Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

DT: Fort Worth City Hall


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1 JOCOguy

JOCOguy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Location:Johnson County Kansas

Posted 09 February 2006 - 03:28 PM

Living away from FW (my true home) I do not get the opportunity to read the news daily.
I was home a few weeks ago and drove by the FW City hall near St. Patrick's.
I am amazed that a new one or a major enlargement of the present one is not in the works. I am sure that surrounding office space may be utilized by the city, bur after around thirty years I would think that they would have unveiled a new plan.
If my memory serves me correct, when the CH was built in the early 70's it was designed to have more floors added to it for future expansion.
Just curious if anyone has heard of a new CH or a dramatic remodeling of the current one, especially with all the activity going on on the south side of 7th Street.

GIL

#2 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 09 February 2006 - 04:13 PM

There was some talk in the last year or so about City Hall relocating to the Lancaster post office, if and when the postal service decides to shut it down. Here's a topic from '04 on the subject.

There's also been some talk of the city purchasing the "zipper" building on Lancaster for office use. Both of these stories have been pretty quiet for awhile.

#3 grow_smart

grow_smart

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Location:FTW Original Town

Posted 09 February 2006 - 06:16 PM

QUOTE(JOCOguy @ Feb 9 2006, 03:28 PM) View Post

Living away from FW (my true home) I do not get the opportunity to read the news daily.
I was home a few weeks ago and drove by the FW City hall near St. Patrick's.
I am amazed that a new one or a major enlargement of the present one is not in the works. I am sure that surrounding office space may be utilized by the city, bur after around thirty years I would think that they would have unveiled a new plan.
If my memory serves me correct, when the CH was built in the early 70's it was designed to have more floors added to it for future expansion.
Just curious if anyone has heard of a new CH or a dramatic remodeling of the current one, especially with all the activity going on on the south side of 7th Street.

GIL



My understanding is that the City has recently retained the services of Staubach to conduct a downtown needs assessment study to determine what options are available to the City. I would guess that the results of that study will help determine where City Hall may go - if anywhere at all.

What do you all think about moving it to the power plant on N. Main Street?



#4 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2006 - 10:04 PM

On one hand it would be nice, but I don't want the city to be looking up to the county all the time.

#5 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:08 AM

I am currently serving on the Mayor's Committee that will be recommending the future direction of all city facilities, including the City Hall building. We recently chose Staubach as the best consultant to study and provide options to the committee. Currently, the city is finalizing that contract with Staubach. I am entering this project with an open mind. I don't really have any pre-conceived notion on what the city should do with City Hall.

#6 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 10 February 2006 - 08:19 AM

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Feb 10 2006, 08:08 AM) View Post

I am currently serving on the Mayor's Committee that will be recommending the future direction of all city facilities, including the City Hall building.


Great. This is going to be one of those frustrating situations where we all want to know what's going on. And we all know that John knows exactly what's going on. But he won't be able to share the details of the information with us.

Well, at least it's in good hands.


#7 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 11 February 2006 - 08:06 AM

I will try to share with you what I know. The meetings are open to the public, so anyone on the forum may attend. So far, they have been fairly uneventful. Our first charge was to prepare the Request for Qualifications for the consultants. That was pretty boring stuff in preparing a document to ask the consultants how they are best qualified to assist the city and the committee. The second charge was to select the consulting firm based on their answers in the RFQ.

City Council is scheduled to hear the committees report on Feb. 14 and vote to hire the consultant on Feb. 21.

The next thing the committee will do is pull together a set of architects, engineers, and other consultants to actually analyze the actual city facilities that exist. They will report to Staubach, who in turn will prepare the whole package for committee consideration.

#8 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 13 February 2006 - 10:33 AM

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Feb 10 2006, 06:08 AM) View Post

I am currently serving on the Mayor's Committee that will be recommending the future direction of all city facilities, including the City Hall building. We recently chose Staubach as the best consultant to study and provide options to the committee. Currently, the city is finalizing that contract with Staubach. I am entering this project with an open mind. I don't really have any pre-conceived notion on what the city should do with City Hall.


Well I hope the city will raze the one we have now. Keep the main City Goverment in the now Post office building. I here that thier not that much more room there then there is at City Hall now.

I hope not but I think the City will keep the one we have now.

#9 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 13 February 2006 - 11:26 AM

Maybe I'm weird (maybe?), but I like the look of City Hall. I have no idea about practicality, size, etc. Have been in there a couple of times for Jury Duty (petite court). I'd hate to see too much change on the outside.

#10 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 02:27 PM

I may be in the minority, but I hope City Hall does not move to the Post Office. I love that old post office, and I also have a PO box there. It's very convenient for me, working in Burnett Plaza. Yes, I'm aware of the post office in the federal building, but I can't stand that one. It's a hassle. The Lancaster post office is great - every time I turn the key and open that ornate PO box door and look around at the sheer spectacle of the interior, I'm always a bit overcome that I still get to use this gorgeous old masterpiece of a building for my postal needs.

Sure, I'm weird, but darn it, I love that old post office, and would like to see it stay a post office.

--

Kara B.

 


#11 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:25 PM

QUOTE(seurto @ Feb 13 2006, 11:26 AM) View Post

Maybe I'm weird (maybe?), but I like the look of City Hall. I have no idea about practicality, size, etc. Have been in there a couple of times for Jury Duty (petite court). I'd hate to see too much change on the outside.


Whoa... you like the look of City Hall? This City Hall?... http://www.fortworth...om/municipl.jpg

If so, seurto, that's so very, very sad. At least you have good taste in music and wine. :-) And, either way, I still like ya all day long.

(But that is one ugly building.)

#12 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:40 PM

Agreed about the negative posture on our City Hall. Kinda "INOTECH" to me. Kinda Michael Bolton in a way.

huh.gif

rotflmao.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#13 DrkLts

DrkLts

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Fort Worth

Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:45 PM

City Hall? Looks like a parking garage! Especially seeing that truck looking like its driving out of it. lol
Look at the pic from that link gdvanc posted.....

IPB Image

#14 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2006 - 06:05 PM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Feb 13 2006, 02:27 PM) View Post

I may be in the minority, but I hope City Hall does not move to the Post Office.


I'm with you on that. For one thing, I worry a bit about what might happen to the building; what sort of changes might they need to make to adapt it for use as a municipal building?

I'd also prefer to see them build something new and magnificent (and hight-tech) from the ground up without having to adapt an existing building to fit their needs and with room for future growth (of which the Post Office seems to offer little).


#15 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2006 - 07:11 PM

I'm with you: build a new, magnificent, and functional city hall. But at the same time, we need to have the Post Office used for something that will allow its perservation (including the ornate PO Boxes).

#16 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 13 February 2006 - 08:14 PM

EEP - unsure.gif mea culpa, mea culpa - For some reason I had the Public Safety and Courts Bldg on my mind (what little there is of it apparently). The one with the black marble (?) in the front. I like that one. Hmmm, guess I've not been to City Hall after all; that's what happens when you live a good clean life tongue.gif .

Thanks for the vote of confidence on the wine/music, tho, gdvanc - I like you too!

And I do know which bldg is the Post Office and I love it; I would hate to see any big changes with it.

#17 hooked

hooked

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 14 February 2006 - 09:26 AM

Don't feel bad, suerto. Many people confuse the courts building with City Hall.

I too love the old post office, but it's a shame that only a small portion of the building is being utilized. It's also amazing to me that during the busiest times of the day only one clerk is on duty. I smile also every time I go in when I see the signs painted on the parking spaces closest to the building that say something like "Post Office Supervisors Only." It seems to me like the customers should get the good spots.

#18 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 14 February 2006 - 09:51 AM

QUOTE
signs painted on the parking spaces closest to the building that say something like "Post Office Supervisors Only." It seems to me like the customers should get the good spots.


Darn Federalists. They get ALL the benefits. dry.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#19 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:06 AM

QUOTE(seurto @ Feb 13 2006, 08:14 PM) View Post

EEP - unsure.gif mea culpa, mea culpa - For some reason I had the Public Safety and Courts Bldg on my mind (what little there is of it apparently). The one with the black marble (?) in the front. I like that one. Hmmm, guess I've not been to City Hall after all; that's what happens when you live a good clean life tongue.gif .

Thanks for the vote of confidence on the wine/music, tho, gdvanc - I like you too!

And I do know which bldg is the Post Office and I love it; I would hate to see any big changes with it.


Well, the Public Safety and Courts building used to be City Hall, so the confusion is understandable:

IPB Image

--

Kara B.

 


#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 14 February 2006 - 11:25 AM

It is so nice to know I'm not totally crazy!!! biggrin.gif

#21 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:37 AM

QUOTE(gdvanc @ Feb 13 2006, 08:05 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Feb 13 2006, 02:27 PM) View Post

I may be in the minority, but I hope City Hall does not move to the Post Office.


I'm with you on that. For one thing, I worry a bit about what might happen to the building; what sort of changes might they need to make to adapt it for use as a municipal building?

I'd also prefer to see them build something new and magnificent (and hight-tech) from the ground up without having to adapt an existing building to fit their needs and with room for future growth (of which the Post Office seems to offer little).



My thought is that the Post Office building might be used strictly for more public and ceremonial functions. I don't see how it would be big enough to accommodate all current and future city office space needs. But it would sure be a really cool building to hold City Council meetings and press conferences in. And it would be a good place for the Mayor to have an office. I have no idea how much time the typical Fort Worth mayor spends in his office at City Hall and I have no idea if it is necessary for him to have day-to-day interaction with rank and file City Hall employees or if he could function just as efficiently with an office apart from most other city offices. If he does need to interact with city employees, then it might make sense for him to have two offices - one which he works in day-to-day and another used for receiving important visitors, press interviews and such things. If there is sufficient room in the building, perhaps the Council members could have offices there as well.

As for the old postal lobby - that would be perfect as a place where the public could go to do such things as pay traffic tickets, file papers and such. I assume that the city already has some sort of walk-up window where one does such things. I believe there is a walk up lobby for paying one's water bill in the old Gas building - which is a really neat setting for that and would be something I wouldn't change.

As for other city functions, especially those which do not involve day-to-day interaction with the public, I agree with gdvance - so long as "new" and "high tech" does not mean replacing one ugly 1970s building with an equally ugly building which happens to be newer. The current City Hall, like so many buildings from its era, is an eyesore and has been since the day it opened.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#22 wren

wren

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 16 February 2006 - 03:01 PM

Don't feel lonesome, Seurto. I had those buildings confused myself!

#23 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 16 February 2006 - 09:40 PM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Feb 14 2006, 11:06 AM) View Post


Well, the Public Safety and Courts building used to be City Hall, so the confusion is understandable:

IPB Image

Hm, I really don't like the old City Hall. It's so boring, and it's really not been taken care of that well. When I worked at City Hall, my office faced the Public Safety building and you could really tell how dirty it was. This is one of those art deco buildings that I just don't understand why people like it so much, it's just a concrete cube with some stripes on it, what's so attractive about it? Just the fact that it's old? I think whoever thinks of it that way has their priorities mixed up, IMHO. sleep.gif

#24 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 February 2006 - 10:29 PM

QUOTE(Jonnyrules23 @ Feb 16 2006, 09:40 PM) View Post

Hm, I really don't like the old City Hall. It's so boring, and it's really not been taken care of that well. When I worked at City Hall, my office faced the Public Safety building and you could really tell how dirty it was. This is one of those art deco buildings that I just don't understand why people like it so much, it's just a concrete cube with some stripes on it, what's so attractive about it? Just the fact that it's old? I think whoever thinks of it that way has their priorities mixed up, IMHO. sleep.gif


I think the reason most people think it is attractive is because it is of the Zig Zag Moderne Style of the Art Deco period. We don't have too many of those buildings still standing. Slowly, we are losing all of the examples of this period, that is why the remaining structures should be saved. I'd also like to make a comment about the postcard. There are 12 buildings in that view and 5 of them have been demolished. The most alarming part of that is the entire east side of Throckmorton shown in the postcard has been demolished except for one building! Barber's Bookstore is the only building left from 6th to 9th Streets that was visible in the picture. The Bryce Building sat behind the library and was hidden from view, but it also still stands.

#25 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:28 PM

I was struck by the "Civic Center" title on the card. Where is our civic center today?

#26 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:42 PM

QUOTE(Jonnyrules23 @ Feb 16 2006, 11:40 PM) View Post


Hm, I really don't like the old City Hall. It's so boring, and it's really not been taken care of that well. When I worked at City Hall, my office faced the Public Safety building and you could really tell how dirty it was.


The fact that a building is dirty or is not well-maintained is not a mark against the aesthetics of the building's architecture. All buildings, pretty or ugly, will get dirty or fall in disrepair if not properly maintained.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people - and frankly, I am a bit surprised to see you in the category Jonny because it usually consists of those who are not especially passionate about architectural styles - who seem to disregard the difference between the aesthetics of a building's maintenance and a building's architecture. I remember reading quite a bit of that with regard to the Montgomery Ward building before it was redevoloped. Ignoring that stupid hole in it - which is admittedly very difficult to do - look at the building today. Unless you just happen to really hate the building's particular architectural style - it is a very handsome building. And it always has been - it was just obscured by the toll of the years.

If a very beautiful lady developed a pimple or a cold sore, you wouldn't classify her as unattractive just because of a superficial and temporary blemish.


QUOTE

This is one of those art deco buildings that I just don't understand why people like it so much, it's just a concrete cube with some stripes on it, what's so attractive about it?


What I think is attractive and very unique about it is the black marble entry way with the very cool chrome decorations along with the lamps. I seem to recall having to go in there for some reason a few years ago - for what, I can't remember. Perhaps to pay a traffic ticket or something. If it is the building I am thinking of, it was also very attractive inside as well.

QUOTE

Just the fact that it's old? I think whoever thinks of it that way has their priorities mixed up, IMHO. sleep.gif


I agree with that. When typical 1960s and 1970s buildings become old, they will be just as ugly from an architectural standpoint as they were the day they were new. It will probably be worth saving a few as reminders of what I suspect will be regarded as part of a an aesthetic mini Dark Age which lasted a few decades.

I seriously doubt that 40 years from now there will be as many people who are as passionate about 1960s buildings as there are today who are passionate about 1920s buildings. Prior to World War II, few people shed many tears when an old building was torn down. People regarded it as progress and were only sad because of the memories that they might have had for a particular building. Starting in the 1960s and picking up momentum ever since, increasing numbers of people began to value old buildings because it became increasingly obvious that something very wonderful had been lost in the bland, sanitized world of post World War II minimalism and that buildings had lost the sense of grandeur, beauty and charm that had once made them special. People began to value older buildings because of the aesthetic inadequacies of the newer ones. I think we have already reached rock bottom in terms of pop cultural and aesthetic ugliness and are staring to slowly crawl back. If that trend continues, 40 years from now, people will most likely regard buildings from the 1960 and 1970s with contempt and be eager to tear them down despite the fact that they will be old.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#27 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 18 February 2006 - 03:13 PM

QUOTE(Dismuke @ Feb 16 2006, 11:42 PM) View Post


If a very beautiful lady developed a pimple or a cold sore, you wouldn't classify her as unattractive just because of a superficial and temporary blemish.

Ah, but that only works for a very beautiful lady...IMO, here we're talking about a mediocre looking lady who, on top of everything else, has a very painfully obvious cold sore, and it sure isn't helping her case any. Metaphors aside, I agree with you that beautiful buildings are still beautiful regardless of their maintenence - but I think poor maintenence makes poorly designed buildings even more of an eyesore. Does that make sense? It's kind of like a double whammy for me.

Now, I looked at the picture on John's website and noticed the chrome decoration between the marble stripes, which I hadn't taken into consideration before, so maybe it's not as boring as I originally thought. Still, I think there are much more visually pleasing examples of this style, some of which have been already been tragically demolished.

Also, most of you will probably gasp when I say this, but I LOVE some of the buildings from the 1960's and 1970's. OK, I realize that few of them have good pedestrian interaction and many of them replaced truly beautiful landmarks that should not have been demolished, but there's something about the massiveness and clean simplicity of a lot of International Style and Modern buildings that I really like. Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that the 1960's and 1970's are nostalgic decades for me, seeing as how I wasn't even alive yet, and buildings from back then seem "old" to me. Whatever it is, I don't care if I take a lot of heat for saying this, because it's just my personal preference. smile.gif

#28 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:49 PM

[quote name='Jonnyrules23' date='Feb 18 2006, 05:13 PM' post='21676']
[quote post='21636' date='Feb 16 2006, 11:42 PM' name='Dismuke']


Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that the 1960's and 1970's are nostalgic decades for me, seeing as how I wasn't even alive yet, and buildings from back then seem "old" to me. Whatever it is, I don't care if I take a lot of heat for saying this, because it's just my personal preference. smile.gif
[/quote]

I don't think you will catch any 'heat' for voicing your opinions around here...shoot, I LIKE the Landmark Tower...but there could be some of that same nostalgia involved in the matter.
I remember when it was the tallest building in town, and always thought the clock was cool.

Drove past the old art deco city hall today, and it truly is dirty looking. That's almost criminal.

#29 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 20 February 2006 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE(Dismuke @ Feb 17 2006, 01:42 AM) View Post

I seem to recall having to go in there for some reason a few years ago - for what, I can't remember. Perhaps to pay a traffic ticket or something. If it is the building I am thinking of, it was also very attractive inside as well.



If you have to pay a city traffic ticket, that's where you go. Unfortunately, I've spent plenty of time in the lobby of the old city hall paying such bills. I think the floor is beautiful. The symetry of the main lobby is thrown off by the way the clerks desks are set up and by the metal detector equipment at the entry, but it is a very nice building inside anyway. I've also always liked buildings where the entryway faces a corner.

The building could use a little love, tenderness and a couple million dollars. I'd hate to see anything happen to it.


#30 DrkLts

DrkLts

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Fort Worth

Posted 20 February 2006 - 03:14 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Feb 20 2006, 03:07 PM) View Post

If you have to pay a city traffic ticket, that's where you go....

The building could use a little love, tenderness and a couple million dollars.


Where does the money from traffic tickets go???
blink.gif

I'm sure millions has been paid by now and you'd think they'd use a little of it to polish up the place. Money better spent? huh.gif

#31 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 20 February 2006 - 04:41 PM

Where does the money go? The same places any other taxes and fees they collect go: providing water and sewer service, maintaining the police and fire departments, street repair and construction, traffic signals, signs, you name it. Unfortunately, aesthetic building maintenance is never going to be as high on the priority list as it should, but that's a price of doing business.

#32 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 20 February 2006 - 08:01 PM

Maybe this is something that can be brought to the City Facilities Committee?

#33 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 21 February 2006 - 08:55 AM

[quote name='hipolyte' date='Feb 19 2006, 11:49 PM' post='21733']
[quote name='Jonnyrules23' date='Feb 18 2006, 05:13 PM' post='21676']
[quote post='21636' date='Feb 16 2006, 11:42 PM' name='Dismuke']


Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that the 1960's and 1970's are nostalgic decades for me, seeing as how I wasn't even alive yet, and buildings from back then seem "old" to me. Whatever it is, I don't care if I take a lot of heat for saying this, because it's just my personal preference. smile.gif
[/quote]

I don't think you will catch any 'heat' for voicing your opinions around here...shoot, I LIKE the Landmark Tower...but there could be some of that same nostalgia involved in the matter.
I remember when it was the tallest building in town, and always thought the clock was cool.

Drove past the old art deco city hall today, and it truly is dirty looking. That's almost criminal.
[/quote]

Certainly opinions have always seemed to be welcome here and just as certainly architecture, as with any art, is all subjective. I personally like Art Deco; I love the T&P Bldg, the Post office and this bldg, as well as many other styles downtown. IMHO the tall straight glass buildings are boring - to my untrained eye, there is nothing to them. No thought, no style. Maybe it is an age difference; maybe it's a gender difference -- who knows. But probably a downtown of all the same type and age architecture would be pretty boring! biggrin.gif

#34 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 21 February 2006 - 02:22 PM

QUOTE(seurto @ Feb 21 2006, 10:55 AM) View Post


IMHO the tall straight glass buildings are boring - to my untrained eye, there is nothing to them. No thought, no style. Maybe it is an age difference; maybe it's a gender difference -- who knows. But probably a downtown of all the same type and age architecture would be pretty boring! biggrin.gif



From the inside, a floor to ceiling wall of windows is pretty nice. I'm sure there are ways to create the expansive, unobstructed view without just being a glass box. But I don't mind boring on the outside if I get a great view from the inside.

#35 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 November 2006 - 06:18 AM

For those of you who have been wondering what the City Facilities Committee has been doing, there will be a Town Hall Meeting on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 7:00 PM. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The address is 1000 Throckmorton Street. This meeting will fill the public in on the direction the committee is taking in finding a new location for City Hall, remodeling the existing building, and centralizing or decentralizing more city services.

#36 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 16 November 2006 - 07:47 AM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Feb 21 2006, 04:22 PM) View Post

But I don't mind boring on the outside if I get a great view from the inside.


To your point, the people who pay the rent spend a lot more time on the inside looking out than on the outsside looking in.

#37 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:05 AM

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Nov 16 2006, 06:18 AM) View Post

For those of you who have been wondering what the City Facilities Committee has been doing, there will be a Town Hall Meeting on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 7:00 PM. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The address is 1000 Throckmorton Street. This meeting will fill the public in on the direction the committee is taking in finding a new location for City Hall, remodeling the existing building, and centralizing or decentralizing more city services.


Thanks for the update, John! Hopefully, the (IMHO pointless) plan of moving to the Lancaster Post Office has been overruled.

--

Kara B.

 


#38 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 16 November 2006 - 11:54 PM

They should move to the FWCC dome and just build up.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#39 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 17 November 2006 - 08:48 AM

I think they should preserve that gorgeous building that City Hall is currently located in and build a skyscraper in a similar style above it.

Here is what the new City Hall should look like once the expansion has taken place:

IPB Image

Isn't it beautiful? And don't you agree that is a perfect compliment to City Hall's current look?

Such a building would have a bold and powerful impact on the overall appearance of the Fort Worth skyline and on how people perceive the city. Such a building would pay homage to the richness and depth of contemporary popular culture and reject the stodgy, dreadful past. Those who fail to appreciate such a building are nothing more than a bunch of reactionary squares who need to become up-to-date and "with it." Such a building would show the world that Fort Worth is not some backward, old fashioned cow town - we're NOW TOWN!


Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#40 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

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

Posted 17 November 2006 - 09:43 AM

Dismuke, I understand the sarcasm, but I'm a little confused as to exactly who your audience is. FYI, the building you have pictured above comes out of a design vocabulary that was developed in the 20's and 30's (despite probably having been built in the 60's or 70's).

#41 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:50 AM

Well, I thought it was funny. smile.gif

That's the one, and only, good thing that can be said about today's City Hall: "at least it wasn't taller." The current City Hall is awful enough - I can only imagine what horrors they would have done if given 10 or 12 floors to play with.

--

Kara B.

 


#42 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 17 November 2006 - 12:59 PM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Nov 17 2006, 11:43 AM) View Post

Dismuke... I'm a little confused as to exactly who your audience is.


Audience? I don't worry about an audience. When it comes to the aesthetic merits of modernist architecture and the aesthetic movements exemplified by that lovely piece of rusted scrap metal in the cultural district, for those who understand no explanation is necessary - and for those who don't none is possible. Obviously, if somebody does not recognize the aesthetic merits of such a building after I have pointed them out, the fault must be their ability to grasp and not my ability to explain. Clearly such a person is lacking in sophistication and aesthetic erudition.

As to pesky little children who have the nerve to shout out that various Emperors have no clothes on - well, I think such brats should be soundly spanked and sent to bed without their supper.

QUOTE

FYI, the building you have pictured above comes out of a design vocabulary that was developed in the 20's and 30's (despite probably having been built in the 60's or 70's).


In every period of history you will find the seeds of that which follows - good or bad. A person can be better than the dominant trends of his era or he can be worse. The same is true with regard to art.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#43 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

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

Posted 17 November 2006 - 02:09 PM

QUOTE(Dismuke @ Nov 17 2006, 12:59 PM) View Post
A person can be better than the dominant trends of his era or he can be worse. The same is true with regard to art.


Or she can recognize that trend is trend and working to be better or worse than such is fruitless either way.

Just wanted to point out that neither the above building nor City Hall are exemplary of current trends, and was wondering if there was more social commentary is all.

#44 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 17 November 2006 - 04:36 PM

HAHAHAHA!

It looks like a TRANS-FORMER.

Where MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE... SORE.

COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#45 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:38 PM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Nov 17 2006, 04:09 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Dismuke @ Nov 17 2006, 12:59 PM) View Post
A person can be better than the dominant trends of his era or he can be worse. The same is true with regard to art.


Or she can recognize....


Forgive me. I forgot that failure to adhere to the dictates of Political Correctness is a sin that is just as unforgivable and unsophisticated as pointing out that a random splotch of paint on a canvas hanging in a museum is nothing more than a random splotch of paint. Guilt filled self-abasing groveling on my part is due. I will endeavor to do better and remember to employ such terminology as "s/he" and alternate my usage of the terms "history" and "herstory"

QUOTE

that trend is trend and working to be better or worse than such is fruitless either way.


I agree that it is fruitless either way - but that doesn't change the fact that all of the major figures in history......er.....uhmmmmm......sorry.....I mean, herstory.....are remembered because they were, in some significant way, either better or worse than the trends of their time.

I submit that the people who are better than the trends of their time and many significant individuals who are worse than the trends of their time are utterly indifferent to trends when it comes to important decisions on how to conduct their lives.

There are, of course, plenty people out there whose life and pretense at self-esteem revolves around being regarded as "hip" and conforming to whatever trend happens to come along. People like that are basically pathetic.

However, the vast majority of people out there who blindly follow the trends of their time are not conformists on principle. Instead, they mindlessly follow along because it never even occurs to them to call into question the values and judgments of the people around them or, if it does occur to them, they lack the courage to follow through on it out of fear of the disapproval of others.

If the particular trends and the particular peer group a person happens to associate himself/herself with has positive qualities, s/he might end up sharing some of the benefits - if they are negative, s/he will end up following a path to his...er, I mean, her.... own self-destruction. Such individuals become walking zeros because the all-important task of the formation of their values and convictions ends up being blindly relegated to others. Such people do not make any sort of conscious effort to follow trends and may not even be aware that the trends exist - they simply follow the mob out of mindless inertia. Such people constitute the vast majority of those who follow the particular trends of any given era.

Now, there are some people who are worse than the trends of their era who are abject conformists in a different sort of way: self-proclaimed "rebels" who nihilistically reject the trends of the day not because of any significant intellectual disagreement with those trends but simply because they happen to be the trends of the day. While such people often loudly try to pass themselves off as "rebels" or "individualists" they are, in fact, the most abject and pathetic sort of conformists one will ever encounter. They are conformists because their actions and convictions are still mindlessly determined based on the decisions of other people - albeit, in this case, the relationship is a negative and not a positive one. The wo/man who conforms out of mindless inertia might someday wake up from her/his stupor and think for him/herself. The "rebel" makes him/herself a slave to the trends of others on principle. Such a person is always worse than the trends of his/her era because, to be better than those trends generally requires a certain amount of intelligence and independent thought - virtues which the "rebel" types have long since surrendered.

Those who are better than the trends of their era are indifferent to those trends in terms of the formation of their values and convictions. To be better than one's contemporaries, one has to think for one's self and to have the courage to act on one's own independent judgment regardless of the approval or disapproval of the mindless mob. Such a person does not blindly rebel against trends nor does he follow them. If, in his/her judgment, a particular trend happens to have merit, s/he might participate - not because it is a trend but because s/he deems it to be rational. S/he recognizes that some trends are positive and others are negative and does not hesitate to judge them accordingly. Such a person embraces or opposes the trends of her/his era on the basis of rational judgment and conscious conviction - not out of mindless inertia or blind, nihilistic rebellion. Such a person does not set out with the purpose of being better than the trends - by virtue of acting on his/her own independent judgment, s/he simply is better than those trends.

And of course, there are people who are worse than the trends of their time not out of blind rebellion against those trends but because of the vile nature of their consciously chosen convictions - and such people constitute the worst villains of history......I mean.....herstory.

So, yes, I do agree with you completely that is completely fruitless to work with the conscious motive of being better or worse than the trends - to do so would turn one into a slave of such trends. My point is this: it is the people who are either significantly better or significantly worse than their contemporaries by virtue of their convictions and actions who end up moving the world forward or backward.

QUOTE

Just wanted to point out that neither the above building nor City Hall are exemplary of current trends....



That is so sadly true. New construction of such lovely buildings is becoming increasingly rare. That's because, ever since sometime in the early 1980s, a bunch of bourgeois reactionaries have become increasingly vocal against such modernist masterpieces. Such voices are further amplified by the petty desire of developers for their projects to become commercially successful. Thus aesthetic virtue is being sacrificed on the altar of the marketplace. Motivated by a greedy desire to make a profit, developers attempt to pander to the people who will eventually work in office buildings, reside in apartment buildings, stay in hotels and shop in retail establishments. The vast majority of people who do such things consist of the sort of bourgeois buffoons who patronize establishments such as big box retail stores and chain restaurants. Such rabble and the developers who pander to them are primarily concerned about their own petty lives and selfish interests and exhibit little willingness to sacrifice their own well being in the name of the greater good as determined by their social and intellectual superiors.

Thus we have buildings that are built to look like those from the dark dismal past. And we have buildings such as Pier 1 that do not look like those from the past but which are equally reactionary in that they pay homage to certain premises and aesthetic principles that people in that dark and nasty past regarded as virtues. The same reactionary trend has also occurred in the way people dress and in they way they furnish their buildings.

That is why we need to work especially hard to reinvigorate the modern spirit of the 1960s and 1970s. Happily much of that spirit is still alive and well in music, manners and pop culture - especially among those who fancy themselves as avant garde and "hip." But we have work to do - and the demolition of One Commerce Place is proof of just that. We cannot allow boorish reactionaries to undo all that was worked so hard for in the mud puddles of Woodstock and that people fought and died for via their LSD trips. People are fixing up out-of-date buildings - not tearing them down. Do you know how many teenagers and people under 30 listen to that hopelessly reactionary Internet radio station I have? It is disturbing and pathetic - and when they listen to it, they discover the existence of melody, which is a very dangerous thing.

The question is how to stop the march of the reactionary rubes. Clearly one cannot do so by means of mere persuasion. Something stronger than that is needed. Truly noble art and architecture cannot be explained - either one is sophisticated enough to recognize its merit or one is not. Trying to explain such matters to bourgeois rabble and hope that everything works out in the free marketplace is a hopeless proposition. That is why we need central planning. The City needs to set up a Review Board to which all new building projects, large or small, are submitted for aesthetic review. The Board will act in the public interest by making sure that all structures in the city help promote the image of Fort Worth as NOW TOWN and not as a hick cowtown. The Board needs to consist of those who are sophisticated enough to differentiate truly great aesthetic ideals from commercial pandering to the sorts of rubes who shop at Payless Shoes, Marshalls and Petsmart and who dine at places such as Bennigans and Panchos. In fact, people should not even be allowed to patronize such establishments - for their own good, of course. That, too, can be a matter for the Review Board to determine. Perhaps we could even recruit members for the Review Board right here on the Forum - I have no doubt at all that there are some here who would be more than happy to put themselves in such a role, out of the spirit of noblesse oblige, of course.

Anyhow, sorry for reverting back to my long winded ways. It is just the horror of the destruction of One Commerce Place and the exciting prospects of a new City Hall perhaps being built to look like the picture I have posted have brought something out in me.

And didn't I do a really great job of being gender neutral and Politically Correct? In the same spirit, perhaps tomorrow I will extend my commute time to and from work by an additional 4 hours by riding public transit instead of using my evil automobile!
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#46 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

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

Posted 18 November 2006 - 08:32 AM

That was the in-depth commentary I was looking for. Now I have a better understanding of the sarcasm (seriously). Thanks Dismuke.

The reason I brought up ‘she’ is to point out that I’m not being one-sided...rather I’m not on any side, or having an interest in defining sides. I am sincerely interested in making sure I don’t engage in discussion that potentially makes any biased assumptions. That’s why I also brought up the question of ‘audience.’ I think sometimes we very often subconsciously define and categorize an audience (or audiences) in our rationalizing – those who get it or those who don’t, those who are reactionary or those that are hip, those who are bourgeoisie or elite, mononomial or polynomial.

Sometimes I ponder my own name, and it seems a bit absurd to me. I don’t really feel as though I identify with my name – I am not my name or any other labeling concept. Truly I don’t feel I identify with much...well, I suppose I identify enough with what I do for a living to call myself such here. But not being forced to understand myself in relation to a label or category (this or that) is not something that troubles me in least.

What I do identify with is the human condition, which is fundamentally no different for anyone regardless of their label (black, white, male, female, Christian, Muslim, etc.). I have a sort of hobby of people watching, but not in the conventional sense. When I’m out of my studio, in the public, I like to look people in the eye – really look into their faces, and see the expression and life in them. I have yet to see many expressions that I myself have not smiled or grimaced.

I submit there’s more to humanity than “this kind of person” or “that.” An interesting side effect of dropping the label-habit is things become transparent – you begin to see exactly what motivates people to say and do the things they do, because you’re not distracted by the labels culture (or lack thereof) has invented.

By my reasoning, Dismuke, you’re very sophisticated in your mononomialism – you’re at least half-way to having no label at all. I’m not being sarcastic either.

If anyone is interested in placing me in an audience category (just for fun, of course) here’s two hints to guide you: I’m the sort that appreciates the sheer material intensity of a piece of rusted scrap metal, the way its stubborn inertia interrupts the normal flow around it, and thereby has the power to spark thought and discussion, regardless of how that interruption is labeled. I also enjoy a good melody.

#47 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 20 November 2006 - 11:16 AM

yawn.... I think I will go take a nap now!

smilewink.gif

#48 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

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

Posted 20 November 2006 - 09:53 PM

Here's one for you Adam:

City Hall's momma is so ugly they had to tie a pork chop around her neck so the dog would play with her.

Almost as absurd as an angry (and borderline hateful) "us vs. them" fantasy. If you don't want to listen to a long, sappy, boring, snoozer lecture from me, be angry and hateful toward the buildings - not people.

#49 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 04 December 2006 - 09:13 AM

According to the Dallas Business Journal Carter/Burgess is doing analysis to see whether to Post Office can serve as city hall. I guess this project is still a possibility.

Article:
Carter & Burgess Inc., the engineering and architecture firm the city of Fort Worth hired for the second phase of its facilities analysis, is expanding the scope of its analysis.

The Fort Worth City Council on Nov. 28 was expected to approve an amendment to its contract with the Fort Worth-based firm to include a condition/space analysis and budget for renovating the Lancaster Post Office building into a new city hall. The post office, located along Lancaster Avenue on the southern edge of downtown, has a small branch office in the 200,000-square-foot building. The U.S. Postal Service likely would continue to operate the branch if the city took over the building as a new city hall.



#50 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 04 December 2006 - 10:11 AM

The post office building is in desperate need of a tenant. It is a beautiful building that is simply put in horrible condition right now. I don't really know of any other feasible use for that building that would encourage the restoration of the building so I think it would be a good idea for City Hall to move operations down there and bring in some activity. I would love to see a new place built, however, I think this is the best possible situation for the post office. Now if we can ever get something going with the warehouse next door, the Lancaster will be off to a great start.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users