Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Modern Architecture: Save it or Pave it?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:10 PM

In honor of Atomic Glee, I've started this thread. (If there's another one like it, John, maybe we could resurrect it?)

Does anyone have recommendations for Modern Architecture in Fort Worth that should be SAVED or IMMEDIATELY DEMOLISHED? An up-or-down vote?

What are your thoughts? Is it possible for modern architecture to be considered historic? What makes a building historic? How old does it have to be to be old enough to be considered "historic" (do-be-do-be)? Are we biased against buildings erected in our lifetime, or is it truly bad architecture?

Here's an interesting site: http://www.recentpast.org

I was amazed to learn that Mile High Stadium was 52 years old when it was demolished. Talk about a popular structure with a hugh civic memory! Wow! I bet there were grown men openly weeping when that baby went down.
WWSPFD?*

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?

#2 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:13 PM

Hey! Where's my poll?
WWSPFD?*

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?

#3 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:25 PM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 15 2007, 01:10 AM) View Post

In honor of Atomic Glee, I've started this thread. (If there's another one like it, John, maybe we could resurrect it?)

Does anyone have recommendations for Modern Architecture in Fort Worth that should be SAVED or IMMEDIATELY DEMOLISHED? An up-or-down vote?

What are your thoughts? Is it possible for modern architecture to be considered historic? What makes a building historic? How old does it have to be to be old enough to be considered "historic" (do-be-do-be)? Are we biased against buildings erected in our lifetime, or is it truly bad architecture?

Here's an interesting site: http://www.recentpast.org

I was amazed to learn that Mile High Stadium was 52 years old when it was demolished. Talk about a popular structure with a hugh civic memory! Wow! I bet there were grown men openly weeping when that baby went down.


OK, here's a good one: the Public Health Building on University Drive. I love it! Now THAT'S some GOOD modern stuff. Yeah!

Is there anyone out there who will join me in lying down in front of the bulldozer??? (I understand it will be whacked for the botanical gardens or the Will Rogers complex . . . please correct me if I'm wrong.)
WWSPFD?*

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?

#4 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dirty suburbs

Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:36 PM

I thought that BRIT is planning to build a headquarters on the site of the Public Health Building.

#5 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:43 PM

Modern architecture I'd try to keep:

- Water Gardens
- Landmark Tower (with revolving clock) (sadly, too late)
- Tandy Center
- TCOM Health Science Library, complete with balcony overlooking the CD and everything else up to DT.

Outside of DT, it's hard to say. There are many homes in various neighborhoods built in the modern style that are rather attracitive. The old Cullen Davis Mansion in Stonegate is a more obvious example. One wonders if it will make it to 2020 to be considered "historic." If so, I wonder if then a detailed renovation of the building back to the condition it had when it was built will be considered. That would be a fun job.


#6 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,126 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 15 February 2007 - 05:44 AM

I never said Modernism should be wiped off the face of the Earth (and understand that when I say Modernism, I'm not talking about, say, Googie or International Style or anything, most of which I think hold far more importance). I just feel that a lot of it won't be as important to save as examples of other styles. When we start talking about the United Way building or the Radisson Annex, you've lost me. It's just a bit harder to find reasons to save buildings that often turned out to be drab, featureless, uninteresting concrete boxes. Not to mention that a lot of Modernism was absolutely awful to the streetscape and pedestrian quality.

Landmark Tower I would not put in with what I think of when I think "Modernism" - that's International Style. I hate a lot of International Style, but I think some of it is quite cool, and there is a lot of it that's worthy of saving. I would love to have seen Landmark stick around if it had been possible. It would have been even better if it had been fully restored, and the tinted glass replaced with clear glass - that's how International Style works for me. Tinted glass kills it. I would also support saving the Star-Telegram Classifieds Building (it does needs clear glass as well).

--

Kara B.

 


#7 seurto

seurto

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Location:SWFW
  • Interests:FW, TX, history, cooking, party planning/giving (Par-Tays Plus), vino! My dogs, chickens and duck!

Posted 15 February 2007 - 08:02 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 15 2007, 01:25 AM) View Post



OK, here's a good one: the Public Health Building on University Drive. I love it! Now THAT'S some GOOD modern stuff. Yeah!

Is there anyone out there who will join me in lying down in front of the bulldozer??? (I understand it will be whacked for the botanical gardens or the Will Rogers complex . . . please correct me if I'm wrong.)


Well, I just gotta say that to my very untrained eye, the PHB, as well as the Haws (?) bldg on Vickery and all the schools built during that time....well, I had no idea it was considered an architectural style, other than maybe "functional, but not quite institutional." I'd have to pass on the bulldozer speed bumps for those. Now, if you could point the bulldozers to the Medical Arts Bldg (8th and Magnolia), I'd even drive one of them into that monstrosity......... dry.gif

#8 Bernd

Bernd

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 15 February 2007 - 08:28 AM

Maybe someone would rebuild the old Medical Arts building in place of the new one...
The future "best blog" in Fort Worth.

#9 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 15 February 2007 - 12:43 PM

QUOTE(seurto @ Feb 15 2007, 10:02 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 15 2007, 01:25 AM) View Post



OK, here's a good one: the Public Health Building on University Drive. I love it! Now THAT'S some GOOD modern stuff. Yeah!

Is there anyone out there who will join me in lying down in front of the bulldozer??? (I understand it will be whacked for the botanical gardens or the Will Rogers complex . . . please correct me if I'm wrong.)


Well, I just gotta say that to my very untrained eye, the PHB, as well as the Haws (?) bldg on Vickery and all the schools built during that time....well, I had no idea it was considered an architectural style, other than maybe "functional, but not quite institutional." I'd have to pass on the bulldozer speed bumps for those. Now, if you could point the bulldozers to the Medical Arts Bldg (8th and Magnolia), I'd even drive one of them into that monstrosity......... dry.gif


I think you'd call them International Style. The schools look like factories because they were considered manufactories of learned children.


WWSPFD?*

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?

#10 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 15 February 2007 - 01:33 PM

Fort Worth has few good examples of "modern" architecture, IMO. Modern buildings in FW seem to stick to being big bland boxes (DT's skyscrapers) or big bland throwbacks to the past (anything designed by Shrwarz). Most anything built after 1940 in FW is pretty disposable..IMO.

#11 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 15 February 2007 - 02:06 PM

vjackson, I presume you exclude the museums from that "disposable" list.

For comparison's sake only, what modern structures in Dallas do you find worth preserving? The Meyerson, maybe?


#12 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 15 February 2007 - 02:24 PM

QUOTE(cbellomy @ Feb 15 2007, 04:06 PM) View Post

vjackson, I presume you exclude the museums from that "disposable" list.

For comparison's sake only, what modern structures in Dallas do you find worth preserving? The Meyerson, maybe?

Why bring Dallas into the conversation?? As modern architecture goes, Dallas has some gems, (the Federal Reserve Bank is one of my favorites...the Meyerson gets raves reviews from architects, but I've never been fond of the exterior), but it (Dallas) has never been one of my faves for modern architecture either. You may be surprised, but I find more historical buildings in Dallas I'm fond of than the modern stuff.

But your assumption would be correct, museums are the modern structures that I think FW has done well. The Kimbell remains one of my favorite buildings in DFW, and The Modern blows me away everytime I see it. Amon Carter's ok, that Cowgirl thing, I don't care for much.

#13 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 15 February 2007 - 02:40 PM

I brought Dallas into the conversation because it's familiar, close, and has seen considerable construction in the modern era compared to FW. No other reason, really.

FWIW, I agree with you completely so far, including about FRB Dallas. Great building.

I suspect that there's a lot of modern architecture in Westover Hills that most would agree is compelling, but Westover doesn't exactly lend itself to stopping and admiring. That said, there's a big difference between residential architecture and public/commercial.


#14 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 18 February 2007 - 10:16 AM

Speaking of Modern architecture, yesterday I took a look at the UW building from afar. I was down at the ITC with my five-year old. (He grooves on public transportation: we spent most of the day riding around on the TRE and the #2 Camp Bowie bus.)

I don't know why Atomic Glee gets all hepped up about the UW building. It really ain't that bad--unless you just HATE Modern architecture. I like it MUCH better than some of the faux-historic stuff people have been sticking up -- like the BankOne/Chase building or the ITC building. The ITC building is cute/sickening from a Disneyesque Main Street, faux-historic point-of-view.

What really upsets me is this let's-tear-down-that-historic-building-and-build-a-new-one-that-looks-historic-in-its-place business DISGUSTING!

I prefer the UW because it's at least "honest." It's somewhat austure. But it's got some nice metal-framed casement(?) ribbon windows that wrap-around the second story. And how about those nice cantilevered window shades? The first story is inset, which is kinda interesting. Overall, I'd say "OK!" Somebody must of liked it cause it got built.

I begin breathing heavy, though, when I see the public health building -- UW doesn't quite do THAT for me, but if UW hits 50 years it should DEFINITELY be designated!

How old is UW? John "Quoted-in-Today's-Startlegram" Roberts, do you have a date on the UW?
WWSPFD?*

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?

#15 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 18 February 2007 - 10:20 AM

Hey Chris Bellomy! My wife and I would like to buy something historic, but need the space found in modern post-WWII residential construction. How old is your Wedgewood n'hood? Any nice 1960s Brady Bunch stuff down there? I could go for a modern residence 1955-1965--something on the verge of National Register eligibility.

Waddayathink? Any advice on that?
WWSPFD?*

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?

#16 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,126 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 18 February 2007 - 11:45 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 18 2007, 10:16 AM) View Post

I don't know why Atomic Glee gets all hepped up about the UW building.


I don't get hepped up about the UW building at all. I rarely even think about it. The fact that it is currently being discussed does not mean I really care about it at all.

QUOTE
It really ain't that bad--unless you just HATE Modern architecture.


I do hate most Modernist architecture (note that by Modernist I am talking about certain thing, not just "buildings from the '50s to today"). I realize that some of it (emphasis on the some) has merit and is worth saving. The two things are not incompatible.

(As an aside, Mr. Roberts may correct me when I call the UW building "Modernist." That's the thing that comes to mind to me, because of its blank, cold design. I may be wrong on the classification, though, and welcome any corrections.)

QUOTE
I like it MUCH better than some of the faux-historic stuff people have been sticking up -- like the BankOne/Chase building or the ITC building. The ITC building is cute/sickening from a Disneyesque Main Street, faux-historic point-of-view.

What really upsets me is this let's-tear-down-that-historic-building-and-build-a-new-one-that-looks-historic-in-its-place business DISGUSTING!


I'm a big fan of both the Chase building and the ITC, personally. Quality buildings with great pedestrian appeal, which is vital to a great urban space.

To me, there no such thing as "faux-historic." I think that's a ridiculous term. I do not, in any way, subscribe to the "buildings should represent their era" school of thought. There are many types of architectural style, and we should not limit ourselves to that which is current or futuristic. The term "faux-historic" is what I find "DISGUSTING." Any and all architectural styles should be open for use, regardless of their age or the time of their popularity.

QUOTE
I prefer the UW because it's at least "honest." It's somewhat austure. But it's got some nice metal-framed casement(?) ribbon windows that wrap-around the second story. And how about those nice cantilevered window shades? The first story is inset, which is kinda interesting. Overall, I'd say "OK!" Somebody must of liked it cause it got built.


I dislike the UW building because it's so unfriendly to the street, so dull and depressing. My "dull and depressing" is your "austere," which is fine. That's what makes the world go 'round. I just think if we're going to preserve that sort of building, we can probably do better than the UW building.

As well, I believe that the ITC (to use your example) is equally "honest." See above comments re: the ridiculousness of "faux-historic/buildings should only follow current thinking." Buildings don't lie - they are what they are, regardless of their date of construction. A building built in, say, Classical from many decades ago and a building built today in Classical are both Classical buildings to me, not one genuine and one "faux-historic."

QUOTE
I begin breathing heavy, though, when I see the public health building -- UW doesn't quite do THAT for me, but if UW hits 50 years it should DEFINITELY be designated!


I do not like the public health building, but I do think it would be worthy of preservation. It is a good example of its style, and it seems to fit its location.

Another example is 500 West 7th, a building which I think is butt-ugly, but one that I absolutely think is worthy of preservation for several reasons.

--

Kara B.

 


#17 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:19 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 18 2007, 10:20 AM) View Post

Hey Chris Bellomy! My wife and I would like to buy something historic, but need the space found in modern post-WWII residential construction. How old is your Wedgewood n'hood? Any nice 1960s Brady Bunch stuff down there? I could go for a modern residence 1955-1965--something on the verge of National Register eligibility.

Waddayathink? Any advice on that?


Hey FE!

My home near Wedgwood Middle School is circa 1961. It and almost everything around it is ranch style and wholly unremarkable. There are some decent examples of modern here and there, though -- mostly east of Woodway and north of Walton.

Note that I'm in my house because my wife grew up in it and we were able to get it cheap. smile.gif


#18 Bernd

Bernd

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 08:23 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 18 2007, 11:16 AM) View Post

The ITC building is cute/sickening from a Disneyesque Main Street, faux-historic point-of-view.


I have to agree w/ AG on this one... faux-historic is a pretty silly term. The ITC is a well-designed building that uses a classic architectural style, probably to make it appealing to the pedestrians who predominately use it.

A more appropriate building to label faux-historic would be the one with the fake painted-on stone work to make it "match" the courthouse... That is disneyesque and disgusting, IMO.
The future "best blog" in Fort Worth.

#19 bailey

bailey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plano, Texas

Posted 19 February 2007 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE(cbellomy @ Feb 19 2007, 12:19 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 18 2007, 10:20 AM) View Post

Hey Chris Bellomy! My wife and I would like to buy something historic, but need the space found in modern post-WWII residential construction. How old is your Wedgewood n'hood? Any nice 1960s Brady Bunch stuff down there? I could go for a modern residence 1955-1965--something on the verge of National Register eligibility.

Waddayathink? Any advice on that?


Hey FE!

My home near Wedgwood Middle School is circa 1961. It and almost everything around it is ranch style and wholly unremarkable. There are some decent examples of modern here and there, though -- mostly east of Woodway and north of Walton.

Note that I'm in my house because my wife grew up in it and we were able to get it cheap. smile.gif

Clinton Wright was the builder of virtually all the modern homes in the Wedgwood area. He built his homes from the late 50's through the 60's, many of them fill in homes for single lots. You can find them all over Wedgwood among the ranch style homes. They almost all have rock style brick on the front. As a boy, I used to go through all the new homes in the area as they were building them. They all had the Brady style interiors with turquoise colors and such. They were almost all one story homes in the 1700 to 2000 square foot range. If you drive the neighborhood, they start south of Walton. Many of them are between Hulen and Wedgmont Circle and around the area where the old Wedgwood Country Club was located. In fact, the country club was a perfect example of the modern style homes in this area before it was torn down.



#20 seurto

seurto

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Location:SWFW
  • Interests:FW, TX, history, cooking, party planning/giving (Par-Tays Plus), vino! My dogs, chickens and duck!

Posted 19 February 2007 - 08:54 AM

Wow, I hadn't thought about it until getting caught up in this discussion, but my little 1,000 sq ft house in S Hills is eligible for the Nat'l Reg based on age - (using the appropriate docent/guide voice) built in 1950, a truly typical new era/post WWII suburban development with typical ranch styling, with an abundance (17) of (originally casement) windows and "modern" attic fan for comfort throughout the year. newlaugh.gif

All kidding aside I do love my attic fan!

#21 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 19 February 2007 - 11:58 AM

QUOTE(seurto @ Feb 19 2007, 08:54 AM) View Post

All kidding aside I do love my attic fan!


At the risk of topic drift (I'll open a new thread if this goes anywhere), my latest idea-that-won't-go-away involves converting attic fans into small-scale electrical generators. I have no idea how much electricity such things would generate, but it seems like that if enough people used them, it could mitigate electricity demand during the hot months nontrivially.

Like I said, if anybody has enough knowledge of such machines to launch an actual discussion, I'll open a thread in the miscellaneous forum.


#22 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:14 PM

QUOTE(seurto @ Feb 19 2007, 10:54 AM) View Post

All kidding aside I do love my attic fan!

When I lived in FW, my home was a small 1950's number, and that attic fan was awesome...bring 'em back.

I didn't add this to my list of favorite "modernist" DFW buildings...but the aluminum-plated Republic Bank Tower in DTD is 50's (and 60's..the second tower addition) modern architecture at its best....IMO.

http://www.dallasarc...info/rep2-1.jpg

BTW, the tower just reopened as luxury highrise apartments.


#23 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:17 PM

QUOTE(cbellomy @ Feb 19 2007, 11:58 AM) View Post

QUOTE(seurto @ Feb 19 2007, 08:54 AM) View Post

All kidding aside I do love my attic fan!


At the risk of topic drift (I'll open a new thread if this goes anywhere), my latest idea-that-won't-go-away involves converting attic fans into small-scale electrical generators. I have no idea how much electricity such things would generate, but it seems like that if enough people used them, it could mitigate electricity demand during the hot months nontrivially.

Like I said, if anybody has enough knowledge of such machines to launch an actual discussion, I'll open a thread in the miscellaneous forum.



Read up on the MOTHER EARTH magazine. LOADS of interesting energy effecient ideas for homeowners.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#24 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 19 February 2007 - 05:11 PM

QUOTE(cbellomy @ Feb 19 2007, 11:58 AM) View Post
At the risk of topic drift (I'll open a new thread if this goes anywhere), my latest idea-that-won't-go-away involves converting attic fans into small-scale electrical generators. I have no idea how much electricity such things would generate, but it seems like that if enough people used them, it could mitigate electricity demand during the hot months nontrivially.


That's an intersting idea...of course where most of the (green building) technology is headed is toward keeping the heat out of your attic before it can be used for anything. Something else you might consider researching is the idea of a "thermal siphon" to create airflow - actually using heat to cool your house to some degree (but other things have to play for it to really work).

#25 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 21 February 2007 - 10:18 PM

QUOTE(Bernd @ Feb 19 2007, 10:23 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 18 2007, 11:16 AM) View Post

The ITC building is cute/sickening from a Disneyesque Main Street, faux-historic point-of-view.


I have to agree w/ AG on this one... faux-historic is a pretty silly term. The ITC is a well-designed building that uses a classic architectural style, probably to make it appealing to the pedestrians who predominately use it.

A more appropriate building to label faux-historic would be the one with the fake painted-on stone work to make it "match" the courthouse... That is disneyesque and disgusting, IMO.


Ok--Just a question, but what do you mean by "good design?" Are you talking about use of interior space, proportion, style? Do you mean "good design" by academic standards or personal taste?

What is your training? Atomic Glee and you both say ITC is well-designed--are y'all architects or interior designers? Did this win an AIA award or has it been selected by Texas Monthly etc. as "good?" Is it really good design?

I'm just asking, because I'm not really up on design other than architectural style. My training is in historic preservation/architectural history.

You've brought to my attention that me labeling something as faux historic is unfair--everything, pretty much, except Classical, Gothic, and Modern draw on a historical precedent. My bad.

I let my cynicism get the best of me.

Besides, the ITC will probably be on the National Register of Historic Places in 2055 . . . good design or not, that'll be a good thing!

WWSPFD?*

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?

#26 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 21 February 2007 - 10:52 PM

AG: I do hate most Modernist architecture (note that by Modernist I am talking about certain thing, not just "buildings from the '50s to today"). I realize that some of it (emphasis on the some) has merit and is worth saving. The two things are not incompatible.

(As an aside, Mr. Roberts may correct me when I call the UW building "Modernist." That's the thing that comes to mind to me, because of its blank, cold design. I may be wrong on the classification, though, and welcome any corrections.)

FE: So, AG, what do you define as "merit?" What does a modern building have to have to make it worthy of historic preservation?

I'd classify the UW as International style with a little Bauhaus going on there . . . what thinks you, John Roberts?

AG:
I'm a big fan of both the Chase building and the ITC, personally. Quality buildings with great pedestrian appeal, which is vital to a great urban space.

FE:
So what makes them "quality?" Is it aesthetics, use of building materials, interior design? What's "pedestrian appeal?" Offhand, I'd say anything in downtown has "pedestrian appeal" in that it's good for those walking (as opposed to strip developments that have "automobile appeal"). You mean by "pedestrian appeal" that pedestrians like the way it looks? If so, how would you know that?

AG:
To me, there no such thing as "faux-historic." I think that's a ridiculous term. I do not, in any way, subscribe to the "buildings should represent their era" school of thought. There are many types of architectural style, and we should not limit ourselves to that which is current or futuristic. The term "faux-historic" is what I find "DISGUSTING." Any and all architectural styles should be open for use, regardless of their age or the time of their popularity.

FE:
Once again, I stand corrected.

AG:
I dislike the UW building because it's so unfriendly to the street, so dull and depressing. My "dull and depressing" is your "austere," which is fine. That's what makes the world go 'round. I just think if we're going to preserve that sort of building, we can probably do better than the UW building.

FE:
Modern is "plain," "austere," "solemn" in some, but not all, cases. My fraternity house in Athens, GA was demolished because it was regarded by some as "plain." It was a Prairie style house built in 1917! Its demo was a travesty. But, in reality, Prairie is, relatively speaking, PLAIN -- especially when compared to Romanesque Revival or Neo-Classical buildings of the same era.

Speaking of modern architecture, I'm trying to get into Ranch style--it ain't easy, but I've learned to really appreciate some of them, especially the older ones which seem to have better quality construction.

Chris Bellomy regards Ranch homes in Wedgewood as "wholly unremarkable?" Compared to what? Each other? Queen Anne Classics? Craftsman Bungalows?

From an architectural history standpoint RANCH is REMARKABLE!

It is representative of post-WWII America: larger lots, laterally oriented, patios privately placed in the back (occupant orientation away from the front porch that faced the public street), garages incorporated into the house, confirming the importance of automobiles in American society.

The Ranch personifies, architecturally speaking, Victorious America Moving to the Suburbs. Yikes! They're awesome!!!

Let me be the FIRST to nominate Wedgewood as a NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT (as soon as it gets old enough!)

And HOW 'BOUT them ceiling fans!




WWSPFD?*

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?

#27 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 21 February 2007 - 11:13 PM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 21 2007, 10:52 PM) View Post

Chris Bellomy regards Ranch homes in Wedgewood as "wholly unremarkable?" Compared to what? Each other?


That's not what I said, actually. I said the homes near me were all ranch style *and* wholly unremarkable. Not that the one necessarily meant the other.

That said, though, your guess that I find them unremarkable compared to each other is essentially correct. Clearly there's no shortage of that style in Fort Worth and especially in this neighborhood. I have nothing against ranch style -- in fact, I find it pleasing -- but I can't think of any such homes near me that would make someone stop and say to himself, "Wow, that's a truly essential example of ranch style architecture!"

That said, I do think there are such homes further from me. Tanglewood has some, as does Ridglea. Wedgwood has a few, too, I suppose, but none on my block. (All in my humble opinion, of course.)


#28 Bernd

Bernd

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 22 February 2007 - 08:55 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 21 2007, 11:18 PM) View Post

Ok--Just a question, but what do you mean by "good design?" Are you talking about use of interior space, proportion, style? Do you mean "good design" by academic standards or personal taste?


I'm most definitely speaking from a perspective of personal taste, not academics. I am one of the people for whom the ITC was designed. I use it often, and it's one of those buildings I enjoy being around. It relates well to the other buildings around it, and its a building whose ornamentation and placement honor the street and the public space. IMO, that's the best thing a building could hope to be.

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 21 2007, 11:18 PM) View Post

What is your training? Atomic Glee and you both say ITC is well-designed--are y'all architects or interior designers? Did this win an AIA award or has it been selected by Texas Monthly etc. as "good?" Is it really good design?


I have no formal architectural training. My views come from spending time in the city and a keen attention paid to which buildings make feel welcome, and which are cold. As far as I know, the ITC hasn't won any awards or been hailed in any magazines... but then again, I've enjoyed lots of movies that "expert" critics hated, and hated some that were critically acclaimed.



The future "best blog" in Fort Worth.

#29 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 22 February 2007 - 11:46 AM

I know I won't get a lot of support for this, but I like the convention center dome. I would support its preservation. However, I suspect I would be standing alone.


Can someone who is academically oriented help explain what the goal in modernist architecture was at the time? What were they trying to create? Is there something about the interior design that took precedent over the exterior? When built, what kinds of structures of the period (not necessarily locally) received design awards and why?

#30 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 22 February 2007 - 11:56 AM

on the one hand...

Fire-Eater points out that for most of us our commitment to the preservation of a[n] historic property is tied to how we subjectively value the property. I love old buildings and would like to see more of them preserved, but I would be unlikely to protest the razing of anything at Cityview when it is old enough to qualify for consideration as historic.

Does this subjectivity put us at risk of destroying something that we (or future generations) will someday miss? It is really hard for me to imagine that anyone would consider the demolition of the United Way building as a tragic loss, but I have to recognize that this is based on my own personal judgment of its value.

This thread is one of the reasons I recently linked to some films in the Prelinger Archives on another thread. This conversation reminded me of one of those films: The Dynamic American City [1956]. In it, the narrator talks of the blight of "the heavy hand of old-fashioned design", of "ornate buildings", and of "architectural obsolescence". These were the common subjective values of that time. [links to the film: Part 1; Part 2]


on the other hand...

There is a cost to historic preservation. At the very least, for a particular building to be saved there is the ongoing cost of maintaining it (and perhaps restoring it) and the opportunity cost of not being able to either develop something more profitable on the property or sell it to someone who values it more as a location for something else.

Someone has to pay that cost. Who should it be? If we keep buildings because preservation benefits society then perhaps we as a society should share the cost. Even if we spread the cost across society (that is, across taxpayers - not all of whom have any significant amount of architectural or design training), there is a limit to how much we will be willing to spend and not all buildings will be saved.

Whoever must pay for the preservation of a particular building, the question will inevitably be asked as to whether that building is worth the cost of preservation. Obviously if we don't all agree on the value of a particular building, we won't always agree whether it is worth the cost of preserving it. The point is that *someone* has to think it's worth the cost of preservation and has to be willing and able to pay for it. [Or to get someone else to pay for it - as do historic preservation groups and taxing authorities.]

If a building like UW is on a valuable piece of property or the NPV of all future maintenance costs is a bit high, it is unlikely that someone will value it highly enough to be willing and able to pay to preserve it and the building will likely be lost. Some of us would have liked to have seen the restoration of the CNB but recognized that the cost was going to be too high. What about WRMC? Is it conceivable that maintenance costs or the property value might some day be so high that taxpayers would no longer be willing to pay for its upkeep?


i wonder...

How many of Fort Worth's historic buildings have been saved because the value of alternative uses of the land was low rather than because the community valued the buildings highly?

Are there historically significant buildings in the area that you think are currently at risk because of the cost of keeping them?

Are there any buildings or structures you think should be preserved but that most people would not value highly enough to be willing to pay for them? Any malls? Any industrial buildings? Smokestacks?



#31 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 22 February 2007 - 01:10 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Feb 22 2007, 11:46 AM) View Post
Can someone who is academically oriented help explain what the goal in modernist architecture was at the time? What were they trying to create? Is there something about the interior design that took precedent over the exterior? When built, what kinds of structures of the period (not necessarily locally) received design awards and why?


I'm replying to this off the cuff, and you should understand that volumes of literature, debate and criticism exist for what is termed "modernism," and it's impossible to present a complete outline of the very broad question you've posed.

One thing I would like to distinguish (as it is academically), "modern" is not "contemporary," while the reverse may be true. I think this is an important point, because it aims to place modernism in it's historical context, which began around the turn of the last century - modernism is in fact about a century old. Around this time we had the invention of telecommunications, the combustion engine, flight, the automobile, etc., etc. It was a revolutionary time (at least in the sense of technological advancement). People began building cities with machines, while steel and concrete could be used to create engineering marvels (Eiffel's tower for the World's Fair in Paris is one very early example of such marvels). Consequently the focus in design moved more toward the machine aesthetic...toward "engineering" rather than "crafting," if that makes any sense.

This was also a time when Braque and Picasso were inventing (or bringing to the front of the art world) serious abstraction. The literal was no longer the subject for art, and so those literal signs we find on buildings (ornamentation) soon fell off facades. This is where the great Miesian* axiom "less is more" comes from. The architecture was more about pure form, space and light, rather than what one could adorn it with, or at least that was the rationale. [First come the artists, then the architects close behind in adoration...everyone else follows in time. Perhaps even a century later.]

It's hard to explain in a nutshell what modernism was after, but it has much to do with utopian visions and the great advances in technology and art of the time.

If you would like, I can put together a list of links to a few modernist icons, to give you a "quick tour" of architectural history. But it'll take some time to hunt down good subjects (or good images at least).

* Mies van der Rohe might be considered the father of the glass-curtain skyscraper, and was a proponent (and former director of) of the Bauhaus school of design. Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, FL Wright, and Alvar Aalto are often regarded as the early masters of modernism.

#32 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 22 February 2007 - 01:58 PM

QUOTE(gdvanc @ Feb 22 2007, 11:56 AM) View Post
Does this subjectivity put us at risk of destroying something that we (or future generations) will someday miss? It is really hard for me to imagine that anyone would consider the demolition of the United Way building as a tragic loss, but I have to recognize that this is based on my own personal judgment of its value.


I think this aims at a refreshingly objective point of view, and is the source of my philosophical quarrel with "preservation." Preservation is good if it prevents waste, and serves humanistic need. Nostalgia is just a feeling we get...like being angry, happy or sad. Enjoy the beauty of things while they last, but don’t waste time crying over wilted flowers when it's the season to plant more.

#33 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 23 February 2007 - 09:45 AM

QUOTE(gdvanc @ Feb 22 2007, 11:56 AM) View Post
Does this subjectivity put us at risk of destroying something that we (or future generations) will someday miss? It is really hard for me to imagine that anyone would consider the demolition of the United Way building as a tragic loss, but I have to recognize that this is based on my own personal judgment of its value.



WOW! Ain't THAT the truth. Subjective tastes or biases, relating to architectural styles, of individuals should not determine whether ANY building should be "saved or paved."

In an above post I am myself guilty of condemning the ITC, which others seem to adore.
WWSPFD?*

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?

#34 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 23 February 2007 - 10:06 AM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Feb 22 2007, 03:58 PM) View Post

I think this aims at a refreshingly objective point of view, and is the source of my philosophical quarrel with "preservation." Preservation is good if it prevents waste, and serves humanistic need. Nostalgia is just a feeling we get...like being angry, happy or sad. Enjoy the beauty of things while they last, but don’t waste time crying over wilted flowers when it's the season to plant more.


WHOA DADDY-O! "Refeshingly objective" it is, but why would you "philosophically quarrel" with preservation? And I don't think comparing historic buildings to wilted flowers is very accurate -- at all.

Preservation always prevents the waste of historic resources, which are a finite, nonrenewable resources. Who determines usefulness and need? To a developer wanting to build a big box, the most significant historic building in a community would be a waste of time & space to them if it gets in the way. And does not Wal-Mart satisfy human/humanistic need???? "Need" and "waste" are relative and very subjective to current circumstances.

And isn't life all about "feeling?" If you feel nothing you are dead.

Speaking of feeling, I FEEL GOOD about XTO, a local corporation that deserves the highest of accolades for their work in preserving the Heart & Soul of Fort Worth. My goodness, they have sunk A LOT of $$$ into Fort Worth's historically significant buildings -- I don't think for one minute they've considered their big investment a "waste." Their most recently polished jewel is the Swift building at the Stockyards.

I raise my coffee cup to XTO's love and big financial commitment to saving the character and flavor of Fort Worth's historic built environment. GOD BLESS 'EM!

WWSPFD?*

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?

#35 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 23 February 2007 - 10:21 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 23 2007, 10:06 AM) View Post
.And I don't think comparing historic buildings to wilted flowers is very accurate -- at all.
...
And isn't life all about "feeling?" If you feel nothing you are dead.


It wasn't a comparision...it was a metaphor, and there's more to it than you initially read. So, dig deeper Fire Eater. I never said we should be without feeling (far from that - "Enjoy beauty"), I just don't think feeling should overrde our better judgement, and prevent us from moving in a direction that benefits us and others.

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 23 2007, 10:06 AM) View Post
Preservation always prevents the waste of historic resources, which are a finite, nonrenewable resources. Who determines usefulness and need?


Exactly - who determines that, and how? And exactly what is a "historic" resource, and how does it benefit us? I'm not bashing preservation, I'm just calling into question it's warrants and protocols. That's how we go about bettering the system.

#36 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,126 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 23 February 2007 - 11:07 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 21 2007, 10:18 PM) View Post


Ok--Just a question, but what do you mean by "good design?" Are you talking about use of interior space, proportion, style? Do you mean "good design" by academic standards or personal taste?

What is your training? Atomic Glee and you both say ITC is well-designed--are y'all architects or interior designers? Did this win an AIA award or has it been selected by Texas Monthly etc. as "good?" Is it really good design?


I'm coming at this from a New Urbanist position, which means I think a building of "good design" is friendly and approachable - many windows and/or storefronts, sits nice and close to the street, opens to the sidewalk and not a parking lot, that sort of thing. There's a lot more to it than that, but I can appreciate any sort of architecture if it's of good quality urban design. I do prefer old-fashioned stuff, though - as is probably obvious. smile.gif

--

Kara B.

 


#37 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,126 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 23 February 2007 - 11:07 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 21 2007, 10:18 PM) View Post

Ok--Just a question, but what do you mean by "good design?" Are you talking about use of interior space, proportion, style? Do you mean "good design" by academic standards or personal taste?

What is your training? Atomic Glee and you both say ITC is well-designed--are y'all architects or interior designers? Did this win an AIA award or has it been selected by Texas Monthly etc. as "good?" Is it really good design?


I'm coming at this from a New Urbanist position, which means I think a building of "good design" is friendly and approachable - many windows and/or storefronts, sits nice and close to the street, opens to the sidewalk and not a parking lot, that sort of thing. There's a lot more to it than that, but I can appreciate any sort of architecture if it's of good quality urban design.

--

Kara B.

 


#38 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 23 February 2007 - 11:31 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 23 2007, 12:06 PM) View Post

Preservation always prevents the waste of historic resources, which are a finite, nonrenewable resources.


Fire-eater,

What isn't worth preserving in your view?

If everything is worth preserving (which seems to be your view), regardless of the market interest, what do you do with all the things you preserve that nobody wants? Would it have been good to preserve Landmark tower, if no one would office in it because of the small floorplates and apparent asbestos problem? In whose interests is that?

At some point, there have to be things that are not worth preserving. The alternative is that cities radiate indefinitely and rot from the middle outward. That can not be the Utopia you seek.

So, you tell me, what isn't worth preserving?

#39 Bernd

Bernd

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 23 February 2007 - 11:40 AM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Feb 23 2007, 12:07 PM) View Post

I'm coming at this from a New Urbanist position, which means I think a building of "good design" is friendly and approachable - many windows and/or storefronts, sits nice and close to the street, opens to the sidewalk and not a parking lot, that sort of thing. There's a lot more to it than that, but I can appreciate any sort of architecture if it's of good quality urban design. I do prefer old-fashioned stuff, though - as is probably obvious.


QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Feb 23 2007, 12:07 PM) View Post

I'm coming at this from a New Urbanist position, which means I think a building of "good design" is friendly and approachable - many windows and/or storefronts, sits nice and close to the street, opens to the sidewalk and not a parking lot, that sort of thing. There's a lot more to it than that, but I can appreciate any sort of architecture if it's of good quality urban design.


He said it twice... it must be true! biggrin.gif
The future "best blog" in Fort Worth.

#40 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 23 February 2007 - 11:51 AM

FWIllustrator:
It wasn't a comparision...it was a metaphor, and there's more to it than you initially read. So, dig deeper Fire Eater. I never said we should be without feeling (far from that - "Enjoy beauty"), I just don't think feeling should overrde our better judgement, and prevent us from moving in a direction that benefits us and others.

Fire-eater:
OK, well I don't think a historic building IS a wilted flower, either, as opposed to a historic building being LIKE a historic building.

Feeling overriding better judgement? All too often I think it is a lack of feeling, interest and knowledge that results in poor judgement regarding Fort Worth's historic resources. I can't think of any examples in Fort Worth of errors made in FAVOR of historic preservation. Hmmmm. I've never heard anybody in Fort Worth say, "Dang, we preserved that historic building -- THAT was poor judgement!"

FWIllustrator:
And exactly what is a "historic" resource, and how does it benefit us? I'm not bashing preservation, I'm just calling into question it's warrants and protocols. That's how we go about bettering the system.

Fire-eater:
I'm glad you asked! Because if you don't know what determines if a building is historic you can't intelligently question its warrants and protocols nor can you go about bettering the system.

This thread is in a section on HISTORIC PRESERVATION -- a multidisciplined academic/technical field that combines architecture and (yes, it's more than JUST architecture!) history, city planning, and building technology.

There are a lot of folks in this forum who love architecture, but don't know about or understand Historic Preservation. There is a national and local (Fort Worth) protocol; there are guidelines and regulations; and there is a philosophy. You can agree or disagree with the philosophy, but at least learn about the protocols, guidelines, and regulations.

After you learn about historic preservation you might not see a need to "better" the system.
WWSPFD?*

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?

#41 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 23 February 2007 - 12:14 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Feb 23 2007, 01:31 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 23 2007, 12:06 PM) View Post

Preservation always prevents the waste of historic resources, which are a finite, nonrenewable resources.


Fire-eater,

What isn't worth preserving in your view?

If everything is worth preserving (which seems to be your view), regardless of the market interest, what do you do with all the things you preserve that nobody wants? Would it have been good to preserve Landmark tower, if no one would office in it because of the small floorplates and apparent asbestos problem? In whose interests is that?

At some point, there have to be things that are not worth preserving. The alternative is that cities radiate indefinitely and rot from the middle outward. That can not be the Utopia you seek.

So, you tell me, what isn't worth preserving?


Well, many people in this forum believe that VERY LITTLE is worth preserving, and even if it IS worth preserving there can be overriding factors, such as minor inconvenience or slight additional expense, that make it OK (though "regrettable") to demolish.

Generally speaking, Fort Worth is quick to demolish with little consideration for historic preservation. The Landmark Tower is an extreme example. I believe it was given a lot of consideration. There are many examples of historic properties with many fewer problems whose demolition is given little thought -- those buildings are simply "in the way" of individuals wanting to make lots of money.

I don't believe everything is worthy of preservation--I go by the Secretary of the Interior's Criteria of Evaluation that determines what is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, which was created by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. IT defines what is legally a "historic property."

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, more and more Modern buildings are becoming eligible as Historic Properties -- buildings we never thought of as "historic," that once DEFIED "historic," are becoming as such in the legal sense of the word.

Historic Preservationists are passionate people with an objective viewpoint that advocates saving America's historic past and incorporating it into America's future. We are not obstructionists -- we are progressives.


WWSPFD?*

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?

#42 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 23 February 2007 - 12:59 PM

Well then, let's not let passion override objectivity, and make too many assupmtions. Let's not assume that because someone advocates "moving in a direction that benefits us and others," that he/she does NOT advocate preservation (when I mentioned my quarrel with "preservation," the word was in quotes for a reason). And let's not assume that I don't know what the criteria for registry and maintaining such are.

How would we know the devil's plans had we not his advocate? devil.gif

#43 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 23 February 2007 - 03:30 PM

Could someone please define “Modern Architecture.” Is it relative to an era or time in any sense?

Modern Architecture in 1890…. What would that be called today?

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#44 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 23 February 2007 - 03:46 PM

QUOTE(David Love @ Feb 23 2007, 05:30 PM) View Post

Could someone please define “Modern Architecture.” Is it relative to an era or time in any sense?

Modern Architecture in 1890…. What would that be called today?


You have, essentially, three main areas, or classifications, of architecture style: Classical, Gothic, and Modern.

Classical, means Greek and Roman. It inspired numerous revivals, including the Rennaissance.

Gothic is your medieval stuff. It also inspired revivals, like Gothic Revival, Tudor, and Jacobean


WWSPFD?*

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?

#45 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 23 February 2007 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE(David Love @ Feb 23 2007, 03:30 PM) View Post
Could someone please define “Modern Architecture.” Is it relative to an era or time in any sense?


Yes there is a relative time period...my previous post on "Modernism"

QUOTE(David Love @ Feb 23 2007, 03:30 PM) View Post
Modern Architecture in 1890…. What would that be called today?


Modern Architecture in 1890 might be described as "Early Modern." But keep in mind this: with all this academic labeling and apparent ease of putting things away tidily in their box, none of these so called movements ever called themselves such (or at least very rarely). Honestly you could make up your own label, and it would mean just about as much.

#46 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 24 February 2007 - 07:29 AM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 23 2007, 05:46 PM) View Post

QUOTE(David Love @ Feb 23 2007, 05:30 PM) View Post

Could someone please define “Modern Architecture.” Is it relative to an era or time in any sense?

Modern Architecture in 1890…. What would that be called today?


You have, essentially, three main areas, or classifications, of architecture style: Classical, Gothic, and Modern.

Classical, means Greek and Roman. It inspired numerous revivals, including the Rennaissance.

Gothic is your medieval stuff. It also inspired revivals, like Gothic Revival, Tudor, and Jacobean


I consulted McAlester & McAlester, and they divide Modern Architecture into two parts: Arts & Crafts Movement (1900-1930) and Machine Age Movement (1910-present).

Arts & Crafts consists of Prairie Style and Craftsman Style.

Machine Age consists of Modernistic (Art Deco, Art Moderne) and International styles.

They identify Modern house styles since 1935 as Minimal Traditional, Ranch, Split-level, Contemporary, and Shed.

As far as FWIllistrator is concerned:
"Modern Architecture in 1890 might be described as "Early Modern." But keep in mind this: with all this academic labeling and apparent ease of putting things away tidily in their box, none of these so called movements ever called themselves such (or at least very rarely). Honestly you could make up your own label, and it would mean just about as much."

I would have to largely disagree with that--in the history of music, fashion, and art, there are definitely identifiable styles, periods, and movements. I don't know if Monet called himself an Impressionist or a Post-Impressionist, but that's how the educated know him. Sure, make up your own name for the Impressionist movement--label them the "Paint Slappers"--but no one else will know about whom you're talking. "Impressionism" has meaning to a lot of people, whether Monet knew it or not. Styles may be "labels," but they're not so "meaningless."

I agree that some try too hard to put buildings in a style box. Some buildings are a mix. Some are vernacular types with a few stylistic details.

My architectural history professor at UGA somewhat scornfully referred to McAlester & McAlester as the "bird book of American houses." I think he was a bit overly critical, because bird books are useful to birdwatchers. I think he was just concerned that we would try too hard to label house styles when perhaps there wasn't much style present.


WWSPFD?*

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?

#47 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 24 February 2007 - 12:04 PM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 24 2007, 07:29 AM) View Post
I don't know if Monet called himself an Impressionist or a Post-Impressionist, but that's how the educated know him. Sure, make up your own name for the Impressionist movement--label them the "Paint Slappers"--but no one else will know about whom you're talking. "Impressionism" has meaning to a lot of people, whether Monet knew it or not. Styles may be "labels," but they're not so "meaningless."


I would know a Monet by subject, brushstrokes and rendering of light. And he certainly didn't call himself anything like "Impressionist."

My point is, it's much more valuable to understand things humans have created within a historical & socio-political context and the context of the creator/artist/architect's personal affinities. If giving these things labels helps you identify those contexts, great. To many though, they're just labels. What's more, you'll find in EVERY case there's some serious blurring of the lines. The flow of ideas and creations don't stop and start succinctly from one label to the next - they flow.

Being able to assign names to birds is useful, but it doesn't tell you much about birds.

#48 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 24 February 2007 - 10:03 PM

I’ve been perusing through the July/August 2006 Dwell, has a centerfold of sorts… (train of thought lapse here) of some modernism key moments in time, mixed in with a lot of other key moments for reference. So Modernist Architecture, per some architecture academics, has a modern era, but they allude and outline the concept or proof that relative to that era in time it actually goes back, lets just say, as far back as we have proof of someone building something.

So what are the key elements of modern architecture? If the period has a beginning and an end and specific elements, if someone were to design or build something “beyond” modern, nothing currently defined, yet to be built, would it be lumped into Modern Architecture on the design board or would it be something else?

Say you design something you could coin as “Future Architecture” the moment it’s built, if it’s relative to the current era, would it not enter the modern era category?

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#49 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 25 February 2007 - 07:32 AM

This whole issue revolves around the unfortunate historical misusage of the word MODERN as a descriptive term for a class or classes of architectural structures. Googling will bring you a simple definition of the word:

"of the present or very recent time; the most improved"

In my opinion the only valid usage for the word "Modern" when speaking of art or music or architechure is as the opposite of "Old". Or perhaps "Ancient". The word is best used to describe something that is of the "current era" (you provide that definition).

I think the term Modern Art came into use in the late 1800's and early 1900's as a popular term for non-traditional art of the period. Like most fad words that are spread by publications and other media, it soon became a generic without much meaning even in the period when it was created.

It's my opinion that artists, like composers, seldom bother to classify themselves and their work into categories. That would immediately limit their scope and creativity. But it has turned out to be necessary to critics and patrons and viewers to group art into classes or styles. If we say art is "classical", "impressionist" or "cubist" as a Class or if it is given a name that covers covers a Style perhaps using a word like Moderne or Deco, then that is useful.

However, to choose a word that is recognized as placing something in our current time really messes things up. What was Modern in 1900 is not Modern now. Technically, any original art of any class or style produced right now is Contemporary or Modern, but it is only that for a short period.

It gets worse when we talk about architecture which may arguably not be art at all... and I won't go there for the moment. Structures have Style classifications which are quite useful except when the style is described as "Modern" which is really a misnomer. If we use up the word "Modern" as a Style description and then want to describe a contemporary structure as modern "Modern", isn't that juicy?

I guess it's OK to give one of the three big Museums in Fort Worth the name "MODERN" if we consider it simply a word without real meaning that is tagged onto the sign in the front of the building. Probably heard locally as "Modren" by all those "nucular" folks who vacation in "Hywahyah".

To describe that unfortunate pile of commerical tip-up slabs, tin siding, tacky window frames and lovely little flying saucer bubbles on the top as "Modern" in style when compared to the Kimble is just ridiculous. In fact, Modern doesn't even describe either structure. The word certainly doesn't describe the artistic contents of the building which are of various time periods and all of which have Style tags that are much more useful.

The 1st post of this thread asked in part if anyone had thoughts of any of Fort Worth's MODERN architecture that should be demolished now or in the future. I can't resist..

In my personal opinion, if the FW Modern Art Museum is considered MODERN architecture, implosion should occur as soon as the bulding contents are evacuated. Or perhaps the building might be deeded to Wal-Mart who could let their world class designers turn it into something more attractive to provide competition with Super Target down the way.

In my opinion, any new structures that are built in the Fort Worth area now or in the future will only be "modern" for a moment in time and can never really be "Modern" in style.

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#50 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 25 February 2007 - 10:53 AM

QUOTE(David Love @ Feb 24 2007, 10:03 PM) View Post
Say you design something you could coin as “Future Architecture” the moment it’s built, if it’s relative to the current era, would it not enter the modern era category?


There was a group around the advent of cubism (1910’s) that actually called themselves “Futurists”

Antonio Sant’Elia:
IPB Image

There have been many “movements” and labels for things since Modernism including Post-Modernism, Deconstructivism, Brutalism, Pluralism and myriad subcategories that people have invented. Many historians will say that the Modern Era ended in the 60’s. But that doesn’t mean you won’t find modern elements in contemporary design.

The current trend in design today is to exploit the the design technology itself (CAD and 3D visualization) to create very organic, if not completely amorphous/ameobic forms (Frank Gehry, Greg Lynn). It’s been given various names already – we’ll have to wait a bit to see what the historians decide on.

QUOTE(djold1 @ Feb 25 2007, 07:32 AM) View Post
However, to choose a word that is recognized as placing something in our current time really messes things up. What was Modern in 1900 is not Modern now. Technically, any original art of any class or style produced right now is Contemporary or Modern, but it is only that for a short period.

I think this why you'll find that most historians are careful to use the term "Contemporary" for the now, and "Modern" for "Modern."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users