1099 replies to this topic

[Austin55]

Oh boy

http://www.star-tele...e165663467.html

[Jeriat]

Ugh...

[Dismuke]

 

If I were the property owner and this proposal somehow gets derailed, I would divert all of the resources I could muster to cover that plot with a Chicken Express, a CVS, and a drive through bank.  Talk about sticking up an architectural middle finger.

 

Yep.  My sentiments too. Except I would put in a Dollar General - with a big parking lot complete with oil stains and tacky looking light poles that emit a harsh florescent glow at night.  And I would hang strings of multi-colored shiny foil triangular flags running between the building and the furthest light pole. And along the perimeter of the parking lot nearest the street I would have portable stand up signs advertising lotto tickets and cheap generic cigarettes.  And maybe I could get the T to install an extra large bus stop shelter along the sidewalk  - one that could offer temporary refuge for homeless people and others caught outdoors during a downpour (we do want to be compassionate to the less fortunate, don't we?).  And my guess is the Dollar General would actually do a brisk business both from the surrounding neighborhood and from visitors of the museum.

 

I am all for people having good taste and high aesthetic standards - something which has often been lacking in recent decades.  But, nevertheless, I can't stand pretentious self-appointed aesthetic cops and good taste Nazis.  People build all sorts of buildings that I think are ugly or which I dislike for a variety of other reasons.  I don't take it upon myself to try and stop them.  

 

Freedom includes the freedom to do things that other people do not like and that other people do not approve of - and that is especially true when it comes to anything having to do with the arts and aesthetics.

 

Perhaps the Kimball will someday decide to show paintings that certain people - maybe even a lot of people - disapprove of.  Maybe those people will regard the paintings as morally and aesthetically degenerate and suggest that they are not a "good fit" for Fort Worth and the Cultural District and are inconsistent with the community's aesthetic aspirations.  Maybe those people will start squawking enough and try to intimidate the Kimball into not showing the paintings.  After all, certain people do not like the paintings - they do not approve of the paintings and they do not feel that displaying them is good for the city.

 

The Kimball has no more right to dictate how other people design buildings than other people have a right to dictate what art the Kimball does and does not show.  And if the Kimball wants control and veto power over what does and does not get built on property adjoining its museum then it needs to raise funds to either buy up neighboring properties or else move to a location where it can build a museum within a certain perimeter of land that it does own. 

[Dismuke]

This particular property is an extremely important and impactful location (Camp Bowie at Van Cliburn) to the city as whole. 

The City is being asked to provide millions of dollars in incentives to help this project.  That gives us, as the public, the right to reasonably demand that this design is very good to excellent.  This building will stand for 100+ years probably and we all deserve for it not to be a very mediocre design (as is the current design) that has not done everything it can to be compatible with its surroundings.

 

My guess is the majority of "the public" - i.e, the 850,000 some odd residents of Fort Worth - have little, if any at all, familiarity with the intersection the hotel will sit on. Most can probably count on their fingers the number of times in their entire lives they have visited the Cultural District for reasons other than going to the Stock Show.  And if the Stock Show were to move to Six Flags, apart from the extra drive, I doubt that most would care.

 

And I guarantee you that the vast majority of those 850,000 people do not have particularly strong opinions about architecture.  People like you, me and the others here who are architecture geeks are the exception, not the rule.  Most people would regard our passion and interest in the subject as eccentric at best - and some would go so far as to regard us as being borderline freaks. And the vast majority of the population has little to no interest in art museums and the only time they will ever step inside one is as children on school field trips.

 

I also guarantee you that the vast majority of "the public" is not aware that they are being expected to provide "incentives" to subsidize a five star hotel that will cost more per room per night than any hotel most of them will ever be able to afford so that affluent out-of-towners (who can easily afford a taxi or rental car) can instead take a leisurely stroll to their visit to the museums.  

 

My very strong guess is that if "the public" actually was aware of what was going on, the only "demand" that they would have is that the subsidies be withdrawn and be either returned to them or redirected towards something that they feel would be relevant to their lives.  Most of the population struggles to make ends meet - and they are not particularly keen on the notion of providing subsidies to those who do not face a similar struggle.

 

Personally, looking at the drawings presented here, my own opinion is that the proposed hotel is butt ugly.  Perhaps the finished product will look better than the drawings which is sometimes the case. I visit the Cultural District fairly frequently as it is one of the places I like to go to when I take a long walk. It is not a building that I would particularly want to look at - but there are a lot of buildings that I feel that way about both in the Cultural District and everywhere else in the city.  At the end of the day it is just my opinion.  I tend to have very strong opinions when it comes to architecture.  I guess what makes me different from others is that I don't pretend that developers and property owners somehow have any sort of obligation to take my opinions into consideration - especially in cases where I am not even a potential customer for the project's end use.

[Russ Graham]

Did you read the article?

 

The hotel developers say they are making changes to address the museum's concerns, which I presume means not being able to see the hotel from inside the Kimbell courtyard.  The Museum is pushing for the design overlay to get their points across to future developers earlier in the design process.  It sounds like everybody is getting what they want here - not sure I understand what you guys are reacting to. 

 

I was surprised to learn from the article that

 

the only formal view corridor recognized by the city is in a design overlay district approved a decade ago for Trinity Uptown, now called Panther Island.

 

I thought there was a view corridor for the Amon Carter.

[JBB]

My issue with it is that the museum didn't like the first design, they went through a painstaking process to come up with a compromise that the city council agreed to (and required them to grant a variance, as usual), and now the second design that resulted from the compromise isn't good enough.  As long as the developer keeps relenting, the museum will keep pushing until they end up with what they want: a 1 story strip center or a vacant lot.  And now their answer is this asinine code that limits all hotels in mixed use developments to 5 stories, citywide?  Talk about playing right into the stereotype that Fort Worth is a crappy city for developers.

 

I dislike the ridiculous use of hyperbole by people in the Cultural District: looming buildings, canyon of hotels, the hotel is going to cast a huge shadow over the museum (by some miracle of astronomy we've never seen before).  I also dislike that the Kimbell doesn't have the stones to give their own quotes to the Star Telegram.  How nice of the other museums and their city councilman to carry the water for them.

 

I never thought the view corridor was anything official, just a handshake agreement that came from a bone chilling fear of Anne Marion's wrath from the board room and from beyond the grave.

[Dylan]

Admittedly, I'm okay with having a protected view corridor. I like the Amon Carter view of downtown.

 

That said, this new hotel will not impact the view of downtown from the museums.

 

The five-story limit on hotels elsewhere in the city is just ridiculous!

[Jeriat]

I love this city (and state) to death, but good god we have some dumb rules and ordinances. 

[Austin55]

The new zoning law is the most offensive and short sighted part of this whole ordeal. Hopefully, it will convince hoteliers to build residences in so they can hit the 10 story limit instead (and with the bonus of more residents)

[Jeriat]

My thing is, they ALREADY came up with a compromise. I don't get what the problem is.

[Russ Graham]

with what they want: a 1 story strip center or a vacant lot. 

 

Has anybody said how short the building would have to be to not be seen from the courtyard in question? 

[rriojas71]

with what they want: a 1 story strip center or a vacant lot.

 
Has anybody said how short the building would have to be to not be seen from the courtyard in question?

I think that is just BS coming from people who don't want the hotel built. I've been in that courtyard several times and the building would have to be nearly 20 stories, in my opinion, for you to be standing on your tip toes at the perfect angle and not blinded by sunlight glare for you to contemplate taking the time to notice that building.

The museums are acting like spoiled little children who are used to getting their way.

[renamerusk]

Oh boy

 

A "Canyon of hotels"  - what; when; where?

 

And besides, a guest staying in the hotel may get a glimpse of the Statue Courtyard from afar that may prompt that same guest to visit the museum to get a closer view.  Also, I think that the museums are opening themselves up to a slew of Property Right litigation that will be a waste of their resources better used to acquire art and staffing.

 

This is rich.

[renamerusk]

The museums are acting like spoiled little children who are used to getting their way.

 

 There appears to be a second site within MP that could be used for the hotel - Darcy Street @ Van Cliburn Way.  I wonder if this location would be an acceptable compromise? 

 

As to the museums actions, we will know for certain if they object to the same hotel using this alternative site..

[John T Roberts]

Michael Bennett, of Bennett Benner Partners Architects Planners, asked me to post this on the forum.  Michael and I, along with Bruce Benner were classmates in Graduate School at UTA.  Michael made a presentation to the Fort Worth City Council regarding the Renovo Hotel across from the Kimbell Art Museum.  This is the text of his presentation to Council.

 

His firm did a Before and After Study from inside the Kimbell.

 

[rriojas71]

Boy do I feel like a moron now. :-(

Great text and also a new perspective on the issue

[JBB]

Thanks for posting that, John, and please thank Michael for sharing that information.  It definitely brings some perspective to the discussion.

[Austin55]

BBP is far and away the firm I respect the most in this city, and it's nice to see the visualization. 

I'm not swayed by losing a sliver of the sky though... Preferably Museum Place could work out some sort of compromise,  but if the hotel were built as planned I don't see it as a serious detraction really. 

[Dylan]

Might as well build the hotel at full height if you can still see the hotel at its shorter height.

 

I'd rather have the hotel than preserve Kimbell's view of the sky.

[Dylan]

I'm a bit confused by the 60 foot / 5 story zoning amendment.

 

Sandra Baker said it would apply to mixed-use zoning, then said it would cover zoned property citywide. Huh?

 

She also said the (new?) amendment was added onto a zoning change vote, but Bennett argued for keeping the (existing?) amendment in place.

 

Finally, she says the amendment applies to hotels, but he says it applies to "single use, non-residential buildings." Are office buildings included?

 

------------------------------------------

 

I'm really bothered that this hotel dispute could (did?) affect zoning elsewhere in the city.

[johnfwd]

I can understand the protected-view rationale for a design overlay district in the museum area.  It's an elitist attitude but one grounded in publicly accepted cultural values, I guess.  Funny though, no one complained about protected views when the mid-towers were erected in the West Seventh area near the Cultural District (or did they?).

 

 And I suppose the rationale for having non-residential building height-restrictions in the Stockyards is to preserve the historic environment.  That, too, is a publicly accepted and understood rationale.

 

But I see neither a protected-view or a historic preservation rationale for a design overly district to impose unreasonable height restrictions on non-residential buildings in the planned economic development of Trinity Uptown/Panther Island.  One could argue this is urban growth management, but it smacks of carrying an aesthetic elitism to a tract of land that is neither cultural or historic.  In my view, that's overdoing it.

 

Restricting developers to a 5-story height restriction in mixed-used projects citywide?  Obviously there would be a grandfather clause in such a zoning/planning measure.  If I were a developer I would wonder why I'm being punished for future projects when I look around at existing mixed-use projects around town having non-residential buildings that exceed that height restriction.  So long as a developer complies with city zoning and site plan requirements that are reasonable for a particular locale, he or she should have some leeway in producing a cost-effective and marketable project.

[Austin55]

Star Telegram weighs in.

http://www.star-tele...e166144247.html

[Jeriat]

Star Telegram weighs in.

http://www.star-tele...e166144247.html

 

Getting real tired of the "big city that feels like a small town" label...

[renamerusk]

This really makes very little sense to me. 

 

I'm ready to consider that an effort to deliberately sink this "out-of-town" boutique hotel is a scheme that will make it far easier for those with the idea of building their own boutique hotel to have a clear path.  The idea that a city wide overlay would be imposed just to cover this scheme is shameful cronyism practiced by elitists.  Really - a "Canyon of Hotels" could happen.... Beware the ides of Hilton.

 

Here's some ideas to protect the view of the museums without imposing such a stranglehold upon future development:

 

1. Remove trees

2. Place speed bumps slowing traffic and increasing the time passer-bys have to view the museums

3. No surface parking interfering with the view 

4. Erect view stands

 

Seriously, MP should consider offering its site fronting 7th Street as a compromise, thus stepping away from Camp Bowie and the museums.

[Big Frog II]

I understand keeping an open vista between the museums that were built with this in mind and downtown.  However, to restrict the building of hotels, apartments, etc. in the other directions to 5 floors is just ludicrous. I love our museums, but they should not wield this much power.

[renamerusk]

1. The Kimball has no more right to dictate how other people design buildings than other people have a right to dictate what art the Kimball does and does not show.  And if the Kimball wants control and veto power over what does and does not get built on property adjoining its museum then it needs to raise funds to either buy up neighboring properties or else move to a location where it can build a museum within a certain perimeter of land that it does own. 

 

 

 

2.   His firm did a Before and After Study from inside the Kimbell.

 

 

1. Agreed.

 

This is shameful, selfish and authoritarian.   I would pose question to the museums and Council Shingleton:   If gainful employment for residents is a worthy goal, and if you find it preferable to reduce welfare, and if you want to increase the local tax base;  all things for which this project do for the local economy, then this will be the choice/benefits that you are sacrificing in favor of (2.) a Zen Garden/Outdoor Patio within the Kimbell.

 

I hope that MP and HOA Group understand that the museums do not care about the people outside of its circle and that they make a stand.  I believe that the people of Fort Worth will support their right and their effort to bring new jobs to Fort Worth.   Fortunately, there is an alternate site along 7th Street/Darcy that the project can be constructed; HOA could build the additional 4 stories that it had originally proposed.

 

MP should flip the hotel to 7th and place retail along Camp Bowie. 

[renamerusk]

Michael Bennett, of Bennett Benner Partners Architects Planners, asked me to post this on the forum.

 

 John, perhaps you can suggest to Mr. Bennett, if it has not already been suggested, that MP/HOA consider the vacant lot along 7th Street/Darcy.  This would probably put the hotel out of the sight line of the Kimbell Garden.

[pelligrini]

Michael Bennett, of Bennett Benner Partners Architects Planners, asked me to post this on the forum.  Michael and I, along with Bruce Benner were classmates in Graduate School at UTA.  Michael made a presentation to the Fort Worth City Council regarding the Renovo Hotel across from the Kimbell Art Museum.  This is the text of his presentation to Council.

 

His firm did a Before and After Study from inside the Kimbell.

 

 

Thanks for posting that, glad they provided you the information. I saw the photos and the presentation at the Zoning Commission meeting. I was not able to find the items on the city websites.

[John T Roberts]

The place where it is located on the city's website may be in the recorded broadcast of the meeting. 

[Mr_Brightside526]

What happens when those trees grow up and all you see are leaves out the window? Do they get the axe too?

[renamerusk]

What happens when those trees grow up and all you see are leaves out the window? Do they get the axe too?

 

Nothing shatters a serene peaceful moment in a sculpture garden like the scene of a pair of squirrels chasing one another in a rodent's vortex up and around a tree.

[Dismuke]

This week I did a Google search for images of the Kimbell sculpture and courtyard mentioned in the articles.

 

I now understand and even appreciate to a point where the Kimbell is coming from.  I can see how a tall building would detract from the room as it currently exists and spoil an aspect of it that some  may regard as special.  I will even go so far as to say it would be sad.  So the Kimbell certainly has my empathy on this - but they still don't have my support in terms of stopping the hotel.

 

I also enjoy the views of downtown offered by the cultural district - and, yes, a tall building in the near distance would spoil that view and would be something I would regard as sad. But I don't support them on that either.

 

The problem is if all the many differences between people's preferences and desires that inevitably emerge were settled on an ad hoc basis by emotion and sentiment, the world would quickly become a much more brutal place.

 

The fundamental question here is:  if you own a piece of real estate, what sort of obligations does that impose on other people - and is protecting a view one of them?   I consider the premise that there exists a right to a non-contractually agreed upon "protected view" to be highly dubious.

 

Unless one is out in the middle of nowhere with a large tract of land, it is impossible to put up a building without blocking somebody's view of something.

 

When I was a child the backyards on my parents' side of the street in the suburban tract home development we lived in overlooked a horse pasture, the surviving remnant of an old farm.  We loved that view - and were saddened when eventually bulldozers came in and the pasture was filled with tract houses and the view from our back windows became that of the backside of a couple of ugly houses. 

 

Think of how absurd it would have been for us to make some public demand that the owner of the land forever do nothing with it because it would destroy our backyard view.  And, of course, some years earlier, the construction of my parent's subdivision certainly ruined the view that older houses on the opposite side of that pasture once had. So on what ground would preserving the view from my parent's subdivision be regarded as valid but preserving the view destroyed when that subdivision was built was somehow not valid?

 

Of course, one difference between the residents in my parents' subdivision and the Kimbell is that, unlike the Kimbell, the residents did not have connections and the support of prominent and influential people and no media outlet would have even considered running articles to air their concerns.  In the same way, it is apparently acceptable to destroy serene countryside views with a sea of giant wind turbines in "flyover country" in the name of "green energy" but not ok to build them off the coast of Massachusetts and destroy the seaside views enjoyed by the wealthy and politically powerful.

 

So let's acknowledge from the get-go that, given opinions over what sort of view is considered special and worthy of protection is largely a matter of personal preference (some people couldn't care less about art and others think skylines are an ugly blight on nature) getting a particular view protected is more a matter of having the right political connections than it is about the veracity of one's case.  Again, pretty much every building blocks somebody's view of something.

 

Back in the early days of Fort Worth the view from downtown of what is now the Cultural District would have been that of rolling hills covered with native prairie grasses - which my guess is must have been beautiful.  Should Fort Worth have been forever stunted from expanding to the west in order to protect that view?

 

For a number of years the clock tower of the Tarrant County Courthouse was visible from all parts of town.  It is an impressive building and I am sure that it was the focal point from many vantages that made for a number of special views - views that were later destroyed when the downtown skyscrapers started being erected.  Should Fort Worth have forever banned skyscrapers in order to protect the multiple views of the courthouse that people may have enjoyed - the same skyscrapers that views of which the museums are now saying must be protected?

 

One of the things that stands out when one visits a remote rural area is the nighttime sky - there are so many stars and one can see the Milky Way. It is spectacular.  Here in Fort Worth most of that is invisible at night because the lights that enable us to be safe and continue on with our lives after sunset have blocked out that view.  And if you travel by road a certain distance beyond of the Metroplex at night and look back a significant portion of the sky in that direction consists of an ugly glow that contrasts with the natural darkness in the opposite direction.  Clearly you and I are, by virtue of going about our lives after dark, destroying views that people find special - views of the stars and views of the natural nighttime horizon.  Should we, therefore, ban all artificial outside lighting at night and mandate special curtains to prevent interior lighting from escaping so that people can enjoy the same nighttime sky that our distant ancestors who rarely lived past age 35 once saw?

 

One what basis are the museum's demands for the protection of a specific view somehow more valid than similar demands in the examples I provided? 

 

What such demands essentially ask for is that some aspect of the world be allowed to remain forever static when, in fact, the world around us is constantly changing.  I understand why people have such a desire - sometimes changes come along that we do not like.

 

There have been trends in architecture, popular music, in fashion and personal appearance that I do not care for at all but am constantly exposed to. Do I have a right to stop it?  Plenty of people who live in small towns hate it when the nearby city expands and new residents and developers come in forever changing and even destroying the small town/rural life they loved. Do they have a right to stop them?  Some people do not like it when large numbers of people from different demographic backgrounds or who speak a different language move to a particular neighborhood in large numbers forever altering for existing residents the feel and culture of that part of town. But by what right do they have to stop them?

 

Our personal preferences and our passions - however strong they may be - do not give us a right to demand that the rest of the world remain static and that other people's lives stand still. That is essentially what the museums are asking for.

[RD Milhollin]

I have not heard sale of development rights mentioned as an option for the museum to use to control the view. In Texas, various property rights are "severable" from the surface rights; Restricting the current owner and would-be hotel developer from building to the height proposed effectively takes away value without compensation. In the negotiations about this issue perhaps the museum should offer to purchase development rights so they could set the height limit they feel is best for their adjacent property. Having the city change the zoning and other restrictions after due diligence has already been done seems basically unfair.

[renamerusk]

I have not heard sale of development rights mentioned as an option for the museum to use to control the view....

 

Excellent question.

 

Having the museums purchase the development rights will force them to make a choice between spending resources for art or spending resources for protectionism.

 

The effort to enact an ordinance that could be applied city wide so that the museums can have their way covers their tracks and is unfair to future development which benefits the greater good.

[Russ Graham]

I read the article as saying the restriction applied to MU2 zoning city-wide. Not the same as city-wide whatever the zoning.

[JBB]

I knew that. Why should that zoning be applied to MU-2 citywide just to placate the museums?

[renamerusk]

The hotel developers say they are making changes to address the museum's concerns, which I presume means not being able to see the hotel from inside the Kimbell courtyard.  The Museum is pushing for the design overlay to get their points across to future developers earlier in the design process.  It sounds like everybody is getting what they want here - not sure I understand what you guys are reacting to. 

 

 I am reacting to the potential chill that will come over developers in the future who may have interest in doing something in Fort Worth.  I do not believe that something as local as a property war between adjourning interests should be imposed upon developments beyond this particular row.

 

The City already has the reputation of being controlled by a small and power group of people who get their projects approved and funded without delay; and who are able to halt any project that this group does not want to happen.  A project that it is rumored this group did not want was the federally funded streetcar starter line.

 

The streetcar line was a project that would have been something for the greater good.

[Dylan]

There appears to be several types of zoning under "Mixed-Use Development." https://mapit.fortwo...DistSummary.pdf

 

Hopefully, this restriction only applies to "MU-2" zoning as Russ says, and not other types of mixed-use zoning. There are parts of the Near Southside and Panther Island that should be allowed to see new high rises.

[Russ Graham]

For Mixed Use zoning there have always been "height bonuses" for mixed-use buildings over single-use buildings.  This is supposed to encourage developers to construct buildings with, well, a mix of uses.  Developers know they have to work within zoning restrictions, and there is always give and take with the zoning board.  I think everybody needs to take a step back from the edge on this one.  Like I pointed out before, the developer is still working with the museums to find a solution that works for everybody. 
 
I have to take issue with some specific points I've been reading in this topic.  Please take the following in the spirit in which it is given, that of a friendly exchange of views.  I know as Doohickie pointed out in another thread it is hard to interpret tone over the internet and I know over the years certain topics have been quite contentious on this forum.  This seems to have risen to Forest Park Road Diet levels for some reason.  And I will also say I started off on the side of "let the hotels build what they want" until I saw the view from inside the Maillol courtyard that John posted, I think that would be pretty awful.  That courtyard is pretty special and needs to stay that way.
 
 

One what basis are the museum's demands for the protection of a specific view somehow more valid than similar demands in the examples I provided?

 
According to Wikipedia, "The [Kimbell] was designed by architect Louis I. Kahn and is widely recognized as one of the most significant works of architecture of recent times."  So you ask, on what grounds is that more valid than a farmer's view of his potato fields, or somebody's view of your parent's subdivision?  So the literal answer to your rhetorical question is that it is more valid based on the subjective view of people who care a great deal about architecture. 
 
 

As long as the developer keeps relenting, the museum will keep pushing until they end up with what they want: a 1 story strip center or a vacant lot.  And now their answer is this asinine code that limits all hotels in mixed use developments to 5 stories, citywide?  ...
 
I dislike the ridiculous use of hyperbole by people in the Cultural District...

Do you notice any irony here? Once you've accused others of hyperbole you sort of need to stay on the factual side yourself.
 

 

1. The Kimball has no more right to dictate how other people design buildings than other people have a right to dictate what art the Kimball does and does not show.

No, but the city council has the right and duty to govern development standards, and they are doing their best to encourage developers to work with the museum to find a design that works for everybody.  If the council wasn't doing this, we'd accuse them of not doing their job.
 

This is shameful, selfish and authoritarian.

Rename - I have gotten used to this from you over the years - please, take a breath, step outside, watch the clouds go by, and consider if this is really the best approach to whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.  What the museums are doing is none of the above.  They are being collaborative and creative in finding a solution.  That lot has been empty for a few years now, if it sits empty another couple of years until we get an awesome hotel there it will be just fine.  This end of Fort Worth has come a long way in the last 17 years since the tornado.  And it continues to grow and develop.  There are lots of exciting things going on.  Don't go off the rails based on one little dispute.

[JBB]

I agree with a lot of what you say and I appreciate your perspective. I don't think I engaged in hyperbole by stating something that I believed was true at the time. And it mostly still is true, the only difference being that it's MU2 and not all MU.

[pelligrini]

The recent story change in the Zoning code does affect the proposed hotel, but taking that to mean that all hotels can't be over 5 stories is incorrect. MU-1 and MU-2 aren't meant to have overly large buildings in the first place, especially MU-1. One of the places for that type of zoning is to transition from residential to commercial. This PDF from the City shows it all pretty well. http://fortworthtexa...dforposting.pdf

 

Hotels can be built in many other non-residential Zoning Districts.

[renamerusk]

#1....MU-1 and MU-2 aren't meant to have overly large buildings in the first place, especially MU-1. One of the places for that type of zoning is to transition from residential to commercial....Hotels can be built in many other non-residential Zoning Districts.

 

#2 - For Mixed Use zoning there have always been "height bonuses" for mixed-use buildings over single-use buildings. ....Do you notice any irony here? Once you've accused others of hyperbole you sort of need to stay on the factual side yourself....
 

This is shameful, selfish and authoritarian.

#3 - Rename - I have gotten used to this from you over the years - please, take a breath, step outside, watch the clouds go by, and consider if this is really the best approach to whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.  What the museums are doing is none of the above.  They are being collaborative and creative in finding a solution.  That lot has been empty for a few years now, if it sits empty another couple of years until we get an awesome hotel there it will be just fine.  This end of Fort Worth has come a long way in the last 17 years since the tornado.  And it continues to grow and develop.  There are lots of exciting things going on.  Don't go off the rails based on one little dispute.

 

#1. MU1 promotes a pedestrian oriented urban form; requires excellence in design of the public realm and of buildings that front public spaces; encourages creativity, architectural diversity and exceptional design; promotes sustainable development that minimizes negative impacts on natural resources; promote walk-ability; maximizes connectivity and access; and promotes affordable housing and mixed income communities for, and importantly in areas of conflict between existing residential and planned commercial development.

 

Explain how museums are a part of the MU1 equation: (a single/multi-residential entity) v. (a commercial development [MP]).

 

#2. The Kimbell seems to want us to believe that it is a "single use residential' property and wants the same protection that single family residential property would want in order to prevent a commercial developer from encroaching on the privacy and security of homeowners...that's the real irony and subterfuge.

 

#3. Setting aside your effort to "silence the messenger(s)"; this is the place to get use to hearing the unpleasant truth about institutions that will not hesitate to pull strings to achieve their goals. The "whatever it is [I] am trying to accomplish" is to verbalize that "We see what you are doing Kimbell" and that it is a blatant move on your part to guise your true motive to limit, force compromise upon or even halt the a property owner's legitimate right to use their property at its best return. It is questionable whether the museum is being collaborative and whether or not they want any solution other than the denial of this project outright.  This lot is empty which is true, but it is also true that is has remained unproductive for years; and what is even truer, it does not belong to the museum.  As a property owner, it should be perfectly in their right to demand legal compensation from the museum for "loss of investment return or the restraint of greater returns".  I would certainly be open to such compensation were it to reach civil litigation.

 

True, Fort Worth has come along way but suggesting that the museum deserves special recognition for the rebirth the City following the tornado is a point that is truly off a rail;  or to give credit to the museum for spurring the on going surrounding development is as bemusing as the published statement of a concern for a "Canyon of Hotels" - what hotel group would want to waste their time, energy and planning to give you and the Kimbell an awesome hotel?  Do you even have evidence that in a couple of years a hotel will be developed on this lot?; when HOA Group has indicated that time/cost is a critical factor in getting this project underway.

 

RG, perhaps you are privy to insiders information that provides with support for your position; but to me as an outsider, the museum's maneuvers appear overly intrusive and self serving at the expense of the greater good.

[Russ Graham]

True, Fort Worth has come along way but suggesting that the museum deserves special recognition for the rebirth the City following the tornado is a point that is truly off a rail;  or to give credit to the museum for spurring the on going surrounding development is as bemusing as the published statement of a concern for a "Canyon of Hotels" - what hotel group would want to waste their time, energy and planning to give you and the Kimbell an awesome hotel?  Do you even have evidence that in a couple of years a hotel will be developed on this lot?; when HOA Group has indicated that time/cost is a critical factor in getting this project underway.

 

Well the neighboring development of which the hotel is part is called Museum Place, which might indicate to the alert observer that the developers consider the museums to be a selling point.  Also it's called the "Cultural District" which wouldn't make a lot of sense without there being museums there...  Do I have evidence for what is going to be developed there? Beyond the site plan, nope. 

 

RG, perhaps you are privy to insiders information that provides with support for your position; but to me as an outsider, the museum's maneuvers appear overly intrusive and self serving at the expense of the greater good.

 

Nope, I read the same news articles you do.  I actually don't even live in Fort Worth anymore, I moved to Baltimore last year.  I have a rental house in the area which is why I keep lurking around here & reading the news articles people post... I just see the glass half full where you see it half empty.  But where there's room for disagreement about what "the powers that be" should do, I feel like the name calling and end of the world kind of language that starts to come up is a little much.  That's all I'm trying to say.

[pelligrini]

 

Explain how museums are a part of the MU1 equation: (a single/multi-residential entity) v. (a commercial development [MP]).

 

Don't need to, they aren't part of it. https://mapit.fortwo...57274.058443638

 

The properties to the North are MU-2. Going North; MU-1 is on the other side of 7th transitioning to residential beyond. There's a lot of MU-2 to the East as well.

[renamerusk]

The recent story change in the Zoning code does affect the proposed hotel, but taking that to mean that all hotels can't be over 5 stories is incorrect. MU-1 and MU-2 aren't meant to have overly large buildings in the first place, especially MU-1. One of the places for that type of zoning is to transition from residential to commercial....

 

 

Don't need to, they [museums] aren't part of it....The properties to the North are MU-2. Going North; MU-1 is on the other side of 7th transitioning to residential beyond. There's a lot of MU-2 to the East as well.

 

Its difficult to follow your reasoning. First you include the museums in the MU-1 code; and then you admit that in fact they are not.

 

And if you concede that the museums are not within the scope of any MU-1 code zone; then you would need to concede that they have no "standing"; A position that I would find myself in if I opposed DFW landing and take off patterns from my home miles away. I would have no "standing" to raise a credible objection.

 

The museums are in over their skis. The museum would have shown more collaborative if it had negotiated for a different location with MP/HOA and who would have likely made such accommodations to the museum.  Instead, the museum is coming across rightfully so as an upper crust bully who is shielding its actions under the umbrella of doing something for the good of the city widespread but in reality working its will and having its way.

[pelligrini]

Hmm, I didn't ever say that the museums were zoned MU. There is MU-2 adjacent to it, and on the subject property to the north. You placed them in MU-1. They are actually a PD/CF. I was really commenting on the discussion about the city's new blanket change to the height restriction for MU-2 and what JBB posted. I was trying to avoid the pedantic discussion about the museums and their rights and/or non-rights.

 

I don't know if it was ever codified, but I do recall some height restrictions between the museums and downtown. I haven't been able to locate too much about it though.

[renamerusk]

Hmm, I didn't ever say that the museums were zoned MU. There is MU-2 adjacent to it, and on the subject property to the north. You placed them in MU-1...

 

I do not know who actually used the MU-1 code in this debate.  I do know that you introduced it before it was referenced by me. re: post #691; hence the confusion.

 

Regardless, it does beg the question as to why is the museum involving itself in the MU-1 code debate if it does not have standing in the matter.

[renamerusk]

If we could have something like this, I could be silenced. -

 

https://www.designbo...pan-05-20-2016/

[John T Roberts]

Yes, that would be nice, but it is very small.

[renamerusk]

Yes, that would be nice, but it is very small.

 

I know. A larger hotel would be required, but the museums would absolutely "wet their pants" over this design.