Smith-Swinney Motor Co. Bldg. Up For Demolition Before Landmarks Commission
#1
Posted 04 January 2006 - 07:34 PM
Over the last several years, this building has been vacant and has been deteriorating rapidly. Most of the roof is now gone. The Goodyear building behind it is also in sad shape and both buildings support each other. If one is demolished, the other will collapse. This is clearly a case of demolition by neglect. In 2004 and 2005, this building made Historic Fort Worth's Community Assets Prioritized for Preservation (CAPP) List. The CAPP List is basically an Most Endangered List. Unfortunately, after looking at the structure, it is my opinion that the building cannot be saved.
The owner is possibly planning a new development for the site. Whatever the proposal will be, the owner will have to go in front of the Downtown Design Review Board for his project. My opinion is that the owner should be allowed to demolish the building, but stablize the West 7th Street facade and then incorporate that portion of the building into his new project. A taller, modern building could be set back from the face of the existing wall, and the material could be changed from the third floor up. Any opinions? This is one of only three automobile oriented structures that still remain along West 7th. Because it is an endangered building type, then something of the original should be integrated into the new project. If some of you believe that nothing should be saved, please give your opinions on why you are for the building to be totally demolished. If there are some who think this building should be restored at all costs, please let give those opinions, as well.
#2
Posted 04 January 2006 - 08:56 PM
John, you have some standing with the Historical Commission don't you? What sort of recomendations would you be willing to make as to how and when to proceed on getting historical plaques placed on some of the more historic structures that are still standing?
(This inhales vigorously!)
#3
Posted 04 January 2006 - 11:41 PM
That actually involves a long answer. I will get back to you with more details. Currently, I am serving as the Chair of the Resources and Recognitions Committe of HFW, Inc. and that is one of our missions. We are actively seeking ways to get some of our valuable resource structures designated as local historic landmarks.
My committee has not formed an official opinion on where the organization will stand on the building or its facade. Currently the building is designated "Demolition Delay", but the city is asking a delay of only 60 days instead of 180 because it is a health hazard. It's late, so I will have more later.
#4
Posted 05 January 2006 - 01:22 AM
The Goodyear building behind it is a horrible mess and the sooner they do something to improve it the better!
#5
Posted 05 January 2006 - 08:25 AM
That's a real shame that the city has let the building deteriorate to the point where they are talking about demolition. I've been driving by that building for a couple of years wondering when somebody would come in and refurbish it. I always thought it would be a good location for a restaurant or cafe. If the building is too far gone to save completely, then I like John's idea of at least incorporating the front facade into a new structure.
The Goodyear building behind it is a horrible mess and the sooner they do something to improve it the better!
Ditto. I'd like to see it saved, but if the economics don't work what can you do? I'd be curious to see some drawings for incorporating the facade. I'm having trouble picturing it.
#6
Posted 05 January 2006 - 08:36 AM
#7
Posted 05 January 2006 - 01:25 PM
Here are some photos taken by TowersNYC from skyscrapercity.com:
#8
Posted 05 January 2006 - 01:33 PM
I think a great example of incorporating a historic facade into a modern tower is the Hearst Magazine Tower in New York. It took a 6 story building, gutted the interior, made that space the atrium, and then stuck a stunning ~40 story tower in the middle set back from the street. Of course, I doubt there's enough room for a big setback in this case (or a 40 story tower ), but I think that would be the best way to incorporate the facade.
Those pictures remind me of the remodeled Soldier Field in Chicago - and that's not really a positive thing either. A new structure stuck into an old facade.
#9
Posted 05 January 2006 - 05:55 PM
Funny you should say that. The development company behind that debacle had approached my restaurant a year or two ago in seeking an anchor business. The numbers were WAAAAY off. I still have the info from them, concept pics, demographs and images. Would be a neat-o place for development of some sort. They talked about a laundr-o-mat going in there too. Great res. location, too close to the BIG church for a rowdy bar or alcohol licensed restaurant though. Maybe?
Last I recall, them LINCOLN boys own the property. Not much a surprise in how it turned out these last couple of years.
If the numbers were right, I would have already been in there. Boils down to the numbers.
Doggone SHAME.
Roof was long gone some 2 years ago. Ditto on Soldier Field, but cool how the new metallic finish comes out at you and OVER you when driving along Lakeshore Dr S.
www.iheartfw.com
#10
Posted 05 January 2006 - 10:54 PM
I think a great example of incorporating a historic facade into a modern tower is the Hearst Magazine Tower in New York. It took a 6 story building, gutted the interior, made that space the atrium, and then stuck a stunning ~40 story tower in the middle set back from the street. Of course, I doubt there's enough room for a big setback in this case (or a 40 story tower ), but I think that would be the best way to incorporate the facade.
Jonny, the site is too small for a 40 story tower. Something like that could be done behind the Smith-Swinney facade, only on a smaller scale. What is interesting about the Hearst Magazine Building is that the historic portion of the building, built in 1928, was actually a planned base for a taller building that was never built. The structure was only designed to handle seven additional floors for a total of 13, that's why they had to demolish everything but the facade of the base to build a 40 story building behind it. Older buildings were always over designed, but not by that much. This building is actually one of my favorite new skyscrapers in New York. I do think that something like this on a smaller scale would be appropriate for the 7th and Henderson corner.
Pup, I still owe you more information, but it will have to wait until the weekend.
#11
Posted 09 January 2006 - 09:00 PM
The Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission Meeting was today. The city staff supported cutting the demolition delay period to 90 days instead of 180 days. The owner stated that he had no plans for the property and just wanted to clear it, so that it would be easier to market and develop. Several people spoke against demolition and the Commission voted to put the full 180 day Demolition Delay on the property. If you wish to see the entire presentation, I would suggest for the Fort Worth residents to catch Cable Channel 7 over the course of the next month to view the replay. The case came up about 1 1/2 hours into the meeting.
Also, those of you who are interested in saving the building, or at least the facade, you should talk to your City Council person, the owner, Historic Fort Worth, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and any other preservation group or agency.
#12
Posted 11 January 2006 - 06:25 PM
Of course the link would help wouldn't it?
http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/13602507.htm
#13
Posted 11 January 2006 - 10:48 PM
I think the thing that disturbs me the most is that our Demolition Delay Historic Designation is almost worthless. Through working in the preservation community, the only thing that it accomplishes is that the building stands 6 month longer than the developer originally wanted. The 180 day clock starts ticking the day the demolition permit is filed. Depending on the date, the next H&CLC meeting may be as much as 30 days later. The next problem with the ordinance is that the interested parties and the owner only are required to have one meeting to see if there are alternatives for the structure. The time of the meeting is not set by the ordinance. In other words, it could happen on day 180 and the bulldozers could move in the next day.
In 2003, the City of Fort Worth hired some consultants to prepare a preservation plan for the city. It was adopted and very few things have been implemented in the plan. Pup, I think this is part of the answer to your question. The city should adhere more closely with the plan and implement the suggestions made by the consultants. I think in doing this, more buildings would be designated with either higher levels of protection or more structures without designations would get them.
Sandra Baker's story is one of the best preservation articles I have seen in the Star-Telegram in many months.
#14
Posted 11 January 2006 - 11:50 PM
Is this an election year? Not sure, maybe somebody could help me on that.
www.iheartfw.com
#15
Posted 12 January 2006 - 01:24 AM
#16
Posted 12 January 2006 - 03:50 PM
How do we finance this MOVEMENT. Forget the INCREMENTAL Institutional baby steps thingy. I want to "hit em in the mouth" and see how they react or respond.
This basically tells us that our city officials and our city departments cannot take care of our preservation efforts and that we have NO "Solution Savvy" city officials on board. PROVE ME WRONG here folks.
www.iheartfw.com
#17
Posted 12 January 2006 - 05:16 PM
#18
Posted 19 January 2006 - 09:18 PM
What sort of recomendations would you be willing to make as to how and when to proceed on getting historical plaques placed on some of the more historic structures that are still standing?
Pup, I think the answer to your question is through education. If our City Council, property owners, developers, and general citizens were more aware of the benefits of preservation vs. demolition or deterioration, then more structures might be designated. There are local tax incentives available for preservation projects, but most people aren't aware of them.
I also think the general public should be made aware of the structures that are already designated. Even though there are three levels of historic designation available to structures (National, State, and Local), only local ordinances actually provide any protection for the building. It is always nice to know which structures contribute to the history of the nation and the state, these designations do not guarantee the structure will be saved. Then when you look at the local designations, you really see that some of our "historic" buildings either aren't designated at all, or they have little or no protection. Several times on this board, I've tried to steer the members toward doing the research to find out such information. If the general citizenry discovered that many of our cherished buildings could be demolished tomorrow, they might urge City Council to approve more designations and upgrade others to give more protection. Buildings that are on our Demolition Delay list only get a 180 day demolition reprieve, that is the only protection this designation offers.
#19
Posted 19 January 2006 - 10:21 PM
That is EXACTLY why I refused to even consider making a $300/sqft. deal for the HPL units plus the taxes. The owners had to have know about the tax incentives. HECK, I knew about em. When I asked they had "No Comment" about it and said that it was never REALLY looked into. The HPL is in a historic building and I KNOW they had to have known about it.
There are also tax incentives for OPERATING a business in a historical site or building too.
Perhaps somebody could post the website which helps explain the benefits of preservation. I've seen it before.
Could somebody do a quick rendering on a proposed remodeling of the Smith-Swinney MC Building. Condo or business. The REATA specs seem a bit elementary, but it could still work.
www.iheartfw.com
#20
Posted 18 February 2006 - 07:53 AM
On Thursday, I attended the Consultation Meeting regarding this building. I have attended a few of these lately on Demolition Delay buildings and it was the best meeting of type. I can't actually say that we saved the building, but there is a small glimmer of hope that it won't be demolished.
The property owners presented two different sets of architectural plans that they had drawn for redeveloping the building. Although the building has been sitting roofless since before the March 2000, tornado, the event that spurred the owners to seek demolition was that the City's Code Enforcement Department started issuing warnings. It was agreed that if Code Enforcement could be satisfied with the stabilization of the building, the owner would not start demolition on day 181. The end of the 180 day Demolition Delay is May 16, 2006.
Two parties interested in the building were also in attendance. One was interested in actually purchasing the entire block and it appeared that the other party could be satisfied with a lease.
Overall, it was a good meeting and we can keep our fingers crossed that one of the last buildings on Automobile Row will remain standing until a redevelopment plan can be worked out.
#21
Posted 18 February 2006 - 02:54 PM
The property owners presented two different sets of architectural plans that they had drawn for redeveloping the building.
Are you at liberty to elaborate on the architectural plans for us? Did they have renderings, or just rough site plans? I'd be interested in knowing exactly what they want to do with the building if they don't want to tear it down (as long as you can tell us).
#22
Posted 18 February 2006 - 03:06 PM
The architectural plans submitted were two separate designs by two different architects. The plans were full sets of construction documents to restore the building and convert the Goodyear building into smaller retail shops. The Site Plan was fully dimensioned and drawn. Site details were included for construction. The same was true of the floor plans and the elevations. The two sets of plans could have been put out for bids or issued for permitting.
#23
Posted 26 February 2006 - 06:47 AM
The property owners presented two different sets of architectural plans that they had drawn for redeveloping the building.
Are you at liberty to elaborate on the architectural plans for us? Did they have renderings, or just rough site plans? I'd be interested in knowing exactly what they want to do with the building if they don't want to tear it down (as long as you can tell us).
If it is who I still think it is, then John is correct. Small retail shops, guard rail walkway along 7th and some facade detail preserved. The northside is what I remember, small retail units( 3 to 5) facing N, one endcap approx. 5K sqft. There was a designed drive thru parking for tenants and customers between Lexington (?side street) and 5th or 6th (street connected on N side). One way drive route would be established. Plans look great to me at the time, just too pricey for entry level activity.
www.iheartfw.com
#24
Posted 26 February 2006 - 08:41 AM
#25
Posted 31 October 2006 - 11:56 PM
Has anybody heard anything lately about the building? I would hate to lose it - it's a lovely thing, one of the few parts of Automobile Row still standing, and fits the area so well.
--
Kara B.
#26
Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:26 PM
By the way is this building near Downtown?
Photographically Preserving Dallas/Fort Worth One Building at a time
http://www.flickr.co...s/70886669@N00/
#27
Posted 12 November 2006 - 01:29 PM
Usaully means go time for the demo crews witrhin less the two weeks
Photographically Preserving Dallas/Fort Worth One Building at a time
http://www.flickr.co...s/70886669@N00/
#28
Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:07 PM
#29
Posted 12 November 2006 - 10:42 PM
#30
Posted 12 November 2006 - 11:09 PM
#31
Posted 15 November 2006 - 10:11 PM
#32
Posted 28 February 2007 - 11:43 AM
#33
Posted 28 February 2007 - 12:16 PM
Or maybe just a butcher, baker, and grocery for all the apartment dwellers.
#34
Posted 28 February 2007 - 12:32 PM
We can only hope that a walking-friendly, mixed-use, urban-styled complex will replace it.
Or maybe just a butcher, baker, and grocery for all the apartment dwellers.
Butcher, baker, grocery are all quite happy in a mixed-use urban development. I just don't want to see it come at the expense of the Smith-Swinney building.
I tend to doubt that the owner has any actual plan for the property. If he does, I'll be surprised. If it's a quality urban project, I'll be even more surprised given the Upper West Side's track record thus far.
--
Kara B.
#35
Posted 28 February 2007 - 12:35 PM
A Demolition Permit was issued yesterday morning on the building. Since the 180 Demolition Delay expired on May 16, 2006, demolition can begin immediately.
Grrr. This makes me absolutely livid. Especially considering the fact that multiple proposals were given to the owner, and they still let it die of neglect, and will still tear it down.
--
Kara B.
#36
Posted 01 March 2007 - 08:10 PM
#37
Posted 01 March 2007 - 08:39 PM
www.iheartfw.com
#38
Posted 01 March 2007 - 10:25 PM
#39
Posted 02 March 2007 - 12:49 AM
When the owners met with Historic Fort Worth, all possibilities were presented to them. We were told at the Demolition Delay conference that they did not want to spend any additional time or money on the building. The only good thing to come of the Demolition Delay conference is that they agreed not to demolish the building immediately after the 180 days expired (May 16, 2006). I'm not saying this is a victory, but at least we had a chance to view the building's facade for an additional 9 1/2 months. There may have been some redevelopment possibilities surfacing within that time frame, but they probably fell through.
Oh well.
So, next on the agenda is the unoccupied building formerly occupied by FW Weekly. If we can get that one demolished, there'll be no remaining trace of automobile row on the east side of the river. Except, of course, for the cutesy-crapsy Firestone building. ICK.
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?
#40
Posted 02 March 2007 - 08:53 AM
Oh well.
That's not the response I expected from you FE. Where's the torch and pitchfork? Tar and feathers?
This is one of the preservation battles I do/did support. It was a great little building, with some history, and possibilties. What a shame. Unlike the UW building, this one will be missed and the city is worse off without it.
#41
Posted 02 March 2007 - 10:18 AM
So, next on the agenda is the unoccupied building formerly occupied by FW Weekly.
I don't actually think it's unoccupied, just not fully occupied.
Err, what? I'm assuming you're being sarcastic here given your recent history of posts 'round these parts.
--
Kara B.
#42
Posted 02 March 2007 - 12:55 PM
So, next on the agenda is the unoccupied building formerly occupied by FW Weekly. If we can get that one demolished, there'll be no remaining trace of automobile row on the east side of the river. Except, of course, for the cutesy-crapsy Firestone building. ICK.
That building's not unoccupied. It has some cool old Alfas. They may be owned by some eccentric locally infamous family son.
#43
Posted 02 March 2007 - 01:10 PM
So, next on the agenda is the unoccupied building formerly occupied by FW Weekly. If we can get that one demolished, there'll be no remaining trace of automobile row on the east side of the river. Except, of course, for the cutesy-crapsy Firestone building. ICK.
That building's not unoccupied. It has some cool old Alfas. They may be owned by some eccentric locally infamous family son.
Just drove by. Didn't see the cars. There is a "For Lease" sign in the window.
#44
Posted 02 March 2007 - 01:54 PM
What if a group of us who have different ideas for uses, etc., join together to form a consortium/co-op/investors (or whatever) and buy/renovate the bldg?
#45
Posted 02 March 2007 - 04:11 PM
--
Kara B.
#46
Posted 02 March 2007 - 04:16 PM
#47
Posted 03 March 2007 - 04:02 PM
Best is a mixed use building parking in the rear or along Lexingiton?
I wonder if the owners of Firestone are looking at that block?
#48
Posted 03 March 2007 - 04:16 PM
#49
Posted 04 March 2007 - 07:37 AM
Oh well.
That's not the response I expected from you FE. Where's the torch and pitchfork? Tar and feathers?
This is one of the preservation battles I do/did support. It was a great little building, with some history, and possibilties. What a shame. Unlike the UW building, this one will be missed and the city is worse off without it.
That was my moment of futility. Sometimes I'm overwhelmed by the seeming futility of HP in FW.
Torch & Pitchfork? Tar & Feathers? ABSOLUTELY! GREAT IDEA! Who do we get first?
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?
#50
Posted 05 March 2007 - 06:04 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users