worth and hate talking bad about it, but ill be honest, this city has a tendency to piss me off. That said, im glad to see a building replacing a parking lot and its not an ugly building, just not original.

#70 texastrill

texastrill

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:EFW

Posted 17 August 2006 - 02:47 PM

what the building lacks in design,should be made up with height!
T E X A S T R I L L - G O C O W B O Y S

#71 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 12:16 PM

More good news for Fort Worth. Hopefully this will spawn more announcements like it. For some reason developers are scared, until they see someone else do it. If this is as successful as I believe it will be, then hopefully more will come along.

#72 Sam Stone

Sam Stone

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Overton, then Monticello, now expat in OC, CA

Posted 18 August 2006 - 12:47 PM

I mean no Bass-bashing here, but I think it's important to point out that decision making criteria may be very different for most developers and Bass related interests. Bass/Sundance/Fine Line, etc. own approximately 45 blocks of downtown. There are people on this forum who know far more about real estate than I, but I think it's plain to see that for a developer who owns 45 blocks (most of which is contiguous), the decision to build might be based on different factors than what would influence a new entrant to the market. I don't mean to say that a new building isn't encouraging, I just mean that other developers may not look at what the Basses do as a typical case that could easily apply to them.

Regarding height, I think you have to take into account what fraction of the local market something like a 60 story building would represent. It's one thing if you have most of it preleased, especially by one large tenant for a new HQ, but that much new space can wreak havoc on the market. When the WTC first opened, it destroyed the office market in lower Manhattan. It took years and countless other projects for that area to rebound. What percentage of our class A market would a giant tower represent? 10%? 20%? Would we want to see class A drop 20 points in the space of a year?

My point is, height's great, but you have to have something to fill it. Businesses have to come from somewhere and/or grow, otherwise you're just shuffling them around and raising everybody's vacancy.

#73 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 18 August 2006 - 01:27 PM

It's odd to me to see such a strong preference for glass buildings over traditional brick & stone, but I guess differences make the world go 'round. As for myself, I will take a traditional brick & mortar highrise over glass any day of the week. I only see art in the architecture of the past - today, IMHO it's more a case of either "build it plain and cheap" or "make it shoot off in random abstract directions and call it 'modern'." I see far more beauty in the detailing of the Sinclair Building or the columns of the Burk Burnett or (to pick an example of a modern building that I think looks great) the brick patterns of the Chase Bank Building than I do in the random shapes and plain glass of, say, Carter + Burgess or City Center or the W Hotel. Brick buildings also seem taller to me than they really are - glass and/or concrete always underwhelms me. To me, glass just says "I didn't really try." I find far more beauty in a stately, lovely, straightforward brick building than in some jumbled glass tetrahedron or flat glass slab. Just because it's "cutting-edge" or "modern" or "contemporary" doesn't mean it's *good.*

The buildings most people hail these days as masterpieces usually make me want to yawn. I don't hate all modern glass buildings - I think Pier 1 is nifty, and a few of the Dallas buildings are kinda neat. I can even find some love for, say, 500 West 7th. An occasional glass or concrete slab or polygon is a glass of cold water to the face, but a city full of abstract Euroboxes or Modernist claptrap will kill a downtown. Overall, I'll take good 'ole brick and stone any day.

Author James Lileks expresses my thoughts rather well:

"The old world was hand-made, brick by brick. It’s possible all the old mills and warehouses would have been made of blue glass if they’d had enough of the stuff. But would it have been too much to ask of the architect to make the Guthrie looked like it belonged on this ancient plot?

And that’s my problem, of course. I have quaint notions about architecture. Context may not be king, but it’s not the king’s fool, either. Symmetry keeps a building from flying apart into a heaped-up mess, and helps the brain make sense of what it’s seeing. The occasional dose of historicity – and I don’t mean publicity photos etched into the glass like trapped ghosts – binds a building to the era that preceded its conception.

A stiff bracing shot of modernist élan was good, in small doses; jet-age Googie architecture was better, in larger doses, and said more about post-war America than a hundred blunt empty boxes ever would. But we lost our ability to summon the past, because the past had nothing to teach us. The past is dead! Perhaps. But it's the present that feels like a mausoleum."

- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#74 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 18 August 2006 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Aug 18 2006, 02:27 PM) View Post

It's odd to me to see such a strong preference for glass buildings over traditional brick & stone, but I guess differences make the world go 'round.

Great post Atomic! (You know I can't pass up a Minneapolis reference without commenting)...

...I can’t agree more. To me, flat, glass curtain walls are sooo 80’s not to mention an ‘easy way out’, aesthetically speaking - - mysteriously hiding the interior, very hard to relate to what’s happening inside, androgynous, if you will.

James Lilek’s website (www.lileks.com) is absolutely, hands down, some of the funniest and most entertaining architecture and ephemera writing out there. I highly recommend you check it out, and he can't resist the Googie. I believe a columnist for the Start Tribune is his day job.

Minneapolis should be proud: Jean Nouvel's Guthrie is quite impressive and Frank Gehry’s Weisman Art Center across the river is also an enjoyable specimen, just to mention a couple.


#75 WTx

WTx

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:North Texas
  • Interests:Buildings of the 20's - 40's.

Posted 18 August 2006 - 04:03 PM

Wow, thanks for that website!

#76 apearson28

apearson28

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mid-Cities
  • Interests:Architecture, Urban Planning, Art, Music, Reading, Photography

Posted 18 August 2006 - 05:08 PM

Hey, sorry for my earlier post. I just get a little impatient with the development here sometimes. Though i think its really starting to take off again, and im excited to see all the cranes up in a few months. I think this building is going to turn out nice, its hard to tell in the drawings right now, but i think it could be pretty nice architecture wise. Of course i'd like something a little taller but yeah. I dont think people were saying that brick sucks and glass rocks (summarized). I think some of us just get sick of all the new buildings looking exactly the same. As was said earlier, architecture is an art, it is meant to beautiful and unique.. when its all identical it gets like pop music or reality tv shows.. lame and played out. The carter burgess building is very "blah".. boring straight glass. Burnett plaza is very boring..cement. And there are boring brick buildings out there. Amazing architecture is not restricted to brick/glass/whatever is what im trying to say.
Well. thats all.

#77 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 18 August 2006 - 05:34 PM

There was a question posed to me earlier that I did not answer. I don't have any additional rumored projects that haven't officially been released.

I want to say that this has been a very good discussion and I really appreciate all of the comments that have been made. Let's keep this intelligent discussion going.

I happen to appreciate all styles of architecture. Most of you may think that I prefer the brick and mortar high rises over the modern, but there are some all glass sculptural buildings and a mix of glass and stone modern skyscrapers that I do enjoy and appreciate. I do think there are ways to build contextual infill structures within historic areas, yet not design historical or retro copies of other buildings. These structures can have more glass than brick, yet still respect their surroundings.

#78 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 18 August 2006 - 05:48 PM

While I don't think that The Carnegie is outright ugly, I don't think it's a step in the right direction for Fort Worth. Sure, "old" buildings may have a reputation for being more pedestrian friendly, but pedestrian friendliness is by no means limited to old and old-looking buildings. Just because Fort Worth's current examples of modern architecture miss the mark when it comes to the human scale doesn't mean it can't be done (or is difficult to do.) I would have much rather seen a building that takes a few more risks (being modern building with great street interaction is kind of risky if you think about it) than just a tried and true rip-off of a building style that is no longer widely employed.

Also, I don't think it's any more "historically sensitive" to build a building that looks like its ancient neighbors than it is to build a building that manages to complement its surroundings without mimicing them. Think about it...what were all of the buildings we today consider "antiquated" regarded as in the past? Modern! Art Deco was actually frowned upon by some people who considered it too un-traditional with its clean lines and modern motifs (technology, industry, METAL...) And look at us today. Most of us regard Art Deco as a classical but no longer used style of architecture. Who's to say that the modern buildings of today won't become the nostalgic reminders of tomorrow? I think it's incredibly shortsighted, lazy and dangerous to ignore the current in favor of the old because it deprives future generations of their history. And by no means am I advocated the destruction of our old buildings, just a little more thought when it comes to NEW buildings.

You could also think of it this way. To a company looking to relocate to Fort Worth, the skyline will likely create a first impression. Too much of a good thing in general is bad, but in the case of historic (and historic "looking") architecture, all the company hears from FW is "hey, I haven't had an ounce of creativity in decades. Come move here so you can be forced to blend in with everyone else!" Does that sound very inviting? I hope not. However, if we have a skyline that incorporates well-executed examples of a broad range of styles, it would probably say something to the company more along the lines of "hey, we're a very progressive city! We can accomodate you no matter what you prefer. Move here and you can be creative and be surrounded by engaging diversity!" I would much prefer the second greeting than the first, and I'm inclined to think that an unsuspecting company from somewhere else would agree.

Whew, that was all the pent up opinion I've had towards this subject...hopefully it wasn't too far off topic.

#79 apearson28

apearson28

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mid-Cities
  • Interests:Architecture, Urban Planning, Art, Music, Reading, Photography

Posted 18 August 2006 - 07:47 PM

Build it and they will come: Planned tower is filling up
Fort Worth Business Press - Aleshia Howe - August 21, 2006

Since announcing plans for a new 16-story office building in downtown Fort Worth last week, area developers say they have already been approached by enough interested parties to fill up the 300,000-square-foot space – and it hasn’t even broken ground.

“We have enough interest to fill the building right now,” said Johnny Campbell, Sundance Square president and chief executive. “But you never know how many interests will pan out, so we will continue to aggressively lease this project.”

The planned Class A office tower, dubbed The Carnegie, will be located at the corner of Third and Lamar streets, which is currently a parking lot across from the central Fort Worth Library. The building is named after Fort Worth’s original Carnegie Library.

Real estate investor Ed Bass is the lead project developer.

The development will become a part of the Sundance Square portfolio and will be managed, operated and leased by Sundance Square Management. Campbell said the building will exemplify the vision for Sundance Square and for downtown Fort Worth. Construction on the tower is scheduled to begin in January with the building’s projected completion date set for June 2008.

“This building will be a beauty for downtown, but it will also fit perfectly into the Sundance portfolio,” he said. “And it will have all of the amenities and the securities that come with Sundance.”

EOG Resources, an independent oil and natural gas exploration and development company, committed to leasing 50,000 square feet several months ago, Campbell said. EOG already leases space in the Chase Bank and Woolworth buildings, both in Sundance Square. The company is headquartered in Houston, but has a growing presence in Fort Worth.

William R. “Bill” Thomas, senior vice president and general manager of EOG’s Fort Worth office, said he and his company are pleased to have reached an agreement with Sundance Square Management.

“It is our goal to provide excellent office space for our employees and have the flexibility to continue the success and growth of EOG’s Barnett Shale operations,” he said.

According to site plans, the building, which will have a footprint of 19,000 square feet, will feature multiple retail locations on the bottom floor. Campbell said the retail will likely include at least one food venue, along with soft retail. Each of the 16 floors within the structure will have 13-foot, 4-inch-high ceilings – an upgraded feature not typical in downtown office buildings.

“This is a true Class A office project, which means that all types of businesses looking for that will find this appealing,” he said. “This is also a building that respects the 19th century architecture of Fort Worth, but has all of the modern amenities that you would expect to find in a building of this caliber.”

Campbell said developers have been in talks about the project for more than eight months, but the May release of Moody’s Investor Service ratings that described downtown Fort Worth as one of the hottest real estate areas in the nation, played a large role in the decision to develop.

“We knew we were going to do something with the land, but the fact that vacancy in downtown is above 95 percent really made the decision a clear one,” Campbell said.

Besides the access to a nearby parking garage, which currently serves The Tower, Campbell said the planned location for The Carnegie will also feature a growing Third Street corridor.

“There’s a connectivity that’s starting to grow west on Third Street, and when you couple that with the atmosphere that’s there already with the neon signs and the available retail, this location is perfectly suited for office space.”

Construction costs are not yet available and Campbell said rent rates will not be disclosed to the general public, but will be available to individual companies that submit proposals. However, Campbell said, the rates will be in line with the current downtown office market.

At the start of 2005, industry experts predicted office rates in downtown Fort Worth would climb to $30 per square foot during 2006. According to Nasser Haghighat, director of research at Downtown Fort Worth Inc., the current vacancy rate for Class A office space is 3.7 percent – a lower-than-average number. The average rate for Class A office space in downtown is $26 per square foot, Haghighat said, and The Carnegie’s entrance to the market will be great timing.

“With the vacancy rates so low, I don’t think that 300,000 square feet of space will have a significant effect on the market,” Haghighat said. “There is obviously a lot of demand for Class A office space so it is probably going to go very fast. It might not even be vacant for long enough to touch the market numbers.”

Architect David Schwarz is designing the building. Schwarz’s firm also designed Fort Worth’s landmark Nancy Lee and Perry R. Bass Performance Hall as well as the Chase Bank Building, Sundance West Apartments and the Barnes & Noble block, all in Sundance Square. The firm designed the American Airlines Center in Dallas and Ameriquest Field in Arlington.

In a release following the announcement of the project, Bass said Sundance Square has gained notoriety as a prestige location for high quality Class A office space.

“The Carnegie will continue this tradition, with terrific proximity to all of Sundance Square’s amenities,” he said.

Elaine Thomas, spokeswoman for EOG, said the company wanted to stay in Sundance Square, but needed to consolidate its offices and The Carnegie offered the perfect solution.

“Our Fort Worth office … is a great location,” Thomas said. “Our employees like being there in Sundance Square and it’s just a very good place to do business and a good base for our Fort Worth operations.”

Sundance Square is a 20-block commercial, residential, entertainment and retail district in the center of downtown Fort Worth.



#80 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 18 August 2006 - 08:14 PM

In reality this is better news than a proposed 60 story. If CityPlace, Carnegie and Transport Life all fill up quickly as the Business Press is suggesting could happen then I guarantee you that we are less than a year away from a firm anouncement of a sustainable 40 story+.

#81 WTx

WTx

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:North Texas
  • Interests:Buildings of the 20's - 40's.

Posted 18 August 2006 - 08:26 PM

QUOTE
“We have enough interest to fill the building right now,”


eek.gif

#82 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 18 August 2006 - 11:27 PM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Aug 18 2006, 02:27 PM) View Post

... As for myself, I will take a traditional brick & mortar highrise over glass any day of the week.


I could not agree with you more AG and your eloquent presentation.

May they rest in peace and forever be in our hearts, but the tragically doomed World Trade Center Towers were never a match IMHO when it came to comparative beauty to either the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Tower to name just a few.

My hope is that Fort Worth could someday have a tower or two similiar, all be it likely that they will be smaller, to either of the ESB or the CT.


Keep Fort Worth folksy



#83 SurplusPopulation

SurplusPopulation

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 19 August 2006 - 09:44 AM

Johnny, I understand the point you were trying to make about Art Deco once being modern but growing into a classic. The problem with that point in advocating new modern designs that stretch current creativity is that Deco is from the twenties and thirties and the examples of modern creativity since then have fallen far short. These buildings seem new and different but within ten years, five or less for some, they begin looking outdated and many times ugly (think sixties, seventies, eighties).
I am for new modern buildings in DTFW, but not exclusively. Its not as if we aren't getting any. The P1 and RS are both modern, as well as our new flask about to dominate the southern most view of the skyline. I am excited about the Omni, but I'm excited about Carnegie as well because I think that both projects add to the richness of DTFW.
As far as Sundance Square is concerned, I think endorsements like the one from EOG about how much they like the district are very telling. They don't like the area because one day there may some more modern designs or because of the City Center towers, or whatever they call them now. I'm betting they like the comfort of what already exists coupled with the excitement of being vibrant and exciting.
Oh, and it makes since to me that this may be the proverbial toe in the water. Maybe we've all been waiting for things to progress far enough to get to this point and now we are finally here. Should be an interesting year or two.

#84 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 19 August 2006 - 12:26 PM

QUOTE(SurplusPopulation @ Aug 19 2006, 10:44 AM) View Post

Johnny, I understand the point you were trying to make about Art Deco once being modern but growing into a classic. The problem with that point in advocating new modern designs that stretch current creativity is that Deco is from the twenties and thirties and the examples of modern creativity since then have fallen far short. These buildings seem new and different but within ten years, five or less for some, they begin looking outdated and many times ugly (think sixties, seventies, eighties).
I am for new modern buildings in DTFW, but not exclusively.

Wait...are you saying that post-WWII design has been LESS creative than Art Deco? Surely not...Art Deco and its predecessors (beaux-arts, neoclassical, etc.) were all modern interpretations of classical styles found in, say, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Sure, it's pleasing to the eye, familiar and ornamental, but I wouldn't call it particularly creative.

And sure, many new buildings start to look outdated after only 10 years, but think about what happened after WWII...the style at the time shifted to the point that buildings that were also only 10 or 20 years old looked outdated, and we had some of the most shortsighted mass demolition in our history. Now we hold Art Deco (and other older styles) in high esteem. I'm just saying that perhaps we should treat post-WWII architecture with a bit more patience before we write it off as being "outdated" or "ugly". I understand that for a lot of people on this board, the 60s/70s are actually within the bounds of memory, but for me, it's all nostalgia for stuff I never saw when it was new. For example, I went to New York this summer and two of my absolute favorite buildings from the entire trip were the Lever House and Seagram buildings on Park Avenue. Both are from the 50s/60s, and neither is particularly ornate or eye-catching design-wise, but the stark simplicity and refined elegance that each building conveyed spoke stronger to me than even the Empire State or Chrysler buildings did (not that I didn't enjoy those buildings, I enjoyed pretty much every building I came accross in New York newlaugh.gif )

I'm not advocated exclusive modernity either, since I regard exclusive use of any style as a dissapointment. I love older styles and newer styles because each have their own unique characteristics. What I think we should avoid, though, is mimicry of older styles. I have no probelm with buildings that take cues from history and incoporate them in a post-modern design (Minneapolis's Wells Fargo Tower and Charlotte's BOA headquarters are great examples of this), since even Art Deco borrowed heavily from much older architecture. The Carnegie, however, from what I can tell so far, doesn't do this. sleep.gif

#85 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 19 August 2006 - 04:04 PM

QUOTE(AdamB @ Aug 18 2006, 09:14 PM) View Post

In reality this is better news than a proposed 60 story. If CityPlace, Carnegie and Transport Life all fill up quickly as the Business Press is suggesting could happen then I guarantee you that we are less than a year away from a firm anouncement of a sustainable 40 story+.


If this is filling so fast .I wonder if thier is still time to add more floors? If I remember right Burnnet at the last moment added some floors. XTOs W.T. Waggoner is 230 ft and 500 W 7th is 300. Funny W.T. Waggoner looks higher.

#86 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 19 August 2006 - 04:37 PM

There is time to add floors. This may actually happen because the Chase Building was proposed at 10 stories and was built 12. As long foundation work has not been done on a building, it is not too late to add more floors. The closer to time of construction that it is done, it could delay the opening date.

Your observation about the W.T. Waggoner and 500 W. 7th may be partially correct. Since I started this site, I have been slowly confirming the actual heights of the downtown buildings. With each revision, the tops of building relationships start to "appear" close to the numbers I'm discovering. I have not been able to get the actual height of 500 W. 7th, but I would almost assure you that its real height is several feet shorter than 300.

#87 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 20 August 2006 - 11:05 AM

QUOTE(Jonnyrules23 @ Aug 18 2006, 06:48 PM) View Post

...hey, I haven't had an ounce of creativity in decades. Come move here so you can be forced to blend in with everyone else!"



Hold on a minute. Look at the last 8 - 10 or projects that have gone up in downtown. There's a lot of diversity in design.

Pier One
Radio Shack
Chase Bank
The Tower (call it new or old, either way)
Family Law Center
ITC
Pecan Place
The Depot
Montgomery Plaza

These projects don't resemble each other all that much in my book.

Throw in the Omni, TCC and So7. It just doesn't look that homogeneous to me. There does seem to be more of a pull towards older styles, but each one is still fairly unique.



#88 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 20 August 2006 - 06:34 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Aug 20 2006, 12:05 PM) View Post

Hold on a minute. Look at the last 8 - 10 or projects that have gone up in downtown. There's a lot of diversity in design...Throw in the Omni, TCC and So7. It just doesn't look that homogeneous to me. There does seem to be more of a pull towards older styles, but each one is still fairly unique.


I should clarify that I was speaking hypothetically. My point isn't that currently Fort Worth lacks diversity, it's that we already have old buildings, and if we continue the trend of building new buildings in old styles, we're doing nothing to improve whatever design diversity we already have.

#89 SurplusPopulation

SurplusPopulation

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 21 August 2006 - 09:00 AM

Yeah but Johnny, your point being hypothetical or not that is exactly the point cberen helped to disprove. We are not slipping further from creative diversity because a few buildings are built in styles that pay homage to the past. Those can be included in the new projects and as long as other styles are employed in other projects then we maintain our creative diversity.

#90 hooked

hooked

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 10:49 AM

QUOTE(Nitixope @ Aug 18 2006, 03:54 PM) View Post
James Lilek’s website (www.lileks.com) is absolutely, hands down, some of the funniest and most entertaining architecture and ephemera writing out there.



My new word for the day. Thanks, Nitixope. This forum is sooooo educational.

"Ephemera" refers to written and printed matter published with a short intended lifetime. In the world of collectors common types of ephemera include letters, advertising trade cards, cigarette cards, airsickness bags, posters, postcards, baseball cards, tickets, greeting cards, stock certificates, photographs and zines. Decks of the Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards are recent example of ephemera because they will probably lose their original purpose and interest in a relatively short time. The word derives from the Greek meaning of things lasting no more than a day.


#91 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 21 August 2006 - 09:18 PM

IPB Image

#92 DrkLts

DrkLts

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Fort Worth

Posted 21 August 2006 - 11:54 PM

^^^So is that rendering showing a front & side view, or will it be two separate buildings as one complex separated by a street?

#93 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 22 August 2006 - 04:36 AM

The rendering shows the front and the side view.

#94 SurplusPopulation

SurplusPopulation

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:47 AM

Any idea on materials? I don't think I've heard it mentioned. Just like the Court Building the rendering is b&w but I don't guess we're lucky enough to get some kind of white brick or some other unusual color that will really stand out. Not FtW yellow, though. I'm completely worn out on that.

Hey look y'all! I said something moderately negative about a FtW institution. Some of you are proud of me right now. Lol.

#95 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 22 August 2006 - 10:01 AM

Hate to bring this up but does someone know what thier going to do about
parking for these office workers? I hope we get another lovely Bass Hall garage. dry.gif


#96 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,497 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 22 August 2006 - 10:16 AM

I believe they're going to share the Tower garage.

#97 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 22 August 2006 - 10:42 AM

QUOTE(AdamB @ Aug 18 2006, 09:14 PM) View Post

In reality this is better news than a proposed 60 story. If CityPlace, Carnegie and Transport Life all fill up quickly as the Business Press is suggesting could happen then I guarantee you that we are less than a year away from a firm anouncement of a sustainable 40 story+.


You could be right. Smaller buildings could be what FW needs to test the market before a real tower is built. I would be curious to know if these companies taking the space are moving from other FW space, or areas outside the FW or metroplex area. I still think it's going to take something like a large corporate relocation in FW to justify a 40+ tower being built. Also with the 450 layoffs at Radioshack, and possibly more to come, I wonder if some of the RS campus could become a player in the office space market. I'm not good with square footage, but I know that 400 people take up a lot of office space. We have a whole floor in our building with less than 100 employees.

#98 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 22 August 2006 - 11:21 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 22 2006, 11:42 AM) View Post

I would be curious to know if these companies taking the space are moving from other FW space, or areas outside the FW or metroplex area.

EOG Resources is taking 4 to 6 floors....according to their website, the FW office is currently at 420 Throck. (Chase Bank Bldg).


#99 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 06 October 2006 - 07:54 PM

The building went before the Downtown Design Review Board yesterday and it was approved. I should have a color rendering soon.

#100 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 11 October 2006 - 08:41 AM

Excellent! Thanks, John. Looking forward to the color rendering.

Also, is the title of this thread a typo, or has the building grown to 18 stories?

- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users