Demolition of the Landmark Tower (380 ft., 420 with clock)
#1 eastfw76
Posted 16 May 2004 - 12:07 PM
#2
Posted 16 May 2004 - 01:10 PM
#3 DaPanther84
Posted 16 May 2004 - 03:14 PM
#4
Posted 17 May 2004 - 12:31 AM
#5
Posted 17 May 2004 - 10:29 PM
As I recall, bland would be a compliment. The hallways seemed cold and boring. This is speaking form the early 60's when we used to run/walk up the stairs periodically. At he time the 30th floor was completely unfinished and it afforded a 360 deg. view. They had a cafeteria on maybe the 17th floor to break the monotony of at least that floor.
#6
Posted 18 May 2004 - 12:03 AM
#7
Posted 18 May 2004 - 12:05 AM
If it is true that it is coming down, I think it is kind of sad - primarily for the reason DaPanther gave about it removing height from the skyline.
As to the building itself - well, I have very mixed feelings about it. I remember when I visited and explored downtown Fort Worth about a year or so before I moved here seeing the building and thinking "gee, how ugly." Part of the building looked like it was actually rusting. Not knowing much at the time about Fort Worth's history, I also wondered if it was perhaps an early 20th century skyscraper that somebody came along and covered up with ugly panels as was done with the Praetorian Building in Dallas.
In some respects, apart from its decay, I think the building looked better on the skyline in recent decades than it did when it was new. I have seen photos of the skyline shortly after it was completed and thought how incongruous and ugly it looked in contrast to rest of the skyscrapers which were all built in the late '20s or earlier. However, with the addition of the all-glass skyscrapers in the '70s and '80s, the building does not stick out like such a sore thumb and provides a bit of contrast.
I only vaguely remember the clock on the rare visits to Fort Worth I made with my parents when I was a kid. Somebody actually got the thing to work for a brief period around the time I moved to Fort Worth in 1990. By that time the CNB letters had been replaced with an "Empire of America" sign. I can't say that I was ever very impressed by the clock - but that could simply be because of my age. When I was growing up, digital clocks were all the rage and digital watches were very popular. To me, digital clocks look cheap and commonplace. On the other hand, back in the 1950s, they were rare and I am sure that the clock must have been quite a novelty and probably looked very futuristic to people.
I think it is interesting to compare and contrast the Landmark Tower with the original Republic Bank Building (the one with the rocket ship tower on top) in Dallas. The two buildings are of a similar style in that they both have aluminum facades and a certain 1950s "futuristic" look to them. The Republic Bank Building is actually 3 years older than Landmark. But notice the dramatic difference in how each building has aged. Landmark Tower has always looked tired and ragged in the 14 years I have been in the city and I am sure it probably did for several years before that as well. The Republic Bank Building held up remarkably well even before the complex was redeveloped in the late '90s. Landmark looks more than just dated (being dated is not necessarily a bad thing); it looks obsolete. The Republic Bank Building has a certain timeless quality about it and I think is one of if not the best 1950s skyscrapers I have seen. Even in pictures from its hey day, Landmark tower looks very low budget compared to Republic Bank. The Republic rocket ship tower is still very impressive. If the Landmark Tower clock were to be rebuilt and duplicated back to its original condition, it would look somewhat clunky and primitive by modern standards.
My point is that, even by 1950s skyscraper standards, Landmark Tower was not all that remarkable a building. Still, it is the only one of its kind that Fort Worth has so, for me, that would make its possible demise somewhat sad. But I can't blame XTO if they do decide to get rid of it.
And as far as ugly eyesores that need to be removed from the skyline go, Landmark Tower, even in its present condition, does not hold the top spot. The "honor" for that goes to the Southwestern Bell Building.
#8 tcole
Posted 18 May 2004 - 06:25 AM
I walked every floor in 1990 to do a tennant survey (very few with the exception of the first few floors). The finish-out as I recal was indeed very periodic, but more so that represented early 1970s style than the period of the buildings construction. One interesting space of note was that there was one suite in the upper floors that was designed with a stairwell over a fountain.
#9 Hannerhan
Posted 20 May 2004 - 06:20 AM
#10
Posted 21 May 2004 - 05:06 PM
#11 eastfw76
Posted 21 May 2004 - 10:14 PM
#12
Posted 03 June 2004 - 07:48 AM
#13
Posted 03 June 2004 - 10:15 AM
You and I are in total agreement about Fort Worth and Charlotte. The difference is that Charlotte anchors their area and we play second fiddle (I hate that).
Hopefully, the current tide will continue and we will get some skyline altering construction soon.
Peace
#14
Posted 04 June 2004 - 04:43 PM
I rember as a child going up to the 17th floor cafeteria. I remember the ceilings being very low in the hallways. My mother and I sat on the part facing the south side and watched the arena on TCCC being built.Has anyone here ever been inside the building? If so, what is it like? I have looked in the ground floor window some while back so that much I have seen. What are the upper floors like? Do they have a very 1950s appearance? Or are they mostly non-descript and bland?
I will be very sad to see it go.
#15
Posted 06 June 2004 - 10:47 PM
I remember back when they were planning to tear down The Tower, and I was thinking one day, what would someone driving through Fort Worth on the interstate, possibly never have been there before, and not aware of the impending demolition of the former Bank One Tower, suddenly, when its imploded, they saw it crumbling down.
#16 ghughes
Posted 07 June 2004 - 04:50 AM
#17
Posted 19 June 2004 - 12:32 PM
#18
Posted 22 June 2004 - 12:44 PM
#19
Posted 22 June 2004 - 09:25 PM
#20 David Love
Posted 24 September 2004 - 11:11 AM
Creditors to get insurance money in Landmark Tower case
By Sandra Baker
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
FORT WORTH - Creditors in a bankruptcy case against the former owner of downtown's Landmark Tower may be paid from a $7.4 million insurance settlement reached in a civil lawsuit over coverage for damage the building sustained in the March 2000 tornado.
According to a motion filed this week in the proceeding in federal bankruptcy court in Fort Worth, the trustee and the petitioning creditors initiated settlement talks with Boston-based Lexington Insurance Co. about four weeks ago and recently reached an agreement.
The settlement is the only remaining asset of FWTX Building, which is owned by Scott Christensen of New Cannan, Conn. FWTX bought the building in 1996 and was never able to fulfill plans to turn the office tower into a residential high-rise.
"I have no reason to oppose the settlement," Christensen said Thursday. "I'm very happy that all the creditors will get paid close to a large percentage of what they're owed."
The 30-story Landmark Tower, once known as the Texas Building, 200 W. Seventh St., was sold to XTO Energy of Fort Worth for $5.5 million in a trustee sale in January.
Proceeds from that sale went to the Miami financial institution that loaned Christensen the money to buy the building.
To date, there are 18 creditors who have filed claims totaling $4.3 million. The number of creditors likely will rise before an Oct. 13 deadline to file claims.
A court hearing is scheduled for Oct. 14 on the trustee's motion to accept the insurance settlement and pay creditors.
FWTX Building was involuntarily placed in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in February, one month after a bankruptcy judge dismissed FWTX Building from Chapter 11 protection because Christensen was unable to reorganize his business.
The move allowed creditors to seek civil judgments against FWTX Building's assets.
#21
Posted 25 September 2004 - 01:01 AM
If I were developing that lot in this market (very tight downtown office market), I would add some spec office to the garage (at least 90,0000 SF on top of the garage) and retail on the ground floor.
Furthermore, I would design it so that few people knew most of the floors are parking. Charleston has several great examples of attractive parking garages.
#22
Posted 25 September 2004 - 06:51 AM
#23
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:05 AM
John, do you know how much space XTO has between the Baker Bldg. and W.T.?
#24
Posted 28 September 2004 - 10:22 PM
Is there a strong market for small business (5-50 employees) to lease these smaller buildings, or are large corporate / branch offices the trend?
I'm in the Life and Annuity business and most the small businesses I know of in Fort Worth stay outside of the CBD.
#25
Posted 29 September 2004 - 06:38 PM
So, going back to Johnny's point... how do large towers become reality - does a large company have to want to enter the CBD market to warrant a tower being built, or does someone just have to build the tower to attract new companies into the core? Is this a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" situation? Or, does the market demand typically have to exceed the 100% mark before towers start to be needed?
I've never really been in an industry that deals with that sort of thing so I am just curious how it all sort of comes together. You would think that as TIF happy as FW is right now, developers would be clammoring to build new skyscrapers in a city growing the way FW is... Anyone have any opinions or theories on why new large towers (40+ stories) aren't being considered in FW given the current growth rate?
#26
Posted 29 September 2004 - 09:12 PM
The W.T. Waggoner Building's size is tougher because of the light well. That building is 75' x 95' with 20 floors.
#27
Posted 02 December 2004 - 08:19 PM
#28
Posted 02 December 2004 - 08:27 PM
Here's the link to the Business Press article:
http://www.fwbusines...ebath=&subname=
#29
Posted 02 December 2004 - 10:50 PM
#30
Posted 02 December 2004 - 11:02 PM
#31
Posted 03 December 2004 - 08:47 AM
It's a shame if they don't implode the building. This is our last chance to blow something up for a while.
#32
Posted 05 December 2004 - 11:22 PM
It's a shame if they don't implode the building. This is our last chance to blow something up for a while.
Perhaps we could convince someone that the Southwestern Bell Building needs to be imploded. I know... wishful thinking.
#33
Posted 06 December 2004 - 09:15 AM
#34
Posted 10 December 2004 - 01:17 AM
Still, because of the moderate size of the market, developers will be reluctant to build any speculative buildings any larger than about 75,000 SF. So, they look for large tenants to become "lead" tenants in new buildings.
If XTO agreed to take 150,000 SF of office space at $25 plus electric per sf for 10 years, I think developers would be willing to construct a new building of up to around 250,000 - 300,000 SF and accept the leasing risk on the balance of the space. A new building will cannibalize tenants from older ones, so the main question is whether tenants in older, less expensive buildings will be willing to pay the premium rent required to justify the new development. The Bank One Building is quoting around $24 per SF I think - so that's probably the ballpark rate for new office space now (maybe higher now b/c of concrete and steel prices).
In my opinion, Downtown Fort Worth is experiencing a shift (increase) in demand due to the office market's (i.e. tenants) growing desire to locate down here.
I will bet that as firms consider their office locations in North Texas, a slightly higher percentage will consider Downtown Fort Worth, which will grow that modest annual absorption rate mentioned above. It's starting to get noticed -- it just takes a while for the improved quality of life to result in firms moving their offices.
#35
Posted 19 December 2004 - 03:00 AM
By the way, I would be happy with any of the crowned buildings pictured; well with the exception of that 60'ish steel and glass building along the river.
http://www.wirednewy...rmers_trust.htm
"Keep Fort Worth Folksy & Art Deco-eeee!"
#36
Posted 19 December 2004 - 11:37 AM
I have posted a couple of photos of NYC's City Bank Farmers Building in Wall Street. Its the building with the white limestone crown and white limestone trimming; its 226m or 742ft tall (54 stories) and the one building I always look for when eyeing the Manhattan skyline. I think it is one of the loveliest skyscrapers in the world.
Wow! That is a very impressive building - one that has somehow up to now escaped my attention. Thanks for posting the link.
#37
Posted 19 December 2004 - 11:56 AM
http://www.emporis.c...id=115455&aid=8
Here is an elevation drawing that shows an entire side of the structure - something very difficult to capture in a photograph due to surrounding buildings.
http://www.geocities...ftcbuilding.htm
It would indeed be something if someone would put up a new building along similar lines here in Fort Worth. And a skyline like Fort Worth's is a good one to do it in as well as it would stand out more. Wouldn't it be great if something like that were built here and ended up being so well received that it sparked a new, nationwide Art Deco renaissance/revival movement?
#38
Posted 19 December 2004 - 12:24 PM
I doubt very seriously that XTO will build anything on the Landmark Tower site that is as tall as the building they are replacing. If I had to guess, I would say that the new building won't be any taller than 20 stories.
#39
Posted 19 December 2004 - 12:41 PM
#40
Posted 19 December 2004 - 12:43 PM
I doubt very seriously that XTO will build anything on the Landmark Tower site that is as tall as the building they are replacing. If I had to guess, I would say that the new building won't be any taller than 20 stories.
That would probably make sense given current market conditions. While it would be neat if such a building were built as Fort Worth's tallest since our current tallest skyscrapers are pretty bland, drab and sterile, a 20 story building done in a similar style would still be great. And one of the things that is nice about that style is, with its strong emphasis on the vertical, it gives buildings the appearance of being taller. And imagine how such a building would look lit up at night.
#41
Posted 19 December 2004 - 06:35 PM
If the building was a residential over office it would just have two separate entrance lobbies.
#42
Posted 19 December 2004 - 06:57 PM
Just a little food for thought.
#43
Posted 19 December 2004 - 07:55 PM
Such small floors as those of the lower Manhattan building shown above wouldn't be feasible for contemporary office use. Smaller ones, such as 10 - 15,000 sf could, however, work as condos or apartments.
I did a bit of digging around the web for information on the City Bank Farmers Trust /20 Exchange Place Building and it turns out that the plans are to convert it from its existing use as office space into residential.
#44
Posted 19 December 2004 - 08:02 PM
I'm disappointed that XTO is going to tear down a 30 story building and replace it with something shorter... and probably boxy and boring.
It is possible that might happen. On the other hand the people who run XTO obviously have very excellent taste when it comes to architecture and take an active interest in its architectural heritage - as evidenced by what they have done with the W.T. Waggoner and Baker Buildings. Indeed, part of their stated reason for buying the Landmark Tower - a building that is absolutely nothing but a financial liability - was because it was such a blight on downtown. With their track record to date, I just don't see them putting up some cheap generic building.
The buildings that were build in the 1980's in FW helped raise the height of the skyline, but in my opinion, they weren't very creative when designing them.
I agree completely. In fact, the 1980s buildings on the Fort Worth skyline look to me like something more typical of the 1970s. Look at some of the buildings that were added to the Dallas skyline in the 1980s - several of them are quite excellent. The ones that were put up in Fort Worth - well, I think Carter+Burgess is the best of the lot, but that's really not saying very much, is it?
#45
Posted 19 December 2004 - 09:13 PM
#46
Posted 19 December 2004 - 09:36 PM
Absolutely! I hope whatever they build is expensive, out of the ordinary, and most importantly: Ultra-Modern.With their track record to date, I just don't see them putting up some cheap generic building.
Seriously though, I would hate for them to waste an opportunity to make a future landmark by putting up a close interpertation of an old design. Buildings from the 1930's are great because they're from the 1930's, but this is 2004. Fort Worth has enough old buildings to still be charming, I think we can risk something current.
#47
Posted 19 December 2004 - 10:48 PM
#48
Posted 21 November 2005 - 08:39 AM
#49
Posted 21 November 2005 - 10:47 AM
www.iheartfw.com
#50
Posted 22 November 2005 - 10:40 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users