Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

T&P Warehouse Redevelopment

Downtown Historic Buildings Lancaster Corridor Historic Preservation

  • Please log in to reply
299 replies to this topic

#251 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,968 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 09 January 2017 - 03:34 PM

Typical

#252 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,003 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 09 January 2017 - 11:59 PM

I wasn't at today's Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission Meeting, but I'm hearing that the owner of the warehouse did not show up and the commission voted to continue the case until next month to make sure that they received the notification of the meeting.

 

For the love of God... 

 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#253 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:43 AM

The owner did not show up for lack of notice?  Or the owner got notice but cared not to show up.



#254 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:46 AM

The owner did not show up for lack of notice?  Or the owner got notice but cared not to show up.


I read in one of the zoning meetings for a new QuikTrip that the city misspelled the email address in the city's notification of the meeting, so they didn't know they were on the agenda.  The zoning change was voted down.  QT appealed the vote and the city re-scheduled them.  So... I guess.... stuff happens.


My blog: Doohickie

#255 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 10 January 2017 - 08:34 AM

Johnfwd, I do not know which situation is the actual case here.  At least continuing the case will give everyone enough time to send and receive the proper notices.



#256 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 10 January 2017 - 08:37 AM

 

The owner did not show up for lack of notice?  Or the owner got notice but cared not to show up.


I read in one of the zoning meetings for a new QuikTrip that the city misspelled the email address in the city's notification of the meeting, so they didn't know they were on the agenda.  The zoning change was voted down.  QT appealed the vote and the city re-scheduled them.  So... I guess.... stuff happens.

 

 

Could be.  But if I was representing the QuikTrip property owner, and knew my client's project was going to come up sometime soon, I would check with the Zoning Commission staff ahead of time to make sure of the hearing date.  Especially so when it's this important.

 

In the case of the Warehouse owner, I have the nagging suspicion that she knew about the Historic and Cultural Landmark Commission's meeting, but has little regard for the Commission.   But the staff is giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't get proper notice.  Could be wrong about this.



#257 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 10 January 2017 - 08:09 PM

Everyone has one month to prepare for the meeting.  For all of you forum members, the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission meeting are open to the public, and the public is given a chance to speak.  If you are passionate about this building, I would encourage you to go down and be on the public record.



#258 arch-image

arch-image

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ft Worth
  • Interests:Historical preservation, zoning and growth issues, Serious but not professional photographer, been in construction and design since late 70's

Posted 16 January 2017 - 06:07 PM

Im sure I could find it but could you post when and where the meeting will be held for people who want to attend? IF at all possible I will try and go to this.



#259 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 January 2017 - 08:45 PM

The Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission meets on the 2nd Monday of every month at 2:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.  This is the meeting that is open to the public, and they can also comment.  At 12:30 on the same day in the Pre-Council Chambers, the Commission meets to discuss the cases and to hear about upcoming ones.  At this meeting, the public can attend, but they are not allowed to comment.

 

Here are the meeting days for 2017:

 

January 9

February 13

March 13

April 10

May 8

June 12

July 10

August 14

September 11

October 9

November 13

December 11

 

Tomorrow, the Commission is having a special hearing for this case: http://fortworthtexa...SouthsideSM.pdf

 

Below is the text from the packet; however, the photographs and drawings are missing.  To get all of the information, you can view the PDF file above.  The link will not stay active for very long, as the city re-uses the file names.

 

STAFF REPORT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARKS COMMISSION CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS DATE: January 17, 2017 COUNCIL DISTRICT:  9 GENERAL INFORMATION REQUEST Certificate of Appropriateness APPLICANT/AGENT Jun Crown Properties LOCATION 1109 W Magnolia Avenue (1121 W Magnolia Avenue) ZONING/ USE (S) NS-T4/HC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Fairmount
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WORK
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate the storefronts, construct an exit door within the rehabilitated west storefront, erect a canopy over the west storefront, and convert the existing door on the west elevation to a window. APPLICABLE FAIRMOUNT DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION 3 – STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES Awning Standards 18. Awning shapes shall correspond to the openings they protect. SECTION 5 – STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, DEMOLITIONS AND RELOCATION Storefront Standards 9.Window and door openings shall use similar proportion of wall to window space as typically found in the district.
10. Building envelope, roof, windows and door materials shall compliment the type, texture and detail, including dimensions, of materials traditionally found in the district. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings 
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and
  COA17-16
2
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed exterior rehabilitation of the property located at 1121 W Magnolia Avenue is part of a tenant rebuild for a new occupant that includes the removal of relatively-recent alterations and the construction of new storefronts that aim to reinstate the general character of traditional storefronts, albeit, with changes to accommodate the new use.

The proposed work involves: • Removal of non-historic fabric • Installing premanufactured storefronts • Installing a new entrance on the west storefront • Construction of a ramp on the west storefront • Removal of existing door at the south end of the west elevation (understood to be nonoriginal) and replacing it with a window

The above scope of work is set out in the plans and elevations prepared by Boothe Architects Inc., dated December 14, 2016. 

The removal of non-historic fabric is considered a beneficial intervention, in historic preservation terms.

Since no archival evidence has accompanied the application, showing clearly the exterior appearance and detail of the historic storefronts at a particular time in during their period of significance, the new work is not considered to be restoration. 

Since the proposed work includes exterior changes such as the cutting of a new opening to meet accessibility requirements, installing an exterior ramp, and a new canopy, the application cannot be considered to be preservation or reconstruction. Rehabilitation is the only preservation treatment that allows for changes and additions.
Cutting-in a new entrance in a storefront that typically had one main entrance facing W Magnolia Avenue introduces the prospect that the significance of the main entrance might be functionally and architecturally diminished. As mitigation, the proposed alteration is to occur in an area that involves the removal of non-historic fabric. If the ramp were to be removed in the future, if the proposed west storefront entrance door were to be converted back to a storefront window, and if the proposed canopy were to be removed, this could all be achieved without impairing the integrity of the historic property or the character and appearance of the District. It could also reinstate the functional and architectural significance of the main entrance as a result.

The proposed rehabilitation depicts window and door openings that are compatible with those that are typically found in the District. As a new exterior alteration, the work does not destroy
COA17-16
3
historic materials that characterize the property and the new work, while compatible, is distinguishable as new work.
The proposed canopy over the new entrance is relatively lightweight (visually) and it corresponds to the new opening that it is designed to protect. It will, however, be important that care is taken to locate fixing (anchoring) holes for the new supports into the mortar joints rather than into the brick unit itself, to safeguard the masonry from irreversible interventions, should the canopy be removed in the future. Staff therefore recommends the following motion:  That the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate the storefronts, construct an exit door within the rehabilitated west storefront, erect a canopy over the west storefront, and convert the existing door on the west elevation to a window be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant provide anchoring details for the canopy supports, based on on-site conditions, confirming that new holes will be made into the mortar joint and that the masonry units will be protected during the works; and 2. That the applicant submits the anchoring details to the Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.



#260 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 25 January 2017 - 06:51 AM

Work demands preempted me from going to this special meeting.  What happened?



#261 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 25 January 2017 - 06:23 PM

I wasn't able to make it, either.  No information has been posted on the city's website.



#262 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 04:33 PM

I drive by this building everyday, and I get mad each time I see it.  It is a true eyesore in a very visible place.



#263 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 26 January 2017 - 05:32 PM

I'm almost certain to have said sometime in the past that the City should seize the property away from the owner/violator by declaring it a public nuisance.

 

Once under the ownership of the City, purpose it for official multi-governmental business.

 

And if I did not say this in the past, it is my position from henceforth coming from a place of exasperation.



#264 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 26 January 2017 - 05:50 PM

And that is simply going to be a source of instant gratification and a terrible long term solution for the building and the city. The city will have no means to pay for the cost of renovation. It will be a double whammy because they will be on the hook for the cost of renovating and operating it and it will be off the tax rolls for good. It is a half million square foot building. I want it generating property tax and sales tax. I also want it to be a buzzing center of activity for all hours of the day and evening seven days a week. If it is a government facility, it will be the same ghost town it is now from 5pm until 8am and 24 hours a day on weekends and holidays. But, hey, at least it will look nice?

#265 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 26 January 2017 - 08:00 PM

Admittedly, I am on shaky ground, yet the current owners are likely using tax loop holes and depreciation to zero out the same property and sales taxes that all of us want to be generated.  This is for someone with real estate accounting prowess: if the property is allow to slowly deteriorates, will the owner benefit tax wise over a longer period?

 

I think selling some of the prime city owned facilities and ending leases in commercial properties would provide the City with moneys for the one time expenditure of renovating and then occupying the space in the warehouse for decades to come. 

 

The warehouse is large and functional enough to bring a number of departments under a single roof.  Other governmental agencies can also have offices in the warehouse; thus making the building a "one-stop" site for a number of local and county administrative services.



#266 dangr.dave

dangr.dave

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 01 February 2017 - 09:36 AM

They erected a chain-link fence behind the T&P so you can't get to the loading docks on the southern side anymore I would think.  The fence was on the western side of the building to the railroad tracks, so I'm sure they are putting one up on the Eastern side of the building as well.



#267 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 06 February 2017 - 11:18 AM

Walked by there this morning on way to P.O.  Some contract labor work is going on, maybe securing from unlawful entry and/or safeguarding from inclement weather.  This looks a little more diligent an effort than the periodic sucking of water out of the building using a pressure hose.  Start of rehab?



#268 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 06 February 2017 - 11:20 AM

Start of rehab?

 

Well bless your optimistic heart!

 

I hope it is, but I won't let those hopes get up too high.


My blog: Doohickie

#269 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 06 February 2017 - 11:54 AM

 

Start of rehab?

 

Well bless your optimistic heart!

 

I hope it is, but I won't let those hopes get up too high.

 

I tend to agree.  But why does the owner even bother with patchwork if she has no intention of rehabilitating the place?  Surely she doesn't consider this deteriorating structure to be a speculative investment?



#270 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 February 2017 - 11:59 AM

I would go out on a limb and say this is work to get ahead of code violations.

#271 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 06 February 2017 - 01:05 PM

 

 

Start of rehab?

 

Well bless your optimistic heart!

 

I hope it is, but I won't let those hopes get up too high.

I tend to agree.  But why does the owner even bother with patchwork if she has no intention of rehabilitating the place?  Surely she doesn't consider this deteriorating structure to be a speculative investment?

 

I think a speculative investment is exactly what it is.  Lancaster is finally starting to get some development going- a recent completion, and new stuff in the works.  If they hang onto it long enough, they can flip it over to someone who actually wants to do something with it and turn a profit.

 

I would go out on a limb and say this is work to get ahead of code violations.

 

But Cleopatra doesn't want to lose out on their investment due to seizure of the building by the city for code violations.


My blog: Doohickie

#272 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 February 2017 - 02:23 PM

That's exactly what I meant.

#273 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 06 February 2017 - 02:24 PM

I know, just trying to complete the thought.


  • JBB likes this
My blog: Doohickie

#274 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,968 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 09 February 2017 - 05:32 PM

Over the past 10 days 3 permits have been filed for the address of T&P (401 W Lancaster). An Electrical Standalone Permit, a Plumbing Standalone Permit and a 

Plumbing Backflow Standalone Permit. I have no idea what any of that means, but it seems implies something is going on. Can anyone expand on this?
 


#275 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 February 2017 - 10:18 PM

Yes, it does imply something is going on.  The Electrical Standalone Permit is for electrical work, as is the plumbing.  The backflow permit is probably for a backflow preventer.  That keeps the water from backflowing from the plumbing in a building into the city's water supply system. 

 

I went back and looked at previous permits that were filed at this address, and within the last few years, several Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing permits similar to these were filed and were allowed to expire.



#276 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:43 PM

The determination of whether the Texas and Pacific Warehouse can be rehabilitated to remain as a property contributing to the City of Fort Worth's historic heritage is back before the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission on Monday.  Below is a link to the agenda.

 

http://fortworthtexa...0170213HCLC.pdf



#277 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 13 February 2017 - 05:41 PM

The Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission gave the building owner another 60 days to bring the building up to the minimum building standards.  The case will go on the April 10th Agenda for the H&CLC to determine if the building could still be rehabilitated.  Below is a link to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article.

 

http://www.star-tele...e132494639.html



#278 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:30 PM

So what's the endgame here?  Is this just Cleopatra's attempt to prevent their property from being repossessed, doing minimal maintenance to protect their investment?  Or is this the start of building rehab?  If they don't get the work done in time, can the city seize the building?


My blog: Doohickie

#279 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:00 AM

I'm not sure about motives, but I would assume that the city seizing the building is the nuclear bomb option that nobody really wants unless it involved connecting the current owner with a motivated buyer ready to do business.  The city will likely have to come up with something in the vicinity of market value to compensate the current owner and it would probably get tied up in litigation for years.  It certainly wouldn't do anything to get the building remodeled and back in use any sooner.



#280 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:15 AM

....The city will likely have to come up with something in the vicinity of market value to compensate the current owner and it would probably get tied up in litigation for years....

 

 At the pace that the current owner is allowing the structure to decline, market value could be quite affordable for the city.



#281 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:17 AM

I would imagine that will be offset by a general increase in property value due to the development in the vicinity.  And if it gets tied up in years of litigation, the market value of the building is going to be the least of the worries as far as cost goes.



#282 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:37 AM

I would imagine that will be offset by a general increase in property value due to the development in the vicinity....

 

Agreed, its land value is increasing due to nearby development. However, the city levying fines and stiffer compliance regulations could rapidly become unbearable and should make the owner more eager to settle.  The city, should it decide to do so, can have exercise a lot leverage.


  • JBB likes this

#283 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:49 AM

I think the coming months and how aggressive the city is with the owner will be telling about how they feel about their position. I feel like they have been in a position of leverage for awhile and they have been reluctant to use it.

#284 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 15 February 2017 - 12:23 PM

I agree that the city has been reluctant to use their leverage.  I have also heard that since the TIF put the project in default, that they were going to get tougher on the owner. 



#285 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,968 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:49 AM

Just passed by and there were quite a few workers doing various things. Looked like a lot of focus was on the awning and doors along Lancaster.

#286 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 28 February 2017 - 02:49 PM

I have a terrible feeling in my gut that the owner's recent actions are intended merely to placate the code compliance department by fixing the hazards.  Owner has no intention of redeveloping the property.  Once the hazards are fixed, the building will sit vacant for several more years, as is.  Hope the owner (and the city) proves me wrong.



#287 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 28 February 2017 - 03:09 PM

Johnfwd, you are probably correct with your feeling.  However, the difference is that the city is now starting to call the owner's hand and is forcing her to bring the building up to the minimum standards.  Upkeep and maintenance helps keep an older building viable for a longer period of time.  The Landmarks Commission did the right thing in this case. 



#288 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,968 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:00 PM

A large mobile crane was on site today, looked like it was taking stuff of the roof. 



#289 jefffwd

jefffwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:22 PM

Well, that's some activity at least.  I am sure what is up there no longer works.  Is the tree still there?



#290 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 09 May 2017 - 10:06 AM

Not intending to digress from discussion of T&P Warehouse redevelopment itself, but this "slide show" caught my attention.  Slide 5 is a photo of the Michigan Central Station in Detroit, a structure that has been abandoned for 25 years.  When my eye caught this slide I first thought it was our T&P Warehouse, because it resembles the warehouse in architectural style.  Of course the T&P Warehouse is not "abandoned" per se, but it's owner has certainly given us that impression over the years.

 

I will note that I was walking by the T&P Warehouse on a sunny day last week and saw workmen taking a hammer or chisel to one or two windows on one of the upper floors.  So there's still some stop-gap rehab work being done, presumably to satistfy the city code enforcement department.

 

 

http://www.msn.com/e...rtandhp#image=5



#291 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 11 May 2017 - 01:34 PM

Buffalo Central Terminal is in a similar state

 

Apparently the most recent "developer of record" has been fired and they're getting a new developer.  There was a push to put it back into service as a passenger depot, but it looks like a more central downtown location won out (this depot was located more for the convenience of the track routes than for proximity to downtown.  Apparently the Buffalo River makes it hard to get a useful "through" track to a downtown terminal; the new terminal will be on a spur I think. 

 

There has been talk of doing what happened at the T&P Terminal in Fort Worth- turning it into condos.  But it's in an area that's more like Fort Worth's Poly neighborhood than DTFW- kind of out of the way and run down.  It *is* near Broadway Market, the old Polish market that's very busy at Easter but pretty dead the rest of the year.  Maybe they could jointly develop to revitalize that hood.


My blog: Doohickie

#292 arch-image

arch-image

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ft Worth
  • Interests:Historical preservation, zoning and growth issues, Serious but not professional photographer, been in construction and design since late 70's

Posted 25 September 2017 - 02:56 PM

Noticed going thru all the meeting minutes looks like it has just been push it off for 60-90 days again and again with the latest being Oct 9th. Now coming up for renewal. I dont think they will ever get this deal done as while I dont know much about them it doesnt look like they have the Financial strength to do it and it appears there isnt a developer willing to partner with them. I know a couple folks who would be willing to buy them out and could do this project, while making them whole plus a nice profit but from all I am told they don't seem open to that. Love to hear someone tell me different! 



#293 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 26 September 2017 - 11:56 AM

I share your sentiments.  There was a slim hope that the owner's recent patchwork repairs would be the beginning of a serious rehabilitation project.  But it was just to satisfy the code compliance people, I'm guessing.  Also may buy the owner more time because she can always plead acting in good faith to keep the property from further deterioration.

 

If there is a buyout, it's likely the new owner will have serious intentions for a rehab conversion to residential, hotel, or maybe even Class A office (if the structure allows for other than residential).  The current owner is holding it only for speculative investment purposes, I suspect.



#294 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 26 September 2017 - 12:10 PM

I think once the Lamar-Hemphill Connector is done, things will start to move for the building.  That's the "excuse" cited by Cleopatra as to why things haven't moved forward so far.


My blog: Doohickie

#295 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 27 September 2017 - 06:03 AM

I think once the Lamar-Hemphill Connector is done, things will start to move for the building.  That's the "excuse" cited by Cleopatra as to why things haven't moved forward so far.

I get this, but I don't understand why the connector construction would impede rehabilitation work on the Warehouse.  The only physical barrier on premises at present is that fencing to block off road access on the west side of the building.  Is the connector project going to run right up to the Warehouse? 



#296 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 27 September 2017 - 07:34 AM

If I recall correctly, the connector project is staging material on site at the warehouse (like in the lot south of the building).  I don't know if this is truly happening, but it was mentioned at some point in the past.  I don't see why they can't stage two projects in close proximity to each other, but that's the excuse that was offered (and I suspect that's all it is:  an excuse).


My blog: Doohickie

#297 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:22 AM

The connector construction would impact site access and material staging for the warehouse rehab. There is not much open area on the site.

 

I bet the biggest reason would be financial. If the developer were to about have it completed, the connector construction would probably impact leasing. Loan payback time would probably be extended and more interest would be incurred. That might be some of the issues in getting it funded. 


Erik France


#298 arch-image

arch-image

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ft Worth
  • Interests:Historical preservation, zoning and growth issues, Serious but not professional photographer, been in construction and design since late 70's

Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:54 AM

The connector construction would impact site access and material staging for the warehouse rehab. There is not much open area on the site.

 

I bet the biggest reason would be financial. If the developer were to about have it completed, the connector construction would probably impact leasing. Loan payback time would probably be extended and more interest would be incurred. That might be some of the issues in getting it funded. 

 

I don't see why you say there would be staging issues, this property has about 7 acres of land with it including the two tracts they own, there is at least 4 acres total behind the building and access while not great, is more or less typical of working in a downtown setting. When we redid the old Huey & Philp building in Dallas to the Homewood the building was literally sidewalk to sidewalk, it's a staging issue but not a monster hurdle, just adds some time and a little cost and coordination is a bit tougher. That is not the case here at all. As for the connector being a reason, that's just another excuse. The impacts would not have been that much and now that its back on schedule so there is some raodwork being done to the west of your building at the same time your under construction big deal. Right now it is slated for a completion in 2020. Quite honestly if I was starting this job it would be about a 24 month project and thats assuming plans were done and permit was quick so the two would coordinate for a close opening of both pretty much. The reality is finish plans, get it permitted and built is at minimum probably a 2 1/2 year project.. I just think they have zero access to funding as they keep going back out to "development Partners". Sometimes you just bite off more than you can chew and have to let go, take your profit on the sell and move on to the next one. 



#299 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 02 October 2017 - 02:53 PM

....Guess I will go back to trying to figure out how I can buy the T&P building!

 

 ...And I hope you can figure it out too and soon.



#300 arch-image

arch-image

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ft Worth
  • Interests:Historical preservation, zoning and growth issues, Serious but not professional photographer, been in construction and design since late 70's

Posted 12 October 2017 - 03:43 PM

I wasnt able to make any of the meetings this week at the city, anything happen with T&P? Or if it was even discussed ......







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Downtown, Historic Buildings, Lancaster Corridor, Historic Preservation

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users