Save the Ridglea Theater & Office Bldg. - May Be Partially Demolished
#1
Posted 21 June 2010 - 04:29 PM
The official story was reported on Channel 5 News at 4 PM and they quoted the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as a source. However, the story is actually on the Star-Telegram's companion site <a href="http://www.dfw.com" target="_blank">http://www.dfw.com</a>. Preston Jones is the author of the story and the link is below:
http://www.dfw.com/2...ing-out-of.html
#2
Posted 22 June 2010 - 06:16 AM
I thought that Camp Bowie had more ambition than this - it's starting to get increasingly generic down that strip of road.
--
Kara B.
#3
Posted 22 June 2010 - 11:14 AM
#4
Posted 22 June 2010 - 06:29 PM
You can e-mail Zim Zimmerman at district3@fortworthgov.org.
#5
Posted 22 June 2010 - 09:04 PM
#6
Posted 22 June 2010 - 09:34 PM
I have not seen the drawings presented to the city. However, I do have a couple of sources that have and both have confirmed that only the facade and lobby of the theater will remain and the retail/office building will be demolished from the covered drive northward. This is most of the retail/office building.
#7
Posted 23 June 2010 - 07:48 AM
#8
Posted 23 June 2010 - 09:17 AM
http://fortwortholog...ank-of-america/
And today, with a followup expressing my opinion that the best hope is for the council to designate the building with HC, and for people to start writing the council en masse:
http://fortwortholog...ater-follow-up/
--
Kara B.
#9
Posted 23 June 2010 - 10:32 AM
#10
Posted 23 June 2010 - 10:55 AM
I also did some checking and the current zoning for both properties is MU-1. The Theater is on one lot and the northern (original) portion of the retail/office building is on another lot. As it sits right now, you have retail with office above and a theater. This is definitely mixed use. With the construction of a branch bank on the site, you have turned it into a single use site. This sure looks to me as if it works against everything that the City's Urban Village plan tries to accomplish.
Since I found out about this on Monday afternoon, I have been working behind the scenes to try to get something done. Historic Fort Worth, Inc. is also working to save these buildings.
Kevin, even though you have provided links to Fortworthology.com, I think it would be great if you could put some of your thoughts over here for additional discussion.
#11
Posted 23 June 2010 - 03:09 PM
“Over the past several days, the District 3 Office has received numerous phone calls and e-mails regarding the fate of the Ridglea Theater. We’ve heard a great number of concerns, and I share many of those. The Ridglea Theater has been an important part of the Camp Bowie landscape, and citizens have a strong connection with this landmark. Unfortunately, the future of this property has been uncertain for quite some time.
“All things considered, it’s important that we strike a balance between preserving the character of this community while at the same time encouraging positive redevelopment. This is a delicate balance, but it can be achieved.
“Bank of America has shown interest in the Ridglea Theater. That’s good news. And while the proposed plans to remodel the building into a bank office would adhere to its present multi-use zoning designation, Bank of America has shown a willingness to be a good partner and consider preserving the building’s façade, including its marquee and tower. Although Bank of America has not yet purchased this property, we greatly appreciate their interest in maintaining the character of this important part of our city. Nothing has been finalized, but we will continue to work closely with Bank of America, city officials and the residents of the surrounding community to work toward a positive outcome.”
Zim Zimmerman
Councilmember, District 3
817-392-8803
#12
Posted 23 June 2010 - 03:23 PM
I have been looking at the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of the city this week and I took a look at the corner of Winthrop and Camp Bowie. The original tenant of the retail portion was a "bank". That jogged my memory, even though I had actually written about it in the building listing at www.fortwortharchitecture.com for the Ridglea Village No. 2. The name of the bank next door to the Ridglea Theater, sitting at the corner of the building, was the Ridglea State Bank. Guess what the Ridglea State Bank became after a series of buyouts and bank mergers? BANK OF AMERICA
I thought you would enjoy that little bit of trivia.
#13
Posted 23 June 2010 - 03:41 PM
http://fortwortholog...idglea-theater/
--
Kara B.
#14
Posted 23 June 2010 - 04:27 PM
--
Kara B.
#15
Posted 23 June 2010 - 08:37 PM
#16
Posted 23 June 2010 - 10:03 PM
Only the property owner, the City Manager, the Landmarks Commission, or the City Council may submit a property for designation. There are procedures relating to how each entity can submit, but those are details. Once the property is on the Landmarks Commission's agenda, they vote for or against. If it passes, the nomination is reviewed by the Zoning, and if it passed there, it is finally approved by City Council. If an owner protests the designation, it will usually be denied somewhere within those three bodies.
Now, here's where a matter of law comes in. Our preservation ordinance states that if a demolition permit is applied for, an action to designate the property cannot be started at that time to try to save the structure. I don't think this would apply in this case because Bank of America has not purchased the property (as far as we know). Also, a demolition permit has not been filed. But, considering the potential property owner wants to do this project, I doubt any of the bodies or people capable of initiating designation would attempt it.
In looking back on Kevin's tracking of the buildings and attempts of designation, he stated that back in 2007, the late Chuck Silcox wanted to designate the theater. This was also an interesting turn of events because if you went back and checked Silcox's record, you would see that his votes indicated that he did not lean toward historic preservation.
Over on Fortworthology, several bloggers indicated that they did not think the retail/office building and the theater were that significant. I would like to say that these two structures were very significant in the development of both Ridglea Hills and the west side of Fort Worth. The retail/office building was constructed in 1947 by A.C. Luther, developer of Ridglea. He started construction of Ridglea Village on the north side of Camp Bowie in 1940. Another building was constructed on the north side of the street in 1942, and finally a third was added in 1947. In the same year, Luther turned to the south side of the street and built Ridglea Village No. 2 on the southeast corner of Winthrop and Camp Bowie. This is the retail/office building that may be demolished as a part of this plan. This 2 story building matched the structures across the street. In 1950, the theater was constructed on an adjacent lot. The theater's tower and marquee mark the development. The theater's architecture also matched the Mediterranean style present in the other buildings of Ridglea Village. In 1949, a matching apartment development was constructed to the north of Ridglea Village No. 1. These apartments have already been landmarks as Historic and Cultural (HC).
Tomorrow, I will post the criteria for designation and how many of the criteria the Ridglea Theater and Ridglea Village No. 2 will meet toward designation.
#17
Posted 24 June 2010 - 04:11 PM
#18
Posted 24 June 2010 - 07:08 PM
I also had a chance to review the drawings that have been presented in the few meetings that were held on this property. What we have been told is true. The only portion remaining of both the theater and the adjacent building will be the theater's facade. Everything else, will be a new branch bank building. However, I don't know what it will look like. After doing a little research and investigation, I have discovered the rationale behind the design. The Ridglea Theater is on a "Y" shaped property, with each leg of the "Y" touching Winthrop, Camp Bowie, and Bryant Irvin Rd. The front portion of the retail/office building is on it's own lot and 1/2 of the covered drive from Winthop to the parking lot behind is on the theater lot. The southern (rear) portion of the retail/office building and almost all of the theater parking is on a third piece of property owned by a different owner. Therefore, in order to satisfy parking requirements, the northern half of the retail/office building has to be demolished. The bank lobby will be inside the lobby to the theater; however, the door on Camp Bowie appears to be an exit only. The main door to the bank will face a parking lot on the west side of the building. Now, here is the really bad news. The drive-thru will be placed where the theater auditorium is currently standing.
#19
Posted 25 June 2010 - 12:46 PM
#20
Posted 25 June 2010 - 08:29 PM
#21
Posted 25 June 2010 - 08:44 PM
#22
Posted 25 June 2010 - 09:01 PM
#23
Posted 25 June 2010 - 11:35 PM
#24
Posted 26 June 2010 - 12:48 AM
#25
Posted 26 June 2010 - 04:25 PM
However all the last minute sturm und drang, the metaphorical chaining of the anguished body to the entry doors and the vilification of public officials who have little if any way in the law to do anything if they even wanted to, is just so much useless noise.
There are valid historic reasons for private property rights. The only way to add preservation into the picture is to go right down to the beginning where these rights are entitled and carefully rework them to get a reasonable balance that reasonable owners can accept. Trying to impose some draconian regulation on top of the existing tradition will go nowhere, especially in Texas.
In my opinion, structure property ownership rights should morph very gradually toward preservation based on the age of the structure and to some extent its perceived significance. The owner should receive compensation for its change in status and for maintaining its historical value. If no one wants to provide that compensation after a suitable period, then the owner is free to do whatever.
Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
#26
Posted 26 June 2010 - 04:41 PM
#27
Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:44 AM
#28
Posted 27 June 2010 - 01:00 PM
At this point, assuming a sale hasn't taken place or the Bank only has a first right of refusal option, if a group of people really cared that much, they should bring in or create an investment group with the intent to buy the property, seek full historic designation and landmarking, and then re-sell the property with all protective convenants intact and in place.
Individual personal and public protests have a poor track record of being an effective preservation tool in Fort Worth. I've seen way too many important historic homes and buildings demolished despite vigorous protests being voiced since I arrived in Fort Worth (from Wichita Falls) in the mid-1980's. Money talks louder than words and without a revolving fund or preservation minded investment group to buy endangered properties, we will continue to see more losses, although the number of unprotected historic structures we've identified and wish to save dwindles in number every year as demolitions continue.
Trying to change the political culture of Texas and the political culture that north Texas in particular is famous for, (Conservative values, strong individual property rights, a general distrust of governmental authority) is an uphill battle. Historic preservation, rightly or wrongly, is considered by many here as obstructionist and linked with promoting "social" values (i.e., the public interests) over those of the individual. That is one reason historic preservation has always had such a struggle in our State. It is interesting to note that the one City that most Texans consider to be the most "liberal", Austin, has a better than state average track record of saving and preserving it's historic structures. (and maybe that's a reason the National Trust for Historic Preservation is having their national conference in Austin this October) Because the private property owner's rights usually trump all others, an effective proactive approach would identify those properties deemed most important to preserve and then initiate efforts to work with the owner for some level of demolition protection. As Pete rightly notes, "reactionary" 11th hour efforts are the least effective and always consume a lot time, effort, and public goodwill for local preservationists.
Having outlined what I see as the major obstacles to saving historic properties in Fort Worth, I still hope something can be done to save the Ridglea Theater. Trying to change the course of events now is far more difficult than it would have been to have forseen this potential event a couple of years ago and taken steps then to ensure it wouldn't happen. Just my unsolicited 2 cents worth, but it would seem that after the Seventh Street Theater loss and the more recent Brace Building loss, local preservationists would convene, identify the most at-risk properties, and one by one seek some level of protection using some logical method to prioritize. Its already been stated that once a demolition permit has been sought, landmark designation or demolition protection efforts cannot be initiated. That fact alone makes a proactive approach essential.
#29
Posted 27 June 2010 - 01:57 PM
#30
Posted 27 June 2010 - 02:03 PM
--
Kara B.
#31
Posted 27 June 2010 - 02:29 PM
I've heard of a fair amount of preservation-negative flack coming from the City at council level and from various city departments. Historic Preservation seems to rank a low priority with our City bureaucracy while current city policy seems very biased towards new development regardless of everything else. Given the current budget shortfalls and the tapering off of Barnett Shale revenues, increasing the tax revenue base by promoting new development appears to have a high priority with the City. Of course, this is a short-sighted approach based on the revenue needs of the here and now without considering all of the long-term consequences. A lack of long term vision is one of the problems often cited about our City government. Even the guidelines of the city's Master Plan are often ignored when doing so is expedient or convenient. Good to hear the sale of the Ridglea Theater is not a done deal yet, maybe wiser minds will somehow prevail.
#32
Posted 27 June 2010 - 03:41 PM
#33
Posted 28 June 2010 - 08:11 AM
This, I believe, is the crux of the matter. There is interest in keeping the theatre as is and granting it historical status, but unless people with money can step forward to save it, all the protests are so many banging gongs- just noise and nothing more.
I've never been inside the Ridglea and have no special attachment to it, other than the desire to preserve historical buildings in general. Yes, there is worth on historical preservation, but only if there is a payback to the owner. Right now the bigger payback seems to be in redevelopment.
While it would be a tragedy in the specific case of the Ridglea if it were to be torn down, you also have to look at this from the standpoint of having a community that puts a premium on forward-looking development. People want to develop in Fort Worth. As someone who grew up in a declining community (Buffalo, NY), I can see how desireable it is to have that kind of buzz around a city.
While I like to think the theatre can be saved, you have to admit that in the end, money does the talking in our society. There is simply more value to the current owner to allow a bank to buy the property than to continue to use the property as is or ot sell it to someone who wants to preserve the theatre. Maybe I'm wrong and an investment group will show up that will save the theatre, but I think it will end up being a victim of its own great location.
And people can villify the city council for turning a blind eye to the historical significance of the theatre, but really, they have to create an environment that ensures the continued growth of the city which means, occasionally, the dragon wins.
Over on the bicycle forums, there is a Classic and Vintage forum. Occasionally there is a groundswell that raises up against the practice of people converting old steel bikes from multi-speed racers with drop bars to currently-popular fixed-gear bikes. Often, in the conversion, the provisions that allow multi-speed gearing are removed to give the bike a cleaner, sleeker appearance. This is what upsets the C&V crowd, because once those cable guides and stops are removed, the bike cannot be returned to its original configuration. I used to fall in step with the C&Vers that this was a terrible tragedy, but I've come to realize that unless I want to buy up all these bikes and preserve them, it's not really my place to try to dictate what is done with the bike. And if I did buy them all up, they would be just sitting around anyway and not be used for their intended purpose. At least they're being ridden after being converted to a fixie.
I think this situation is analogous. We don't own the Ridglea, and even though its fate is important to us, unless we can pony up the funding to save it, we're going to have to realize that there simply isn't much that can be done to stop B of A from purchasing and repurposing the property. It's the curse of living in a vibrant, growing community.
#34
Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:35 AM
That's the thing - a lot of people don't consider demolishing a historic theater and an adjoining historic office/retail building - all occupied - to replace it with a generic drive-through bank branch hiding behind the mask of a historic theater to be "forward-looking development."
It's not progress - it's another step toward making Camp Bowie into some sort of placeless generic Anywhere USA.
--
Kara B.
#35
Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:21 AM
I'm with Kevin, here. I think going from an existing multi-use set of buildings to a single use on the same site is a step backwards, against the philosophy of the MU-1 zoning (even though it is allowed), and against the concept of an urban village.
I guess my big question here relating to preservation is this. We have a handful of existing movie theater buildings still standing in the city. After touring the Ridglea this weekend, I'm quite sure that it is the most intact and in the best condition. What happens when there is only one left? Do we try to save it because otherwise, we will wipe its building type out of the city, or do we let that one be demolished? Then all we have left are our memories of a day gone by when attending a movie was a big event, instead of sitting in a small cramped shoebox of a theater.
The City of Fort Worth really needs to take a look at where the balance between preservation and new development is going.
#36
Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:56 PM
There could be another motive at work here actually. The owner could be trying to manipulate the market to sell the property at maximum cost. In other words, find an interested party who would make a realistic offer on it, then use that as the benchmark for other offers that may come around in order to maximize his take. Perhaps his hope is that a preservation group will pop out of the woodwork and top B of A's offer. With the threat of impending doom for the theatre, it can bring the preservationist fever to a head and galvanize support for a buyout group.
#37
Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:58 PM
#38
Posted 28 June 2010 - 06:25 PM
#39
Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:30 PM
At least the Bowie is still there or at least the facade. We don't need another bank.
#40
Posted 28 June 2010 - 08:56 PM
Fort Worth used to be such a charming, beautiful and unique place. Every time I come home to visit, it looks more and more generic, sad, and, well, pathetic. I mean, who would choose to live in a place with dreadfully hot weather, brown lawns, weedy parking lots surrounding empty dry-vit strip malls, mediocre lower-middle-management jobs, ugly gas wells, etc. etc. when other cities are greening up, preserving and developing inner-ring suburbs, re-connecting with transit, incubating innovation - you get my point.
Enjoy your property rights... only problem is, if you keep demolishing everything of any quality, no one will want your property...
#41
Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:51 AM
Maybe I'm just a blinded Ft. Worth homer, but I've always been proud of what I thought were better than average preservation efforts in Ft. Worth over the years, at least compared to Dallas. It seems that trend is going away. We had a potential jewel in the Hollywood just sitting there and the auditorium was destroyed and made into a parking garage. I couldn't believe how the 7th Street Theatre situation was handled. Now this.
I've been to the restored Cactus Theatre in Lubbock, a neighborhood single screen much like the Ridglea & 7th Street. It's now a multi-use performance venue & they've done a beautiful job with it. The Strand in Shreveport was originally an Opera/Vaudeville House. Architectually, it compares more with the Worth or Majestic; an absolute palace. It too was facing the wrecking ball until some wise people stepped in and restored it for use as an art movie house, concert & live theatre venue. There are many more theatres in other cities that have been preserved. Even "bleeping" Dallas preserved the Majestic and Lakewood Theatres. Why can't Ft. Worth have that kind of vision about just one of our few remaining historic theatres?
As noted earlier on this topic, the building is in fairly decent shape, and in my mind the location is by far the most ideal compared to the other few remaining single screen theatres we still have for the type of venue the Cactus & Strand have become (to me the New Isis is the next best candidate, but I've heard it's in pretty sad shape). I understand the property owners rights and I fully support that those rights should be absolute, but how do you not realize what you have and how rare a building like that is today, especially in the condition it is in? I just shake my head in disbelief that we may lose another, and for a Bank of America.
Quick Add.-I forgot about the great job the people involved with the Rose/Marine Theatre did in restoring it. Someone in Ft. Worth did have that vision.
#42
Posted 29 June 2010 - 07:43 AM
Is it my right as a property owner to build a fully combustible structure on MY property? NO, the community has deemed the risk to adjacent property too great and passed stringent fire codes. I assume you're ok with that, but it is CLEARLY an infringement on my rights as a property owner.
What if I don't want to build a garage on my residential lot, since it's MY property and I don't want to spend the money, can't I do that? NO, because it would make any current or future parking problem of MY property a community problem. I assume zoning regulations such as this are kosher, yes?
What if I want to run a hamburger joint out of my house in Wedgwood? Nope, it would adversely affect the property values of my neighbors, so we have zoning regulations for THAT too.
To go further, what if I live on a quiet street in Tanglewood but I want to cut down all of my towering live oaks and paint my house hot pink with purple shutters? Should I be able to demolish Thistle Hill for a Taco Bell if I want? If you say "yes, it's your right" to these, then the next questions is "Is the kind of place that allows such travesties any place in which any one of us would want to live?"
It is foolish to think that the community has no rights to influence what occurs on private property in a city. As long as the owner depends on the community (in this case, the City) for transportation access, fire and police protection, etc. then the community has a right to protect itself from the adverse effects of the actions of said owner.
I guarantee that the demolition of most of the Ridglea Theatre complex will negatively affect property values, not just on Camp Bowie, but on the neighborhoods that cling to it like the West Side's spine. Home values are artificially high in Ridglea, Arlington Heights, etc. in large part because of the beauty, charm, and "village character" of parts of Camp Bowie, especially the Ridglea complexes. You can get much more for your real-estate dollar in the north-east suburbs, but what you won't get is Camp Bowie.
After all, when Camp Bowie looks just like Alta Mesa or South Hulen (both of which have drive-through Bank of America branches), do you really think you'll be able to command top dollar for a crappy two bedroom-ONE BATH tudor bungalow?
#43
Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:54 AM
Okay, now.... put yourself in Buffalo or Detroit or any number of other Great Lakes cities and imagine that gut-wrenching decline happening to your whole hometown.
I guess I can see there is a valid tradeoff here. If given the choice I'd keep a beautiful old theatre, especially if it is being used as intended. But if I start putting up too many roadblocks to redevelopment when I have people waiting there with cash in hand, they will take their cash elsewhere and you end up with buildings that are architecturally signficant and sit empty. Yes, I realize it's a false dichotomy; it isn't a question of totally selling out or totally stopping development, but the line does fall somewhere in between. The preservation crowd is but one party that helps draw it. Becuase preservationists often bring no money to the table, it is frequently a disenfranchised voice.
#44
Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:23 PM
#45
Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:28 PM
My hunch is that you don't. For pete's sake, New Haven, Connecticut, once the poster child for urban blight, seems to be faring better in this downturn than Fort Worth. New Haven, with all of it's pesky zoning codes, preservation ordinances, social services, and income taxes. Home prices in the city are actually going UP, especially older, historic homes. Why? quality of life. architecture. culture. tree-lined streets. accessibility.
The bottom line is, preservation works to stabilize and increase property values in the medium to long run. For a place like Fort Worth, far from a coast, without significant natural resources, struggling cultural institutions, questionable corporate permanence, no transit to speak of, no research & development incentives, very limited housing choices... the city does not need to be allowing what quality of life and character it has to be demolished because some Dallas lender wants to clean up its balance sheet.
I mean, come on Cowtown, you're gonna stand by and let this happen?
#46
Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:45 PM
I know. That's what makes it so hard.
And New Haven is going up mostly because as "the poster child for urban blight", it had already hit rock-bottom. Median home price is $160k which is nuthin at all in that region of the country.
#47
Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:43 PM
#48
Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:06 PM
My hunch is that you don't. For pete's sake, New Haven, Connecticut, once the poster child for urban blight, seems to be faring better in this downturn than Fort Worth. New Haven, with all of it's pesky zoning codes, preservation ordinances, social services, and income taxes. Home prices in the city are actually going UP, especially older, historic homes. Why? quality of life. architecture. culture. tree-lined streets. accessibility.
The bottom line is, preservation works to stabilize and increase property values in the medium to long run. For a place like Fort Worth, far from a coast, without significant natural resources, struggling cultural institutions, questionable corporate permanence, no transit to speak of, no research & development incentives, very limited housing choices... the city does not need to be allowing what quality of life and character it has to be demolished because some Dallas lender wants to clean up its balance sheet.
I mean, come on Cowtown, you're gonna stand by and let this happen?
JPO,
I used to wonder about the same things. But then I saw the fine old Reynolds Mansion come down for an opthamology clinic about a decade ago. (the early 1900's Jennings House against all odds got moved out of FW to safety) A couple of other "Quality Hill" homes weren't so lucky in recent years. Then the gash in the bluff appeared next to our iconic 1893 courthouse and with it a monolithic International Style building that looks retro, almost brutalist 1950's rather than 2010. Nevermind the monumental cost overruns that make it one of the most expensive structures downtown on a per square footage basis. For that amount of money, it should be on par with the Bass Peformance Hall. Then I saw nearly half of my Samuels Avenue neighborhood, Fort Worth's oldest, obliterated for redevelopment with what remains now on the endangered list. Then the 7th Street theater, the Brace building, and many of the rare early housing remaining in the near Southside. (outside of Fairmount) have disappeared in recent years. I'm so shell-shocked and jaded about the weakness of historic preservation in our fair city that the for sale sign in our yard will remain there until we can sell and move.
Nothing seems to be deemed worth saving any more, not that there is that much left to save anyhow. A friend of mine from the Cleveland OH area viewed the 1907 photographs D.H. Swartz took of Fort Worth online that I had directed him to and then naively asked me for a list of how many of these once prominent homes and buildings were still standing. I had to sadly inform him only two-St. Patrick Cathedral and the former City National Bank Bldg. (now the White Elephant Saloon) remained. The latter structure was almost totally rebuilt to return to its former historic appearance. Everything else in the Swartz photo book is long gone. I recall as well running across a small book from the mid-1960's aptly named "Wreckin' Texas" by an Abilene, TX based demolition contractor and he was almost apologetic and sad toned in describing his demolishing the former W.T. Waggoner and Sam Burk Burnett (both historic Western cattle drive legends) mansions on Summit Avenue. In the 1950's the Texas Travel Guide by Rex Z. Howard showed the antebellum 1858 Col. J.B. Griffin home as well as the H.G. Well's (that actually was the man's name) "Doll House" home were still standing along Summit Avenue. Detective Longhair Jim Courtright's faded business sign and office were still visible downtown at that time but Howard ends his guide tour of Fort Worth warning his readers to hurry because "the wrecking crew may beat you there."
Maybe our motto should be changed from "Where the West Begins" to "Where the history disappears"? And now we have a rare West Side landmark theater with unique style that helped create an identity for the area currently proposed to be sold, largely demolished, and reborn as a national chain bank branch. Anyone who has followed banking trends for more than a few years can hardly begin to tell you how many have changed hands or closed outright. (heck, I even used to work for one, the Texas-based "M"-Banks back in the 1980's, since long defunct) There's no guaranty that BOA will not be bought out, merge, or go through some other major change and then, on the spur-of-the-moment, decide the Ridglea Branch is redundant and shutter it permanently. As always, it will be too late to bring the Theater back, but oh well...The business world today is far too unstable and volatile for any company, no matter how large or legendary, to claim they will always be around. (only funeral homes and the IRS can honestly make that claim) In fact, it seems the larger the company, the more likely it is they will make arbitrary changes that can significantly impact communities but hardly affects the corporation. Glad BOA is one of those businesses that has been officially deemed "too big to fail". Thanks John for sharing the unique architectural design features of the Ridglea-it is one of a kind and Fort Worth will be less of a community without it. For reasons I've already abundantly enumerated, I'm not getting my hopes up much.
#49
Posted 01 July 2010 - 01:44 PM
#50
Posted 01 July 2010 - 02:13 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users