Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fire Station Number One

Downtown

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 16 February 2009 - 09:02 PM

You gotta love this little gem that it surrounded by modern skyscrapers. I like old pictures of this fire station from when the fire engines consisted of horse drawn water tanks. (And when firefighters didn't work tons of overtime their final year to distort their pay history for increased retirement pay.)

A really nice building. Nice little museum too.

3286802808_3efb528cdd_o.jpg


www.fortworthview.com

#2 agave1114

agave1114

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johnson County/Fort Worth
  • Interests:old schools, old hospitals, old industrial, downtown, high rises, and railroads

Posted 07 September 2011 - 04:04 PM

(And when firefighters didn't work tons of overtime their final year to distort their pay history for increased retirement pay.)

A really nice building. Nice little museum too.

<img src="http://farm4.static....fb528cdd_o.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />


Yeah firefighters died in their 40s and made dollars per day. Today's firefighters still have a lifespan of <10 years after retirement. The city has to hire someone to work OT to meet constant staffing requirements of 4 FFs per truck. Either way someone works OT. Let them enjoy what retirement they have and be able to leave money for their families.

#3 dangr.dave

dangr.dave

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 18 March 2016 - 09:56 AM

I noticed the other day that the "150 Years of Fort Worth" letters are gone from the fire station and the downstairs door was closed.  Did they remove the exhibits and, if so, what will the bottom floor of the station be used for in the future?



#4 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 21 March 2016 - 10:25 AM

It is officially closed.  No clue what the plans are for the future.

http://www.fwmuseum....t-worth-history



#5 David_H

David_H

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:07 AM

Hmm, for months I've been thinking that I should actually stop and check out the exhibit.

On, well!



#6 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 15 August 2016 - 06:39 PM

So evidently there was a deed on the building requiring it be used as public space. The owners (Sundance) now want the deed gone and its going to City Council. Both sides want the site generating revenue, and Sundance promises to preserve the building. Sounds like it will be a positive change. Lots more info in the article.

 

 

http://www.star-tele...le95815092.html



#7 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 16 August 2016 - 12:02 PM

I think the city could remove just the part about the ground floor being a public space, but keep the portions about not changing the facade.


Erik France


#8 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 August 2016 - 02:57 PM

I think pelligrini is on the right track.  Another way to accomplish this might be to actually remove the deed restriction, but as mitigation to its removal, the building would have to be landmarked.  This would be another means to protect the facade from being altered without prior approval of the Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission.



#9 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 16 August 2016 - 03:43 PM

Yes, that's a good idea as well. I'd still like to see most of the deed restriction in place, and make the deal that in order to remove the public use part it would have to be landmarked. I'd take all the protection I could get.

 

Can the city council over rule the Landmark Commission?

It was different, but I was downtown and saw the Dillow zoning case. It didn't take much to kill that building, just a bunch of neglect and a couple votes.


Erik France


#10 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 August 2016 - 08:37 PM

The answer to your question is yes and no.  When it comes to actual designation, which is a zoning overlay, the answer is yes.  The Dillow House is a good example of that.  The owner requested to remove the designation.  Landmarks ruled that there was at that time still enough architectural integrity of the house and that economic hardship to the university was not enough to warrant removing the designation.  The case then went to the Zoning Commission, which is the next step toward undesignation (or designation in most cases).  The Zoning Commission voted to remove the designation.  It then went to the City Council and they voted to remove the designation. 

 

I also believe that if you look at the new Stockyards Historic District, the Landmarks Commission voted to approve a larger district and the City Council ultimately approved the minimal district size possible.  These are two examples where City Council can overrule the Landmarks Commission.

 

However, the no part of the answer comes when an approval is required for an existing landmarked structure.  My last case involved an addition to a historic school.  Landmarks approved the addition.  That ended the case.  The Zoning Commission and City Council do not hear cases where additions and alterations are made to historic structures. 

 

I hope this clarifies the roles of the Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission, the Zoning Commission, and the City Council.



#11 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 17 August 2016 - 02:44 PM

Yes it does help, thanks.

 

If the Landmarks Commission did not approve the addition to your historic school would that have ended the case as well? Or is there an option to take it before the City Council and maybe pass it with a super-majority?


Erik France


#12 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 17 August 2016 - 02:53 PM

If Landmarks had not approved the case, we would have either had to redesign the addition or put the addition in another location on the campus, or appeal the ruling.  To appeal the ruling, the case goes before the Board of Appeals.  City Council does not hear the appeals, nor do they rule on design issues relating to landmarked buildings.  Our course of action would have depended somewhat on the statements and direction that would have probably been given by the Landmarks Commission. 



#13 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 17 August 2016 - 07:22 PM

Well, the case ended on Tuesday when the City Council voted to remove the public use deed restriction.  However, any exterior alterations must be approved by the City's Historic Preservation Officer.  This is not quite as good as having a landmark designation, but it will allow some oversight from a preservation minded person.  Fort Worth Business has the story:

 

http://www.fortworth...3df8e0a557.html

 

Historic Fort Worth's Facebook page calls the vote by the City Council as a win for preservation.



#14 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 18 August 2016 - 12:49 PM

I wouldn't exactly call it a win, but it is better than nothing. From what I can tell; the Historic Preservation Officer is appointed by the Planning and Development Director. More than all likely the appointee would be preservation minded, there are no guarantees though.

 

It shouldn't have been that difficult to get the owners to agree to keep most of the deed restrictions.

City: We would be willing amend the deed restrictions but only removing the portion of public use.

Owners: No, not acceptable.

City: So, what sort of public use will you be doing with your building?

Owners: Since you put it that way...


Erik France


#15 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 18 August 2016 - 02:49 PM

Although I am Chairman of the Board of Historic Fort Worth, I did not write the Facebook post.  Our Preservation Resource Director handles the social media aspect of our organization.   I think the reason that it was called a "win" was due to the fact that this came up with minimal notice and is seems apparent that a non-preservation minded Council decided this requirement during the meeting.  In my mind, any review by a HPO is better than no oversight at all. 

 

All of the City's HPO's that I have worked with have been very preservation minded and all have done their jobs very professionally.  We recently lost a very good one to the City of Dallas, and I have heard good things about her replacement.  Unfortunately, I have not met him through my work at Historic Fort Worth, or from a professional relationship at my job.  My current workload does not have any preservation projects. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Downtown

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users