According to the zoning commission packet, a third tower will be joining the other two towers located off I30 on the West side of town. It will sit on the currently empty lot along Guilford Rd. The tower will be 11 floors and 166 feet tall. A 5 detached story garage will be included. The top floor will contain a residence.
#2
Posted 08 December 2017 - 09:33 PM
#3
Posted 08 December 2017 - 09:48 PM
....The tower will be 11 floors and 166 feet tall. A 5 story garage will be included. The top floor will contain a residence.
It would be, I hope, that the 11 floors are built above the 5-story garage. These days, that does seem to be a trend.
#4
Posted 08 December 2017 - 09:52 PM
....The tower will be 11 floors and 166 feet tall. A 5 story garage will be included. The top floor will contain a residence.
It would be, I hope, that the 11 floors are built above the 5-story garage. These days, that does seem to be a trend.
Ha, I actually edited the post as you quoted that for clarification. The garage is separate
. Also, being 166 feet, this is over the height limit for its zoning and will require a variance. Considering the other two towers are the same size, it should get it without issue I'd think.
#5
Posted 09 December 2017 - 11:05 AM
... The top floor will contain a residence.
Am I only one that thinks having a residence on the top floor strange, particular in this locale?
#6
Posted 10 December 2017 - 11:53 PM
... The top floor will contain a residence.
Am I only one that thinks having a residence on the top floor strange, particular in this locale?
I don't know... Why strange?
- renamerusk likes this
#7
Posted 11 December 2017 - 12:39 AM
... The top floor will contain a residence.
Am I only one that thinks having a residence on the top floor strange, particular in this locale?
I'm questioning that, as well.
Outside of the smaller apartments in the surrounding area, it wouldn't seem that would be a high-rise apartment type of neighborhood.
- renamerusk likes this
#8
Posted 11 December 2017 - 12:43 AM
- renamerusk likes this
#9
Posted 11 December 2017 - 09:05 PM
... The top floor will contain a residence.
Am I only one that thinks having a residence on the top floor strange, particular in this locale?
I don't know... Why strange?
Like Jeriat sees it, a penthouse outside of Downtown or without any scenic vistas seems strange. Its not a bad neighborhood at all, but there is little here in the immediate area. The good news is the addition of a new tower. My wish is that the new tower has no semblance to its two predecessors.
#10
Posted 12 December 2017 - 09:07 AM
... The top floor will contain a residence.
Am I only one that thinks having a residence on the top floor strange, particular in this locale?
I don't know... Why strange?
Like Jeriat sees it, a penthouse outside of Downtown or without any scenic vistas seems strange. Its not a bad neighborhood at all, but there is little here in the immediate area. The good news is the addition of a new tower. My wish is that the new tower has no semblance to its two predecessors.
Obviously the new tower will be more modern-looking than the other two, which were built years ago. Other than that, I'm assuming you mean a unique building design? Care to elaborate?
#11
Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:23 AM
Obviously the new tower will be more modern-looking than the other two, which were built years ago. Other than that, I'm assuming you mean a unique building design? Care to elaborate?
I'm remembering that the original owner/company no longer own the two towers; but even back when the second tower followed the first tower, they buck the trend modernity. Instead of a decently design Ridglea National Bank Building, the towers were from their inception pretty bad in my eyes.
If I have to elaborate, perhaps a building that follows the design of One Ridgmar Center would be a good starting point.
#12
Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:41 AM
Eddie Chiles' Western Company built those two towers in 1978 and 1981. The Western Company was sold and moved to Houston, where they still operate.
- renamerusk likes this
#13
Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:17 AM
Eddie Chiles' Western Company built those two towers in 1978 and 1981. The Western Company was sold and moved to Houston, where they still operate.
Yes; thanks for helping me to recall. Chiles was a big time nemesis of Congressman Jim Wright.
#14
Posted 13 December 2017 - 01:58 AM
Eddie Chiles' Western Company built those two towers in 1978 and 1981. The Western Company was sold and moved to Houston, where they still operate.
Chiles was a big time nemesis of Congressman Jim Wright.
What's the story there? Or is the Houston move the whole story?
#15
Posted 13 December 2017 - 11:36 AM
Wright was a Democrat. Chiles was a staunch conservative and put a lot of effort into getting Wright out of Congress.
- renamerusk likes this
#16
Posted 13 December 2017 - 12:31 PM
Eddie did the "I'm mad as hell" radio/tv spots--he was basically what the Koch brothers are today
- RD Milhollin and renamerusk like this
#17
Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:13 PM
This proposal was approved today at the Zoning Commission meeting, FYI.
- RD Milhollin, jefffwd, Austin55 and 1 other like this
--
Kara B.
#18
Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:04 PM
Are they called the "Western Center" Towers? "Western Center" is a boulevard north of Loop 820.
Glad to see another new office tower in this city.
-Dylan
#19
Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:16 PM
They were named by the original owner and constructed before Western Center Blvd. ever existed. I believe it was Watauga Road or Watauga-Smithfield Road back then.
- renamerusk likes this
#20
Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:52 PM
Didn't realize that. Fort Worth doesn't like to rename streets, so I'm surprised they would rename Watauga Road.
Now, it's Western Center Blvd > Watauga Rd > Mid-Cities Blvd > Cheek-Sparger Rd > Mid-Cities Blvd again (west to east).
- renamerusk likes this
-Dylan
#21
Posted 14 December 2017 - 09:30 AM
#22
Posted 14 December 2017 - 10:10 AM
A few other things to note from the Zoning Commission meeting:
- The proposal was approved including all waivers (two: one for height, and one for setback from Pershing Street)
- A small attached building is planned at the corner of Pershing & Guildford that is planned as an "upscale restaurant" with daytime and evening service
- We were shown a conceptual rendering that the architect stressed is not the final design (a rep from BOKA Powell was the representative for the project), but if the final design is similar, I'd describe the appearance as "like the original towers if they were primarily glass instead of concrete facades." It's not entirely glass - there's still concrete - but the ratio is higher toward glass than concrete, if that makes sense. While of course the final design could change, the concept design looked obviously newer and different but still had a "family resemblance," if you will, with very similar proportions to the originals.
- RD Milhollin likes this
--
Kara B.
#23
Posted 14 December 2017 - 10:34 AM
I wonder how many jobs this will generate. While obviously not downtown or another dense area, I'd rather have developments like this than in far flung places.
- Mr_Brightside526 likes this
#25
Posted 20 July 2018 - 07:21 AM
Does anyone have an update on the status of the Tower III project?
- Mr_Brightside526 and txbornviking like this
#26
Posted 20 July 2018 - 04:23 PM
A few other things to note from the Zoning Commission meeting:
- The proposal was approved including all waivers (two: one for height, and one for setback from Pershing Street)
- A small attached building is planned at the corner of Pershing & Guildford that is planned as an "upscale restaurant" with daytime and evening service
- We were shown a conceptual rendering that the architect stressed is not the final design (a rep from BOKA Powell was the representative for the project), but if the final design is similar, I'd describe the appearance as "like the original towers if they were primarily glass instead of concrete facades." It's not entirely glass - there's still concrete - but the ratio is higher toward glass than concrete, if that makes sense. While of course the final design could change, the concept design looked obviously newer and different but still had a "family resemblance," if you will, with very similar proportions to the originals.
When they ask for a waiver on height, do they pinpoint the height (as a maximum?) If so was it that 166' number someone mentioned?
Also, what was the zoning changed from and to? Didn't realize there was such a low height limit on what I assume is General Commercial (or something similar).
Because it has single family just across Pershing from it, did that affect the height limit on the commercial piece (like you have in Form Based Codes, where the adjacencies are taking into account and there is a maximum height that slopes down)?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users