DT: United Way building
#1
Posted 18 October 2006 - 09:54 AM
What does the future hold for a building like this? Will there ever be a time when it is looked upon as typical of a period from which few other examples still exist, and therefore worth preserving?
#2
Posted 18 October 2006 - 12:24 PM
#3
Posted 18 October 2006 - 05:53 PM
#4
Posted 02 November 2006 - 12:09 PM
They plan to move to an area of F.W. that has cheaper real estate.
#6
Posted 03 November 2006 - 01:41 PM
#7
Posted 03 November 2006 - 01:52 PM
#8
Posted 12 February 2007 - 08:23 PM
I'm not sure how to describe the Untied Way building architecturally, but it seems like a fish out of water in downtown. It's unattractive, smallish, but in a potentially prime location.
What does the future hold for a building like this? Will there ever be a time when it is looked upon as typical of a period from which few other examples still exist, and therefore worth preserving?
If it reaches 50 years of age it will be considered potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, which was created by the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The National Register has criteria of evaluation, and a building may be considered eligible in several categories; like architecture, people, events.
In the early 1900s some architectural critics despised Queen Anne architecture and probably never anticipated it being the rage it is today. They much preferred the new, fresh, modern Craftsman or Prairie styles.
Think about this: one day wood and brick may be historic building materials -- like when all construction is done in concrete, teflon, polymer resins or some other yet-to-be-invented building material.
Some day, like in the year 2132, a Fort Worth citizen may putter by on his Honda jetpack and look at the Historic United Way building and say, "Wow, what a cool, unusual, glepdort building . . . I'm glad someone had the foresight to save it!"
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#9
Posted 12 February 2007 - 09:33 PM
--
Kara B.
#10
Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:31 PM
I'm a big fan of historic preservation, but the United Way building doesn't do it for me. I have no love for dreary, depressing slab boxes.
I understand. Historic preservation, however, is not about liking or disliking a certain style. Otherwise it would be subjective. National Register criteria is applied objectively. Besides, the United Way building is not 50 years of age or older -- so it's not even eligible for the National Register . . . yet!
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#11
Posted 13 February 2007 - 11:13 AM
Wasn't that building once the regional headquarters for Greyhound?
I have some great postcards of the United Way building when it was the Greyhound center. Would like to post them, but not sure I am allowed to. I have hundreds of old postcards I have been buying on e-bay for for 4 years. My mother-in-law used to take a bus back and forth from Mansfield in the 40's to downtown F.W. to work at the telephone co.
United Way is most likely to move to St. Joseph's Hospital. (Entire hospital about to be re-done to the max)
#12
Posted 13 February 2007 - 03:54 PM
I understand. Historic preservation, however, is not about liking or disliking a certain style. Otherwise it would be subjective. National Register criteria is applied objectively.
But there's absolutely nothing remarkable, unique, distinctive, or important about the UW building. I know my hatred for virtually all '70s architecture is fairly well known, but even I know there are some (SOME) '70s buildings that are worth saving. United Way, though? I can't see a case being made for that.
--
Kara B.
#13
Posted 13 February 2007 - 04:46 PM
I understand. Historic preservation, however, is not about liking or disliking a certain style. Otherwise it would be subjective. National Register criteria is applied objectively.
But there's absolutely nothing remarkable, unique, distinctive, or important about the UW building. I know my hatred for virtually all '70s architecture is fairly well known, but even I know there are some (SOME) '70s buildings that are worth saving. United Way, though? I can't see a case being made for that.
It's kinda like modern art . . . it ain't easy.
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#14
Posted 14 February 2007 - 07:30 AM
I understand. Historic preservation, however, is not about liking or disliking a certain style. Otherwise it would be subjective. National Register criteria is applied objectively.
But there's absolutely nothing remarkable, unique, distinctive, or important about the UW building. I know my hatred for virtually all '70s architecture is fairly well known, but even I know there are some (SOME) '70s buildings that are worth saving. United Way, though? I can't see a case being made for that.
It's kinda like modern art . . . it ain't easy.
I am not trying to be sarcastic, (really!), but why would you save a building that nobody likes?
#15
Posted 14 February 2007 - 08:59 AM
It's kinda like modern art . . . it ain't easy.
There was a lot of stuff painted in the "modern" era that still isn't worth a dime. Bring on the bulldozers.
However, in an effort to be balanced, here's a little story. I was at the museum of natural history the other day and got to look over an exhibit of coprolite. The exhibit praised the rocks for their immeasurable value to science. These are important rocks. For those that don't know, corprolite is fossilized fecal matter. This just proves that anything can become valuable if it sticks around long enough, even sh*t. So, if the UW building can survive another 22 million years, it might be worth something.
#16
Posted 14 February 2007 - 09:30 AM
It's kinda like modern art . . . it ain't easy.
There was a lot of stuff painted in the "modern" era that still isn't worth a dime. Bring on the bulldozers.
However, in an effort to be balanced, here's a little story. I was at the museum of natural history the other day and got to look over an exhibit of coprolite. The exhibit praised the rocks for their immeasurable value to science. These are important rocks. For those that don't know, corprolite is fossilized fecal matter. This just proves that anything can become valuable if it sticks around long enough, even sh*t. So, if the UW building can survive another 22 million years, it might be worth something.
LOL Thereby bringing a new definition to "crappy" building....
#17
Posted 14 February 2007 - 12:54 PM
I understand. Historic preservation, however, is not about liking or disliking a certain style. Otherwise it would be subjective. National Register criteria is applied objectively.
But there's absolutely nothing remarkable, unique, distinctive, or important about the UW building. I know my hatred for virtually all '70s architecture is fairly well known, but even I know there are some (SOME) '70s buildings that are worth saving. United Way, though? I can't see a case being made for that.
It's kinda like modern art . . . it ain't easy.
I am not trying to be sarcastic, (really!), but why would you save a building that nobody likes?
Understood. But Historic Preservation is not a popularity contest. There are guidelines that determine eligibility, and popularity is not one of them.
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#18
Posted 14 February 2007 - 02:56 PM
I understand. Historic preservation, however, is not about liking or disliking a certain style. Otherwise it would be subjective. National Register criteria is applied objectively.
But there's absolutely nothing remarkable, unique, distinctive, or important about the UW building. I know my hatred for virtually all '70s architecture is fairly well known, but even I know there are some (SOME) '70s buildings that are worth saving. United Way, though? I can't see a case being made for that.
It's kinda like modern art . . . it ain't easy.
I am not trying to be sarcastic, (really!), but why would you save a building that nobody likes?
Understood. But Historic Preservation is not a popularity contest. There are guidelines that determine eligibility, and popularity is not one of them.
That may be in the "rule" book, but I don't believe it, because popularity is what brings out our emotions and concerns for a building. It is the basis for most of the comments on the 7th Street Theater, etc. We may not be honest and state it as such, but if no one likes a building and Billy the Kid never slept there (sarcasm), there is usually no effort to save a building. And why save it? Because it is the only surviving relic of a "style" or era? Everything we do as humans is subjective is some way.
#19
Posted 14 February 2007 - 09:09 PM
It's kinda like modern art . . . it ain't easy.
There was a lot of stuff painted in the "modern" era that still isn't worth a dime. Bring on the bulldozers.
However, in an effort to be balanced, here's a little story. I was at the museum of natural history the other day and got to look over an exhibit of coprolite. The exhibit praised the rocks for their immeasurable value to science. These are important rocks. For those that don't know, corprolite is fossilized fecal matter. This just proves that anything can become valuable if it sticks around long enough, even sh*t. So, if the UW building can survive another 22 million years, it might be worth something.
LOL Thereby bringing a new definition to "crappy" building....
Speaking of "crappy" buildings, I studied this in a philosophy class I took on aesthetics: http://www.tate.org....ext&texttype=10
And let's not forget Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain." It just goes to show that excrement can be ART, too!!!
Seriously, though, coprolites are important -- anthropologists love it because it is the only evidence of prehistoric man's diet.
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#20
Posted 14 February 2007 - 10:28 PM
That may be in the "rule" book, but I don't believe it, because popularity is what brings out our emotions and concerns for a building. It is the basis for most of the comments on the 7th Street Theater, etc. We may not be honest and state it as such, but if no one likes a building and Billy the Kid never slept there (sarcasm), there is usually no effort to save a building. And why save it? Because it is the only surviving relic of a "style" or era? Everything we do as humans is subjective is some way.
OK. So you don't think we should have standards and guidelines -- a "rule book" -- for determining which buildings should be preserved or which ones shouldn't? You think we should go by what's "popular?" Who determines that??? HOW is that determined? Do we announce demolitions and see who protests? Maybe you don't think we should have historic preservation at all.
Getting back to the thread topic, I'm no big fan of the United Way building (let me just say that). There are plenty of people, I'm sure who consider it a monstrosity worthy of immediate destruction. But, at the same time, there are people who considered the 7th Street Theater a "piece of crap." Believe me, I heard from them . . .
And little good "popularity" did for the 7th Street.
The rule book is necessary because it quantifies and qualifies. It sets standards and guidelines.
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#21
Posted 14 February 2007 - 10:33 PM
This just proves that anything can become valuable if it sticks around long enough, even sh*t. So, if the UW building can survive another 22 million years, it might be worth something.
What year was the UW building constructed? Say around 1970? It won't be eligible for designation until 2020. My oldest kid, who's now in pre-K, will then be at the Naval Academy, so we've got a while.
If it survives until 2020, we'll take a look at it then.
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#22
Posted 15 February 2007 - 09:53 AM
This just proves that anything can become valuable if it sticks around long enough, even sh*t. So, if the UW building can survive another 22 million years, it might be worth something.
What year was the UW building constructed? Say around 1970? It won't be eligible for designation until 2020. My oldest kid, who's now in pre-K, will then be at the Naval Academy, so we've got a while.
If it survives until 2020, we'll take a look at it then.
I have pictures of the building with cars and buses from the 40s all around it. However, I just looked on the TAD website to see they have it listed as built in 1955. (In which case all the cars were old. Not too uncommon, then.)
#23
Posted 15 February 2007 - 10:40 AM
That may be in the "rule" book, but I don't believe it, because popularity is what brings out our emotions and concerns for a building. It is the basis for most of the comments on the 7th Street Theater, etc. We may not be honest and state it as such, but if no one likes a building and Billy the Kid never slept there (sarcasm), there is usually no effort to save a building. And why save it? Because it is the only surviving relic of a "style" or era? Everything we do as humans is subjective is some way.
OK. So you don't think we should have standards and guidelines -- a "rule book" -- for determining which buildings should be preserved or which ones shouldn't? You think we should go by what's "popular?" Who determines that??? HOW is that determined? Do we announce demolitions and see who protests? Maybe you don't think we should have historic preservation at all.
Getting back to the thread topic, I'm no big fan of the United Way building (let me just say that). There are plenty of people, I'm sure who consider it a monstrosity worthy of immediate destruction. But, at the same time, there are people who considered the 7th Street Theater a "piece of crap." Believe me, I heard from them . . .
And little good "popularity" did for the 7th Street.
The rule book is necessary because it quantifies and qualifies. It sets standards and guidelines.
Agreed. I'm just saying that I believe most efforts will not come about to save a building unless someone likes the building. If no one likes it (for whatever reason), I can't see much effort being put saving it. And not everything will be saved, if the forces behind the demo are influential enough. Also, the rule book standards are simply the opinions of the people who make the rule book....
#24
Posted 15 February 2007 - 12:36 PM
Agreed. I'm just saying that I believe most efforts will not come about to save a building unless someone likes the building. If no one likes it (for whatever reason), I can't see much effort being put saving it. And not everything will be saved, if the forces behind the demo are influential enough. Also, the rule book standards are simply the opinions of the people who make the rule book....
Yeah, like the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution of the United States: All men are created equal . . . we're entitled to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. That's just somebody's opinion. Or worse, it's some high falutin' philosophical ideas.
[Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it can't be valid law.]
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#25
Posted 15 February 2007 - 08:25 PM
I am not trying to be sarcastic, (really!), but why would you save a building that nobody likes?
[/quote]
^^^So that SBC/AT&T has someplace to call home? It's over 100 years old and it's still here... and to my knowledge, no one without a head injury has ever like this building.
#26
Posted 15 February 2007 - 09:08 PM
Agreed. I'm just saying that I believe most efforts will not come about to save a building unless someone likes the building. If no one likes it (for whatever reason), I can't see much effort being put saving it. And not everything will be saved, if the forces behind the demo are influential enough. Also, the rule book standards are simply the opinions of the people who make the rule book....
Yeah, like the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution of the United States: All men are created equal . . . we're entitled to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. That's just somebody's opinion. Or worse, it's some high falutin' philosophical ideas.
[Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it can't be valid law.]
Now you've lost your credibility...to equate personal freedoms and moral tradition with historical building preservation is just plain foolishness. "Give me Greyhound or Give Me Death" Has a nice ring to it.... You are not sticking on topic...
#27
Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:04 AM
Still will be kind of sad, for me. Just because it represents an era. (40s-50s)
I wish no buildings were torn down, really. But usually boils down to simple economics. The land becomes worth way more than the building. And I am a capitalist for sure.
I am taking extra pics of the old building. Tick tock.
#28
Posted 18 February 2007 - 08:20 AM
Agreed. I'm just saying that I believe most efforts will not come about to save a building unless someone likes the building. If no one likes it (for whatever reason), I can't see much effort being put saving it. And not everything will be saved, if the forces behind the demo are influential enough. Also, the rule book standards are simply the opinions of the people who make the rule book....
Yeah, like the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution of the United States: All men are created equal . . . we're entitled to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. That's just somebody's opinion. Or worse, it's some high falutin' philosophical ideas.
[Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it can't be valid law.]
Now you've lost your credibility...to equate personal freedoms and moral tradition with historical building preservation is just plain foolishness. "Give me Greyhound or Give Me Death" Has a nice ring to it.... You are not sticking on topic...
OK, Mr. Smartguy , you may or may not know this, but during the 1920s there were HUGE battles over the constitutionality of ZONING. Yes, ZONING and HISTORIC PRESERVATION cases have gone before the U.S. Supreme Court. Issues relating to the legality of GOVERNMENT REGULATION (in other words "the rule book") are fertile ground for litigation because people claim such regulatory control is an attack on personal freedoms (right to property).
You scorn the rule book as merely "opinion." My point is that the U.S. Constitution, federal regulations, zoning laws, and historic preservation ordinances are all "opinion" -- opinion on how government should work and what it should do. It is, in reality, opinion that has been codified through procedural due process of law.
I can understand how you might chuckle at my extreme, though valid, equation.
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#29
Posted 18 February 2007 - 09:55 AM
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#30
Posted 30 January 2008 - 12:49 PM
#31
Posted 30 January 2008 - 01:21 PM
They moved over the Weekend to the Mercado Building on North Main. She really likes that building.
The old building downtown only had a great location, at least for her. She walked to work there from the Tower. (Took her 7 minutes to drive and 6 to walk, as we park on the 4th floor of our garage.) Now she will have to drive or take the bus. (The romantic fool I am, I think I will get her a long term bus pass from the T for our anniversary coming up!)
#32
Posted 12 May 2008 - 04:59 PM
#33
Posted 12 May 2008 - 06:41 PM
Any indication what would replace it?
--
Kara B.
#34
Posted 13 May 2008 - 11:20 AM
http://www.charterho...hp?s=United_Way
I wouldn't mind making way for something else....
#35
Posted 30 June 2008 - 07:46 PM
--
Kara B.
#36
Posted 30 June 2008 - 08:04 PM
#37
Posted 30 June 2008 - 08:49 PM
#38
Posted 01 July 2008 - 07:44 AM
--
Kara B.
#39
Posted 01 July 2008 - 10:53 AM
The BOHICA concept:
And the "Rhymes With Farking" concept:
#40
Posted 01 July 2008 - 11:14 AM
#41
Posted 01 July 2008 - 11:42 AM
--
Kara B.
#42
Posted 01 July 2008 - 10:03 PM
Seriously. Browsing aerial views of the Fort Worth Central Parking District on google maps (or your preferred source)... disgusts me. The city is a freaking parking lot. Ugh
#43
Posted 10 October 2008 - 08:43 AM
#44
Posted 10 October 2008 - 09:57 AM
--
Kara B.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users