Demolition of the Landmark Tower (380 ft., 420 with clock)
#101
Posted 08 February 2006 - 09:31 PM
www.iheartfw.com
#102
Posted 08 February 2006 - 09:48 PM
#103
Posted 08 February 2006 - 09:51 PM
#104
Posted 08 February 2006 - 11:06 PM
Jonny, you ask how often do you see an implosion live? I think I've witnessed 8 during the course of 34 years. I did miss the implosion of the smokestacks at the TXU Power Plant.
#105
Posted 08 February 2006 - 11:24 PM
#106
Posted 09 February 2006 - 08:09 AM
Therefore, I won't be on private property unless I'm either invited, or I get permission to be there.
I'm not sure how you would get permision, but I've got a nearly unobstructed view from the 39th floor of Burnett Plaza. The Fort Worth Club blocks my view of the North side of the bottom 6 floors. I would imagine from the roof of Burnett Plaza you could get a pretty good shot.
#107
Posted 09 February 2006 - 09:22 AM
#108
Posted 09 February 2006 - 09:24 AM
I'm not sure how you would get permision, but I've got a nearly unobstructed view from the 39th floor of Burnett Plaza. The Fort Worth Club blocks my view of the North side of the bottom 6 floors. I would imagine from the roof of Burnett Plaza you could get a pretty good shot.
I thought about this, too. I have a small view from the 14th floor of Burnett Plaza, but I figure from the roof the view would be great.
--
Kara B.
#109
Posted 09 February 2006 - 01:56 PM
Let's move on this, and get THE BEST LIVE picture possible. Time lapse, video, or still series picture. MUST post it on the FW FORUM ASAP! Group effort and group glory.
"Yahhhh, yeahhhh, USA, USA, USA !!!"
www.iheartfw.com
#110
Posted 15 February 2006 - 05:34 AM
http://www.dfw.com/m...rs/13877187.htm
#111
Posted 15 February 2006 - 08:17 AM
IMPLOSION BASH! Anyone? Anyone?
March 18th.Hmmm?
Just in time for our quarterly BMOC event. Hee hee.
All-nighter is All GOOOOD.
This is killing me!! I have a project I can't get out of that weekend ; they need to delay the big blow-up (blow-in?) until the next weekend; then we could have the BMOC with once in a lifetime entertainment!! Unless y'all decide to meet without me
#112
Posted 15 February 2006 - 08:36 AM
To be forever reunited with a working, fully luminated rotating clock!
ooooookay! I think it just gor corny!
But in other news.......
Anybody got a larger copy of this pic? I sure would like one!
#113
Posted 15 February 2006 - 01:18 PM
There is a lot of interest in this photo. Some of it can be made out in the version you have posted.
In the photo the Federal building is under construction in the mid-foreground. The latest layer of hideousness is going up atop the SBC building. I guess it was the AT&T building then. The corner of the Star-Telegram that is visible reveals the vertical-reading electric sign on the corner of the building, and the porch-like contraption that's on the corner of the building these days is not present. East across Taylor Street from the S-T, the Worth Hotel still stands.
Above and around the Electric Company building visible just this side of the courthouse are Striplings, Monnigs, and, I believe, Leonard's. Big Fort Worth retailers, the last of which seems to be sputtering to oblivion.
City hall is not present, but the old deco library is.
The photo is dated April 8, 1965.
Because of color positions and such, the photo ran in the paper in black and white. The original is in color.
#114
Posted 15 February 2006 - 02:23 PM
Hey I'm all for the big bash! I love that building and by God i will be there to witness it's passing!
To be forever reunited with a working, fully luminated rotating clock!
ooooookay! I think it just gor corny!
But in other news.......
Anybody got a larger copy of this pic? I sure would like one!
johnlp,
The Fort Worth Public Library downtown is a great resource for old photos like this. In the basement they have thousands of old photos cataloged. Of course I don't know if they have this exact one but I'm sure there are many others like it. I have about 30 framed old black and whites of downtown which span probably at least 100 years. I love them and guests enjoy them. So try the library.
#115
Posted 15 February 2006 - 04:59 PM
He told me that there were plans for a new building on the site. When I described the talk of the infamous 50-story building, he seemed to think that was a little bigger than the reality. From what he said, a 20-ish story tower with a (separate?) parking garage is what was in the works. He didn't know a time frame specifically, and didn't have all that many details on the building. Just that he seemed fairly certain that there would be a building there again.
Now, I don't know the guy. He seemed nice enough, but you never can tell if this was just as speculative as the 50-story talk was, so take it with a grain of salt. From his talk, though, he seemed to be pretty sure of a new building.
--
Kara B.
#116
Posted 15 February 2006 - 05:30 PM
Out taking pics today of Landmark Tower, I ran across a friendly man observing the work who has some sort of association with XTO. He's not an employee, but apparently works with them at a fairly high level. Chatting with him, he went over the plans for the demolition process, how the charges would bring the building down in a certain way, the purpose of the cables being wrapped around the exposed base (you can see them from 7th with the red tags hanging from them - if I recall, he said they're designed to contain the base during implosion; anybody know more about that?), plans for containing the debris and the aluminum panels, etc.
He told me that there were plans for a new building on the site. When I described the talk of the infamous 50-story building, he seemed to think that was a little bigger than the reality. From what he said, a 20-ish story tower with a (separate?) parking garage is what was in the works. He didn't know a time frame specifically, and didn't have all that many details on the building. Just that he seemed fairly certain that there would be a building there again.
Now, I don't know the guy. He seemed nice enough, but you never can tell if this was just as speculative as the 50-story talk was, so take it with a grain of salt. From his talk, though, he seemed to be pretty sure of a new building.
I'd rather they just do nothing than build what this guy is suggesting.
#117
Posted 15 February 2006 - 05:46 PM
#118
Posted 15 February 2006 - 08:59 PM
You're right. To hell with economics, build something a hundred stories tall with a 500 foot spire on top of it. I don't care if it sits empty because no one can afford to lease the space. An empty tower sticking out like a sore thumbs beats a nice looking mid-rise any day of the week.
Well, who can argue with that logic!
#119
Posted 15 February 2006 - 10:29 PM
#120
Posted 15 February 2006 - 10:37 PM
You're right. To hell with economics, build something a hundred stories tall with a 500 foot spire on top of it. I don't care if it sits empty because no one can afford to lease the space. An empty tower sticking out like a sore thumbs beats a nice looking mid-rise any day of the week.
Well, who can argue with that logic!
Sarcasm sure is fun, huh?
#121
Posted 16 February 2006 - 12:46 PM
Bob Ray Sanders of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a story on the demolition in today's paper. Below is a link.
http://www.dfw.com/m...rs/13877187.htm
I like the last past Bob Ray Sanders says. Time has passed it by as the city becomes home to a new generation of skyscrapers that will continue to redefine the skyline.
I hope over the next few years bold new towers will outshine all other cities in the metroplex.
#122
Posted 16 February 2006 - 09:51 PM
He told me that there were plans for a new building on the site. When I described the talk of the infamous 50-story building, he seemed to think that was a little bigger than the reality. From what he said, a 20-ish story tower with a (separate?) parking garage is what was in the works. He didn't know a time frame specifically, and didn't have all that many details on the building. Just that he seemed fairly certain that there would be a building there again.
Well, a mid-rise sounds a lot better than an empty parking lot! I think anything XTO builds will have great architectural quality, they already have a great track record. I would also like to see them incorporate a public park in the block, to kind of unite all their buildings and give downtown workers/residents a greenspace to enjoy.
#123
Posted 17 February 2006 - 01:45 PM
You're right. To hell with economics, build something a hundred stories tall with a 500 foot spire on top of it. I don't care if it sits empty because no one can afford to lease the space. An empty tower sticking out like a sore thumbs beats a nice looking mid-rise any day of the week.
Well, who can argue with that logic!
Sarcasm sure is fun, huh?
No offense intended, it was meant in fun.
#124
Posted 17 February 2006 - 02:17 PM
#125
Posted 17 February 2006 - 04:56 PM
#126
Posted 17 February 2006 - 08:22 PM
John
#127
Posted 18 February 2006 - 01:47 PM
#128
Posted 18 February 2006 - 02:06 PM
#129
Posted 18 February 2006 - 02:47 PM
#130
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:43 PM
Nice one Wayne. Sad to think it will soon be gone for good!
John
#131
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:58 PM
This image come from Wayne!
Nice one Wayne. Sad to think it will soon be gone for good!
John
I saw some great views of the top of the building and clock from the Petroleum Club. You look right down at it from a couple of blocks away. It would be a great view to watch the building come down.
#132
Posted 18 February 2006 - 10:07 PM
I was told that it used 480 flood lights (per clock side) to make the digits including the ( colon mark.
It would be great to see some clock construction photos! When the CNB letters were removed in 86-87, there was an awesome color photo in the FWST showing the "C" being removed. I'd like to find that pic!
I was also told the the body of the clock was made of stacked "I" beams. Not sure how correct that is.
Blue prints would be cool to see!
#134
Posted 18 February 2006 - 10:55 PM
You know, a good bit of triva and just general interst, does ANYONE know about the mechanics of the clock? How it worked, how did it keep time?
I was told that it used 480 flood lights (per clock side) to make the digits including the ( colon mark.
It would be great to see some clock construction photos! When the CNB letters were removed in 86-87, there was an awesome color photo in the FWST showing the "C" being removed. I'd like to find that pic!
I was also told the the body of the clock was made of stacked "I" beams. Not sure how correct that is.
Blue prints would be cool to see!
I don't have blue prints but the clock was made of "I" beams. They were taken up to the roof individually and assembled like an erector set. Gears rotated the clock and they eventually wore out and the clock stopped rotating. I don't know what the mechanism was that kept the time either but it was always accurate. The clock was extremely heavy and not a part of the original building plans. It was originally going to be all brick but when they decided to add the clock, they had to use the aluminum curtain wall to cut the weight. They also had to reinforce the foundation of the building.
#135
Posted 18 February 2006 - 11:03 PM
This image come from Wayne!
Nice one Wayne. Sad to think it will soon be gone for good!
John
Even in that post card, some odd windows and some stains are on the building. Did it ever look brand new?
Some of the panels developed a red tint after a few years, but nothing like it is today. The windows weren't tinted in those days so it was pretty clear which ones had the blinds up.
#136
Posted 18 February 2006 - 11:05 PM
http://www.fortworth...indpost&p=19126
#137
Posted 18 February 2006 - 11:17 PM
Bailey, earlier in this thread, I went into great detail on the history of the construction of the building. The link to it is here:
http://www.fortworth...indpost&p=19126
Thanks. Very detailed story of the history of the building.
#138
Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:12 PM
Look how few columns inside the building actually passed through the first floor:
#139
Posted 20 February 2006 - 01:38 AM
#140 ghughes
Posted 20 February 2006 - 04:41 AM
The assymetric influence of those two big transfer girders will have to be dealt with, but I'm sure cutting structure on the third floor will mitigate their influence.
Those are great pictures, John. Thanks for posting them.
#141
Posted 20 February 2006 - 08:51 AM
I know these are professionals doing the demo, but for something this tall, what are the chances for something to go wrong as it comes down? I mean if it starts to lean over instead of coming straight down and such. The damage to the surrounding buildings and streets would be horrific.
I saw something on the Discovery channel related to this kind of demolition. They said the contracts are often written to state that the blasting company's obligation is to reduced the building more or less to a pile of rubble. If the building only comes halfway down or something along those lines, it's still the blasting company's responsibility to finish bringing it down. I've got to believe that could be an expensive proposition.
#142
Posted 20 February 2006 - 08:56 AM
#143
Posted 20 February 2006 - 09:14 AM
--
Kara B.
#144
Posted 20 February 2006 - 10:33 AM
http://www.nbc10.com...568/detail.html
In the late eighties or early nineties a set of grain silos on the near west side where So7 is now failed to implode properly. They dropped about one story and didn't collapse. They sat there in that state for some time.
I understand that grain silos are built to contain gigantic pressures inside. In some ways they are quite a bit sturdier than your average skyscraper. This strength appears to be achieved less through artful engineering than by a kind of blunt force approach: They use honkin' thick concrete.
#145
Posted 20 February 2006 - 12:10 PM
http://www.implosionworld.com/
I always find 'em kind of sad.
By the way, do the stagings in front of the Baker/Simpson building and beside the Waggoner building have something to do with the implosion of the Landmark tower? Kinda soon after the restoration for the Simpson building to need work.
#146
Posted 20 February 2006 - 12:18 PM
Since the Landmark Tower had no lower and wider base, the remainder of the block is being used for the demolition process. The excavation that has already occurred on the north side of the building to get equipment out of the basement and sub-basement will be used as the area for the building to fall into. Over the next month, you will see this hole be expanded to the west side of the building and more of the rock and debris piled up along Throckmorton and 6th Streets. These actions create a hole to fall into and a barrier to lessen the damage to other buildings. This will allow the building to drift toward the excavated areas and away from the other buildings across Houston Street.
As for grain elevators, the reason their implosions take time and seem difficult is that they are designed to be explosion proof due to spontaneous combustion of the grain. That is mainly done by pouring the concrete extremely thick.
#147 bburton
Posted 21 February 2006 - 08:02 PM
I hear that the command center will be in Federal Plaza, but I think that is a no photography zone, so I'm not sure the public will be allowed to take pictures from that location. It will have an unobstructed view of the entire building and people there will not be looking directly into the rising sun.
Has anybody learned whether or not photographers will be allowed in the Federal Plaza? If not, who would likely know this information?
Also, if the Plaza is off limits, where's the next best location for a ground-level view of the implosion?
Thanks.
#148
Posted 21 February 2006 - 09:19 PM
The safe location is being invited into a residence in The Tower, but we already know that looking into the sun will probably not yield the best photographs.
#149
Posted 21 February 2006 - 09:55 PM
Also of interest in this print is the construction of the Clifford Herring Sound Equipment Company at 1705 W 7th (bottom right corner). 10 years later this would become the home of KXOL.
#150
Posted 21 February 2006 - 09:59 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users