Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Austin55' fiddlin around.


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#51 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 13 February 2015 - 02:56 AM

Here's another XTO lot proposal. The building starts at the ground at a square with rounded edges, but as it rises the corners slowly become concave. In addition, the floorplates are each slightly rotated, so the building has a subtle twist. It's topped with a sloping, curved glass crown with a total height of 700 feet. 

 

xKuoX0J.jpg

 

Vud8tWI.png

 

5n6921I.jpg



#52 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 13 February 2015 - 08:34 AM

I would like this more if, first,  the structure was actually designed in Art Deco;and secondly, the structure was able to be situated on the block that contains the Waggoner Tower; and used the XTO block as a below ground parking garage topped with a plaza.   I have really come to appreciate the view that surrounds the XTO block.

 

Now more than the passing of 3/4 of a century, the Art Deco maintains its charm.  Who does not get goose bumps at seeing this:

 

https://www.google.c...=2&ved=0CE0Q7Ak



#53 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,759 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 13 February 2015 - 09:22 AM

I would like this more if, first,  the structure was actually designed in Art Deco;and secondly, the structure was able to be situated on the block that contains the Waggoner Tower; and using the XTO block as a below ground parking garage topped with a plaza.   I have really come to appreciate the view that surrounds the XTO block.

 

Now more than the passing of 3/4 of a century, the Art Deco maintains its charm.  Who does not get goose bumps at seeing this:

 

https://www.google.c...=2&ved=0CE0Q7Ak

From this layman's perspective, Austin's tower (above) is beautifully designed.  I'm sure you agree. But based on your link, I would surmise you prefer Empire State-style buildings topped with steeples.  Nothing wrong with that.  Are you suggesting DTFW get one of these?



#54 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 13 February 2015 - 11:42 AM

I would like this more if, first,  the structure was actually designed in Art Deco;and secondly, the structure was able to be situated on the block that contains the Waggoner Tower; and using the XTO block as a below ground parking garage topped with a plaza.   I have really come to appreciate the view that surrounds the XTO block.

 

Now more than the passing of 3/4 of a century, the Art Deco maintains its charm.  Who does not get goose bumps at seeing this:

 

https://www.google.c...=2&ved=0CE0Q7Ak

 

I can understand the desire to leave that lot empty for sure, it's got a nice view. The Waggoner Block is very tricky, part of me wants to coverup the back and side, but that leaves a huge and bulky building that obscures Waggoner from most angles. I've never made anything for the block it sits on I've liked. 

 

About the Art Deco, I agree that it is beautiful, however its been a long time since art deco was that good, and no one wants to invest the time and effort to build such things these days, it's all glass everywhere.There have been a few revival skyscrapers from people like Jahn and Pelli, but even those were mostly 10 or more years ago. 

 

That said, here's the real thing

v6TjuWo.jpg

 

 

 


 

From this layman's perspective, Austin's tower (above) is beautifully designed.  

 

 

Thanks 



#55 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 13 February 2015 - 11:52 AM

Seeing the Chrysler Building inserted into the Fort Worth skyline makes me realize that it is too tall for Fort Worth. 

 

As for your other designs, the Jetta Building has some of the same design issues on the site that the W.T. Waggoner block has on its site.  The Jetta Building will be some form of an "L" shaped structure.



#56 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 13 February 2015 - 12:08 PM

It certianly is, it's a massive building. It nearly fits perfectly, its largest side at base is about 199 feet. So if you could deal with a 1 foot wide sidewalk, it would. 



#57 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 13 February 2015 - 02:03 PM

Austin, I think you may be a little off on your dimensions.  New York blocks between the streets (north to south) are supposed to be 200 feet from property line to property line.  Therefore, the distance along the Lexington Avenue facade should be 200 feet.  The blocks from east to west are of varying lengths.  Most people think that the Chrysler Building has a square base, but it does not.  The north side of the building is longer than the south side.  When I measured, I found the 43rd Street side to be 208 feet.

 

Fort Worth was laid out on a similar system to New York, except that the blocks are supposed to be 200 feet x 200 feet from property line to property line.  The sidewalks are outside of the 200 foot dimension.  This system of 200 foot blocks works out to be every 20 blocks is one mile, with most of the streets right-of-ways being 60 feet wide.  This allows for an 80 foot street right-of way every quarter mile.  After the old European street grid stops, this is how Manhattan Island is laid out in the north/south direction.  They chose not to use this system across the narrow end of the island.  The original town of Fort Worth was laid out in a similar manner, but going both directions.



#58 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,106 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 13 February 2015 - 02:59 PM

As gorgeous as the Chrysler Building is from a distance or from a few blocks away, it doesn't exactly blow my hair back at the street level. I suppose the black granite walls (I assume it's granite) and silver door and window frames are sharp, but it doesn't really look any different from any other building in the city.

#59 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 13 February 2015 - 03:15 PM

With the Sundance plaza now built, I would honestly not mind seeing both the Waggoner lot and the Landmark lot both get redeveloped with new buildings.  There can be such a thing as too much "open space" in a city.

 

FWIW, I like Austin's tower.



#60 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 13 February 2015 - 04:26 PM


5n6921I.jpg

 

 


v6TjuWo.jpg

 

 

 

Seeing the Chrysler Building inserted into the Fort Worth skyline makes me realize that it is too tall for Fort Worth. 

 

Yes, the Chrysler Building inserted into the current FW Skyline makes it feel too tall. I would settle for something shorter in height  and with a smaller footprint.  IMO, it is the neo-Art Deco that I believe makes it the perfect style to its immediate neighbors over the modernist style.  If I had my wish, Austin's modernist building should be built next to two Sundance (Rudolph) Towers where it would be more complementary.

 

So Fort Worth has one plaza and therefore a second one might be "too much".  I suppose I will have to chew on that one for a while longer. 

 

In the meantime, here is a square in a well known city that begs the notion of whether there can be too much open space:

 

https://www.google.c...ed=0CIABEKIqMAs



#61 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 13 February 2015 - 04:45 PM

I'd be ok with a skyscraper on the lot, and I'd be ok with a plaza on the lot. Only thing that would be really disappointing would be a building under 300 feet or so, it's such a prime spot for something better.

 

Portland's Directors and Pioneer Sqaures/Plaza are separated by a block, and have several others parks nearby. Within a few blocks of the Landmark lot is Hyde Park, General Worth Square, Sundance Plaza, and Burnett Park.



#62 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 15 February 2015 - 02:44 AM

Alright so here's a quick one for the Waggoner L, with the assumption that the lot landmark get built to be a plaza.

It's one building meant to look like two, one part  takes up 1/4 the block, would ideally look older so to blend in and not overpower the plaza, it would be short enough not to overthrow Waggoner, and be nearly the same height as STS, FW Club, Oncor and other buildings surrounding the possible plaza.  

The Western Half would be the high rise. I have it as 521 feet to the roof, another 150 to top of spire. Along Throckmorton street the facade slants away from the street, this way the building would not directly but up to the Fair/ST building, and would also offer view of the Fair/ST building from the plaza. This also keeps the side facing the plaza slim, trying to avoid the "Burnett Plaza" effect. Along the slant are some jut out to maximize space. Average floor plate of the tower portion would be nearly 18k square feet, and have 9 corner office spaces. Just threw on a basic glass crown to top it off. 

 

Skyline view

Pw3iKy4.jpg

 

Here you can see how the step back opens the view

u5RB83o.jpg

 

Opposite side

4peRQOG.jpg



#63 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 15 February 2015 - 08:34 AM

Alright so here's a quick one for the Waggoner L, with the assumption that the lot landmark get built to be a plaza.

It's one building meant to look like two, one part  takes up 1/4 the block, would ideally look older so to blend in and not overpower the plaza, it would be short enough not to overthrow Waggoner, and be nearly the same height as STS, FW Club, Oncor and other buildings surrounding the possible plaza......


Opposite side

4peRQOG.jpg

 

 

Austin - Excellent! You have combined the old with the new as what has been done with the Omni Hotel. Really creative and sensitive.  I feel that your concept would be enthusiastically welcomed by XTO/Simpson given that so much respect is paid to his other nearby projects.  Landscape/accessorize the "plaza/below surface parking" and it becomes more than a triple; it is a home run. :wub:

 

BTW - For a long time, I have believed that the Waggoner is a prime candidate for a residential/hotel conversion.



#64 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,886 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 15 February 2015 - 06:11 PM

Alright so here's a quick one for the Waggoner L, with the assumption that the lot landmark get built to be a plaza.

It's one building meant to look like two, one part  takes up 1/4 the block, would ideally look older so to blend in and not overpower the plaza, it would be short enough not to overthrow Waggoner, and be nearly the same height as STS, FW Club, Oncor and other buildings surrounding the possible plaza.  

The Western Half would be the high rise. I have it as 521 feet to the roof, another 150 to top of spire. Along Throckmorton street the facade slants away from the street, this way the building would not directly but up to the Fair/ST building, and would also offer view of the Fair/ST building from the plaza. This also keeps the side facing the plaza slim, trying to avoid the "Burnett Plaza" effect. Along the slant are some jut out to maximize space. Average floor plate of the tower portion would be nearly 18k square feet, and have 9 corner office spaces. Just threw on a basic glass crown to top it off. 

 

Skyline view

Pw3iKy4.jpg

 

Here you can see how the step back opens the view

u5RB83o.jpg

 

Opposite side

4peRQOG.jpg

 

It's beautiful...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#65 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 16 February 2015 - 10:01 AM

I'd be ok with a skyscraper on the lot, and I'd be ok with a plaza on the lot. Only thing that would be really disappointing would be a building under 300 feet or so, it's such a prime spot for something better.

 

Portland's Directors and Pioneer Sqaures/Plaza are separated by a block, and have several others parks nearby. Within a few blocks of the Landmark lot is Hyde Park, General Worth Square, Sundance Plaza, and Burnett Park.

 

Downtown Portland has a lot more parks and plazas, but its other blocks are also quite a bit more dense and activated than downtown Fort Worth (fewer parking lots, dead '70s/'80s office towers, a lot more residential, etc), so it can get away with it.



#66 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 16 February 2015 - 10:15 AM

 

 

 

So Fort Worth has one plaza and therefore a second one might be "too much".  I suppose I will have to chew on that one for a while longer. 

 

In the meantime, here is a square in a well known city that begs the notion of whether there can be too much open space:

 

https://www.google.c...ed=0CIABEKIqMAs

 

 

You are misinterpreting me.

 

An urban park or plaza isn't just about having a nice space to be - it's also about how it fits into its context.  There needs to be density and activity and activation for the space to play off of and work with.  It can absolutely be harmful to put too much "open space" into a city if it's not planned properly and isn't playing off active, engaging buildings.  The parks and plazas work only if the city is dense and lively around them, otherwise it's just like so many existing under-used "open space" that already exists in cities like Fort Worth.

 

It's important that downtown Fort Worth fill out a lot of these blank, empty blocks with density, not just more parks and plazas.  Burnett Park is example of how under-utilized a space can be when it's just surrounded by office buildings with no real interaction with the public realm.  One can say it gives Burnett Plaza office workers a place to smoke or take a break, or whatever, but so would a series of sidewalk cafes along more engaging buildings and a smaller, more energetic plaza or just nice, well-designed sidewalks.

 

(Also, downtown Fort Worth doesn't have "one plaza" - it has several public plazas and parks, almost all of them apart from Sundance's having problems with under-utilization due to being tied to un-engaging, deadening contexts.  This just drives my point further home.)

 

One could absolutely design a public plaza that would work on the Landmark lot, but I don't believe that just plunking one down because "open space" and "we want to look at the Fort Worth Club building" is a recipe for a truly sustainable, healthy public space.  A lot of careful thought and planning would need to go into it so that it doesn't just become another Burnett Park, a ghost town 95% of the time.

 

I've seen both Chicago and Portland brought up in this thread as examples of places with lots of public spaces, which again just furthers my point.  I don't think I need to point out how much more dense and activated Chicago is than downtown Fort Worth, but even downtown Portland's public spaces work because they're playing off a much more dense and engaging context than downtown Fort Worth.



#67 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 16 February 2015 - 11:09 AM

I'm not an urban planner and I'm not sure what 'activated' means in an urban planning context, but I've given a lot of amateurish thought to why several downtown park-like spaces seem scarcely utilized.

 

If I were allowed to pick a place for a park and were to be paid some folding money for every soul that spent time in it, where would I put it? To me, it's only going to get foot traffic if it's either (1) so uniquely special that people will go there for the park itself or (2) it's near somewhere where people are already lingering or will have sufficient free time while they're nearby that hanging in the park a bit will be inviting.

 

Water Gardens has (1) down and during conventions quite a bit of (2). Sundance's Pav has a lot of (2) and arguably not a little of (1).

 

Burnett Park has nothing. Sure, it's a massive office building (by Fort Worth standards) with a decent employee population, but apart from fire drills, when are they going to use it? Who spends an hour or so in a park during their work day? Maybe a few will bring their brown bag down, but probably not many. And after 5 - forget it.

 

If you're going to add a space and it's just a park of opportunity - some grass and some benches and maybe a panther sculpture - then it's going to need to be around things where people are already spending some time with built-in flexibility. Restaurants, shops and museums - businesses and institutions where people often spend some un-rushed time - can drive traffic to your park. "Hit-and-run" businesses like dry cleaners, banks and florists where the goal is to get in and out as quickly as possible are not going to do as much for you. Hotels, condos and apartments are certainly good for generating park usage. 

 

Even an under-used park is not the worst or least attractive use for a strip of land, but just because you build it doesn't mean they're going to come.



#68 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 16 February 2015 - 11:38 AM

You've pretty much got it down exactly. :)

#69 Corsicana33

Corsicana33

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Burleson
  • Interests:Fishing, Cars, Six Flags, Architecture, Cooking, Roadtrips and Having Fun

Posted 16 February 2015 - 09:21 PM

As far as anything happening on any XTO Energy lot, I wouldn't hold my breath. I work for then and since we are now owned by ExxonMobil, we are truly based out of Irving now. The buildings we have now will be it as ExxonMobil is appreciative of a campus style setup for corporate buildings. Bob Simpson does not own any of the buildings XTO Energy uses but he does own the new Morningstar building (Old Star-Telegram building) but I did here that he sold the old public market building by the HWY 30.



#70 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 16 February 2015 - 10:03 PM

Corsicana33, I'm only confirming your previous statement.  Simpson owns only the old Star-Telegram Building.  He sold the Public Market.  These transactions have been covered in threads here on the forum.



#71 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 17 February 2015 - 11:56 AM

One can debate why other parks/spaces in DTFW are unsuccessful but that is better evaluated case by case.  Instead,  to the specific matter of the XTO block in DTFW and the factors that make it an absolutely favorable space for a public plaza

By insisting that density is a prerequisite to the development of this space, I  think one can easily overlook the potential of this block to be something special.  Why is this block special and different from other blocks in DTFW? Why, because IMO, it has come about unexpectedly.  When I say that, I mean to suggest that a space can be created either through planning or it can be created unexpectedly. There are examples of what I mean locally and that happened unexpectedly.

When an annex to the  Fort Worth Press Building was demolished, a plaza was created unexpectedly by the discovery of a lost church.

The demolition of the Continental National Bank (CNB) building preceded the epiphany that revealed a remarkable concentration of architecture that had been hidden in the shadow of CNB for many decades. Initially and like Sundance Square (SS) this new space is being held in a holding pattern with use of it as surface parking, but again like the previous SS parking lot, the XTO surface parking lot has the potential for more activity. It is in my opinion,  a useable space in waiting with similar SS attributes that has happened unexpectedly.

There are two posts each garnering “likes”: Post#51 with a super tall structure plopped down in such a way as to double down on the CNB era at the heart of DTFW Art-deco corridor and Post#62 which wedged a super tall structure into the same corridor. Post#51 is inferior to Post#62.  The latter post is a  brilliant  conceptual design that combines three ingredients: commercial activity (high-rise), sensitivity/scale  to neighboring structures (neo-Art-deco), and an open air element (park/plaza) all working in concert to enhance the viability of the immediate area.  I believe that if the XTO Block was developed in such a scheme, a project here would become a resounding success regardless of the results at other spaces in DTFW. 

 

To say that a plaza here is DOA because other parks/plazas in DTFW are a failure or because it lacks its own density is to miss out on an unique opportunity given the context of this particular space.  I would be comfortable predicting that a XTO plaza would stimulate its own activity and as such does not need to wait for a level of activity to be generated before it can be actualized. If a space becomes too reliant upon surrounding businesses, then it stands the risk to become a failure if the businesses themselves are a collective failure.  Ultimately, I think the space should be a place where people gather or a place that attracts a gathering, then the businesses can strive off of the synenergy created by the plaza/park.

Finally, ownership aside, the XTO Block, or better yet the CNB/Landmark Block, the block will always hold the potential to be special in my opinion because of its context. Credit should be given to Simpson’s keen vision that saw what I came to see also.  From the XTO Block,  Simpson can relish the labor of his successful restorations that envelope this block and is in full view;  something that I highly suspect brings him enormous pleasure and satisfaction. It might also be important to another developer.

 

 






 



#72 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 29 September 2015 - 07:37 AM

Hilton Hotel expansion concept. I've long looked at empty surface parking lots for places to expand things, but tearing down insignificant buildings is an option as well, the 3 story 1961 annex doesn't seem all to important. 

 

There is much demand for more hotel space, and this location serves both the convention center and downtown proper very well. 7th and Main is arguably the primary intersection of downtown, and both streets are lined with skyscrapers. The Hilton could upgrade and expand it's ballroom and exhibit space, perhaps add more parking, and plenty of additional rooms. Ruth's Chris space would also be upgraded. 

 

The shape is based on The Main Hilton Norfolk

 

 

hilton1.png

 

hilton2.png

 

hilton3.png



#73 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 14 December 2015 - 12:00 AM

What would a 1,100 room hotel look like in FW? I've used Denver's Hyatt Regency Convention hotel to see.

 

cchotel2_zpsiemjoeyy.png

 

cchotel1_zpspmgcmoez.png



#74 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 20 December 2015 - 08:43 AM

Burnett Park Apartment tower

 

bpark2_zpsnba78tal.png

 

bpark1_zpsl4ngldxj.png



#75 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 20 December 2015 - 12:21 PM

 

REVISED (with descriptions) 

 

Downtown%20Districts_zpsgeylkq3a.jpg

 

8. Burnett-Hunter District

  • Named for: Burnett Park and Hunter Plaza
  • Primary thoroughfares: West 7th, Henderson, Texas & 10th, Taylor
  • Landmarks/important buildings: Burnett Park, Burnett Plaza, U.S. Courthouse, 1st United Methodist,
  • District's identity: Park and Residential 
  • Need to develop: 80% (very high)

 

 

 

Burnett Park Apartment tower

 

bpark2_zpsnba78tal.png

 

bpark1_zpsl4ngldxj.png

 

Like maybe a few of you, I think the area south of 7th Street and West of Taylor Street (S7WT) is a great place to expand Downtown's vertical and density factors. 

 

One slight change, I would position the tower to the park side; but the idea is dope.



#76 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 04 January 2017 - 03:00 PM

If only.... 

I layered Portland's Pearl District over top of the southeastern edge of downtown, and also mirrored the convention center to reflect future changes that are proposed.I didn't include the Hampton at 9th and Commerce since it doesn't yet appear on satellite images. I guess I coulda just put a construction site in. 

 

6VjjSLf.png



#77 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 13 April 2017 - 07:27 PM

Chicago's 333 Wacker fits nicely along where 7th becomes spur 280.

 

iN9wf9e.png

 

d3BCHdv.png

 

BDPDAgF.png






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users