Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fort Worth Stockyards

Stockyards New Development Historic District

  • Please log in to reply
424 replies to this topic

#201 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 14 July 2015 - 07:46 PM

Things that would be lost under the above redevelopment plan:

 

- Mule Barns - The buildings would still exist, but would replace live animals with retail and restaurants.

- Stockyards Visitor Center

- Cattlepen Maze

 

Same as above, but things I'm happy to see removed:

 

- The ruins - They're worthless and can't be salvaged anyway.

- Surface Parking between mule barns.

 

I'm a little confused about Marine Creek's widening. I don't think of piers and boat docks when I think of the old west.

 

The updated site plan looks good except for the first three bullet points. Still waiting to see updated renderings.


- Dylan


#202 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 14 July 2015 - 08:49 PM

Renamerusk, I actually never answered the questions you posed.  I was going to mull them over and I never replied.  I don't think there is anything wrong with the Stockyards now.  I will admit there is a lot of underutilized property.  I don't think that it is crucial to the survival of the Stockyards if it is juiced up.  If massive development does not occur, I don't think it would kill the area.

 

I attended the meeting.  It was extremely long.  It started at 3 PM and ended a little after 5:30.  I stayed around and visited with people, and then I showed a couple of Historic Fort Worth people the existing cattle pens.  I arrived at the meeting right at 3, and I didn't get any water and after walking around the area at 6 PM quite a bit, I was thirsty.  I was also hungry.  I stopped in at Cooper's Barbecue and ran into Steve Murrin and I visited with him.  

 

People are Strange, the Mule Barns are very under utilized.  They could probably be put to a higher use without destroying their character.  The Stockyards Visitors Center is a new building.  The center could be relocated to a restored building.  The maze is also something that could be relocated elsewhere.  Austin, the Site Plan you presented here was also shown at the meeting.  There were other forum members there.  I haven't read the Twitter feed yet, but Craig Cavilieer did state that they would not be demolishing any of the buildings they own or control.



#203 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 15 July 2015 - 10:32 AM

It seems that most people are split like liberals and conservatives unwilling to compromise either way.

 

I think you can have new development in the Stockyards without destroying the character of the area. Not every building or structure is worth saving.

 

Personally I'd like to see money spent on infrastructure and restoring buildings like the New Isis theater and attracting higher-end places like Lonesome Dove.



#204 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 15 July 2015 - 12:23 PM

The Majestic/Hickman project does not involve the area west of Main Street.  However, that area will be impacted by that development.  That is why the Task Force is developing design guidelines for the whole area.  I'm pretty confident that the Majestic group wants tenants that are higher-end. 



#205 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 15 July 2015 - 02:55 PM

Love the plans and hope folks don't kill the deal.  Sure the stockyards will survive without the development.  However, some of the development are in areas that are current crap holes and need something besides decaying falling down buildings.  It is a win/win for Fort Worth.



#206 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 15 July 2015 - 03:08 PM

I heard mention on a previous post of improvents that were to be made to Marine Creek. Was that just someone speculating or do the full details include Marine Creek?

#207 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 15 July 2015 - 03:19 PM

There is going to be some work on Marine Creek.  That may tie in with the Panther Island project. 



#208 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 15 July 2015 - 04:06 PM

I guess I shouldn't be shocked that there are people STILL complaining.

I like this and think it's by far the best plan for The Stockyards

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#209 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 15 July 2015 - 04:34 PM

I guess I shouldn't be shocked that there are people STILL complaining.

I like this and think it's by far the best plan for The Stockyards

 

Maybe, just maybe, the complaining (legitimate concern) is why the final project is shaping up to be so much better than it might have been.  I tend to believe that hearing from the public has been both instructive and beneficial.


  • JBB likes this

#210 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 15 July 2015 - 06:15 PM


I guess I shouldn't be shocked that there are people STILL complaining.

I like this and think it's by far the best plan for The Stockyards

 
Maybe, just maybe, the complaining (legitimate concern) is why the final project is shaping up to be so much better than it might have been.  I tend to believe that hearing from the public has been both instructive and beneficial.

True, but I'm talking about the people who don't want any development or anything new, whatsoever

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#211 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 15 July 2015 - 07:47 PM

[SNIP]

People are Strange, the Mule Barns are very under utilized.  They could probably be put to a higher use without destroying their character.  The Stockyards Visitors Center is a new building.  The center could be relocated to a restored building.  The maze is also something that could be relocated elsewhere.  Austin, the Site Plan you presented here was also shown at the meeting.  There were other forum members there.  I haven't read the Twitter feed yet, but Craig Cavilieer did state that they would not be demolishing any of the buildings they own or control.

 

Last time I was in the Stockyards, I enjoyed seeing Horses and Camels in the mule barns.

 

I've never been able to justify paying $6 to go into the maze, but it looks like I better do so before it's gone. It's missing from the master plan.

 

Other than the above, I like the master plan.

 

----------------------------

 

On a related note, I'm still hoping some of the new buildings will have wood (or fake wood) exteriors.


- Dylan


#212 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 20 July 2015 - 07:43 AM

The next Stockyards meeting is a public hearing for the design guidelines.  It will be Wednesday, July 22, at the Texas Cowboy Hall of Fame, at 6:00 PM.  This is a night meeting, so it will be easier for those who work to attend.



#213 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 21 July 2015 - 07:16 PM

Earlier, someone asked about the Stockyards Historic Resources and what buildings were designated.  Here are two aerial photographs in PDF format.  The first identifies the historic resources and the second identifies the ones that are designated.

 

Historic Resources

 

Designated Structures

 

The maps have some overlapping colors, so they are a little bit difficult to read. The yellow area is the proposed three story zone.

 

This is a reminder that the next meeting is a full public hearing.  It will be held on Wednesday, July 22nd at the Texas Cowboy Hall of Fame inside the Mule Barns at 6:00 PM.  The meeting is scheduled to be over by 8. The address is 128 E. Exchange Ave.



#214 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 22 July 2015 - 08:28 PM

I went to the meeting tonight. The big discussion was about the heights of the buildings. I'll upload some pics later, but what a few of the people kept bringing up the Stockyards being designated as a National Historic District, like Fairmount, and one even mentioned the name of "Marine Creek Park", stating that it's actually called "Saunder's Park" (I believe that's how you spell it) and mentioned no plaques given and pleading to recognize that part of the area. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#215 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 22 July 2015 - 09:58 PM

Jeriat, I didn't see you there.  I was sitting right up front.  However, I was sandwiched in and couldn't even turn around in my seat very well.  In order to be clear, the Stockyards are already designated as a National Register Historic District.  This is purely honorary, and offers no legal protection against demolition.  Many of the people there were asking for a City of Fort Worth Historic District.  This would legally protect the buildings from demolition and would require the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission to hear all cases for demolition, alterations, and additions to historic structures.  It would also require the commission to hear all cases regarding new construction within the local district. 

 

The park is actually named Saunders Park, after the Saunders family.  The Saunders Family has a long history with the Stockyards and they operated from offices in the Livestock Exchange Building.  There is some remodeling going on inside the locally landmarked structure for the developer of the area.  This remodeling removed a livestock cashier's window and it was found in the trash.  Fortunately, it was saved and is now in storage.  However, this goes to show how the developer regards a historic property.  For the record, a City of Fort Worth Historic & Cultural Landmark designation does not protect a building's interior.



#216 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 22 July 2015 - 10:24 PM

Jeriat, I didn't see you there.  I was sitting right up front.  However, I was sandwiched in and couldn't even turn around in my seat very well.  In order to be clear, the Stockyards are already designated as a National Register Historic District.  This is purely honorary, and offers no legal protection against demolition.  Many of the people there were asking for a City of Fort Worth Historic District.  This would legally protect the buildings from demolition and would require the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission to hear all cases for demolition, alterations, and additions to historic structures.  It would also require the commission to hear all cases regarding new construction within the local district. 

 

The park is actually named Saunders Park, after the Saunders family.  The Saunders Family has a long history with the Stockyards and they operated from offices in the Livestock Exchange Building.  There is some remodeling going on inside the locally landmarked structure for the developer of the area.  This remodeling removed a livestock cashier's window and it was found in the trash.  Fortunately, it was saved and is now in storage.  However, this goes to show how the developer regards a historic property.  For the record, a City of Fort Worth Historic & Cultural Landmark designation does not protect a building's interior.

 

Well I was all the way in the back, but I was in a Nirvana shirt and Stars cap. I kinda dipped out around 8 and didn't stay for the finish. 

Although I'm all for this project in its current state, I found everyone's take on it interesting, Also, this 2009 proposal:

11694396_10205947175071934_441558009_n.j

 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#217 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 July 2015 - 06:43 AM

A greater concern that I have about the development of the Stockyards is the inclusion of a residential component.  Will apartments, moving vans, trucks clog the pedestrian friendly aspect of the core area?  My fear is that it has the potential to become very crowded or rundown or both.

 

There does seems to me to be a better solution if the residential component was concentrated west and along Ellis Avenue where street infrastructure is already in place by enlarge.  I believe, incentives can be offered to current residents in the immediate neighborhood to make improvements to their houses; and this, along with building new townhouses could be a better solution than yet another West 7th Street "style" apartment block that always come with the likes of Starbucks, Subway, T-Mobil, ATT, zippy cleaners, etc, etc.



#218 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 23 July 2015 - 08:03 AM

I don't know... I could see a need for low-cost apartments to provide a walking-distance commute for people who work in the stockyard retail businesses. Apartments above retail, two or three story buildings, that would not overwhelm the historic buildings in the area.

 

The idea of anyone looking to actually live in the stockyards still seems more than weird to me. When I was a kid you could smell the offal from the cattle pens down in South Hills when the wind blew in from the north...



#219 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 16 August 2015 - 03:32 PM

An online petition regarding the Stockyards.



#220 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 17 August 2015 - 11:29 AM

Thanks for the heads up on the petition.

 

I included this with my signature:

 

The City Council should ensure lasting protection of the remaining historic structures of the Stockyards. I don't even think many of the buildings even have the toothless designation of Demolition Delay. Please preserve these precious resources with the creation of a Historic District overlay. Mistakes and lack of leadership now could prove to be disastrous resulting in a loss of something that cannot be rebuilt. 


Erik France


#221 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 20 August 2015 - 07:34 AM

The Stock Yards Task Force has made recommendations to limit new building heights within an expanded design district. 

 

http://www.star-tele...le31582925.html

 

The area south of the Mule Barns was included in the expanded district and includes a site that developers want to build another hotel. 



#222 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 20 August 2015 - 07:42 AM

The task force finally made some movements toward a goal, and took some action.  I should have more information this evening after visiting with some people who were in attendance.



#223 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 20 August 2015 - 08:01 AM

My fellow Weekly writer Eric has a story on the Stockyards task force in the paper:  http://www.fwweekly....ckyards-shorty/


  • JBB likes this

- Architecture/urban planning/transit blogger, Fort Worth Weekly

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#224 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,388 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 20 August 2015 - 08:56 PM

There's a couple of quotes in there that I won't copy and paste in this thread because I'm afraid that reading them again will actually make me ill.

#225 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:07 AM

Same here.



#226 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 August 2015 - 09:42 AM

Surprised no comments here lately. I went to the first 1:45 of the "public comment" meeting last night. The first hour was a (rather dry) presentation of the guidelines and standards being proposed. After that was public comment. A member of the Texas Historical Commission was there and basically blasted the entire thing. Didn't see a single member of the City Council there, nor any obvious members of the media.


  • JBB likes this

#227 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,388 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:06 AM

Can you elaborate more on the Texas Historical Commission member blasting it? Mad because it amounts to very little in the way of historic protection?

#228 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:06 AM

I had a conflict of meetings last night and I was originally going to come in late to the Stockyards meeting.  However, I found out my other event started at 6:30 and since I have been uncomfortable, unable to hear, and bored at the other meetings, I just decided to skip it.  With the later start of the meeting that I attended, I would not have made the Stockyards meeting, anyway.  I'm glad to hear that a representative from the Texas Historical Commission showed up.  Council attendance at these meetings has been rather poor.



#229 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:20 AM

I think folks are just resigned to fighting this at the next level which is the City Council. I don't know how many times the speaker responded to questions or points made by the public by saying (paraphrasing) "Form Based Codes or Historic Overlays are outside the purview of this committee."



#230 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:52 AM

Can you elaborate more on the Texas Historical Commission member blasting it? Mad because it amounts to very little in the way of historic protection?

 

I wish I could remember the gentleman's name. There are no photos of the staff on the THC website or I could pick him out for you. He said he was in town on unrelated business but was happy to be able to speak at this event.

 

He said a week prior THC had sent a list of concerns to the task force that outlined the issues they saw with the draft document. Chef among them were unenforceable guidelines and "standards" that are so poorly written that they become unenforceable guidelines.

 

He stated that THC is standing by to help in any way that the task force might request.

 

The task force speaker stated that they had received the letter from THC but that the majority of their suggestions were addressed by "Form Based Codes or Historic Overlays and are outside the purview of this committee."


  • JBB likes this

#231 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:59 AM

The problem with the whole thing is that the City Council charged the Task Force with those two items.  When those items were taken off the table, the preservationists in the audience asked the consultant to always state that they were out of the purview of the Task Force. 



#232 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 August 2015 - 11:19 AM

Well they aren't outside of the purview of the Task Force, it's more like the Task Force is unwilling/unable to agree on those items, and thus they will do no action on them. Council should have shut down the Task Force as soon as that decision was made.



#233 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 27 August 2015 - 12:50 PM

Volare, I attended some of the early meetings and it was clearly defined at the beginning that the Task Force was NOT to address preservation or form based codes.  Their only charge was to develop design guidelines for new construction.  City Staff gave the Task Force those instructions.  I will agree with you that the Task Force can't agree on anything.  In my opinion the Task Force was destined to fail from the beginning and when they failed, they were to become the scapegoat.  That's why I decided last night to be involved with a project that was actually a preservation success.



#234 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 August 2015 - 02:28 PM

That's why I decided last night to be involved with a project that was actually a preservation success.

 

Do tell!



#235 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 August 2015 - 03:08 PM

Volare, I attended some of the early meetings and it was clearly defined at the beginning that the Task Force was NOT to address preservation or form based codes.  Their only charge was to develop design guidelines for new construction.  City Staff gave the Task Force those instructions.

 

When you say early meetings, you mean Task Force meetings or City Council meetings?

Defined by City Staff you say? Who exactly? And how did they come to that instruction? Was that their interpretation of what the council had said? Because that is clearly not what they said.



#236 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 27 August 2015 - 03:36 PM

I hope I can get all of this correct, because a significant amount of time has passed since those early meetings.  Those early meetings were for the Task Force.  In July of 2014, the City Council voted to set up a Task Force whose charge was to protect the Stockyards and to develop form based codes.  In the early Task Force Meetings it was City Staff that directed the members to not include preservation and their direction was to approve design guidelines for new construction.  I will be more than happy to provide you with the names of the City Staff who gave this direction to the Task Force in a private message.  I believe that direction was given because the city did not budget any money to develop form based codes.  From what I can remember, those instructions came from higher up than the staff present at the meetings.  I believe that design guidelines were the only option that was available to the group within the amount of city funds that were available to be spent on the Stockyards.  I also think that City Staff agreed that this was not what the Council had approved by their vote.  There have been several members of the Task Force that have stated at the public meetings that the work they were doing was clearly not what the Council said.  I do believe that all of the recordings of these meetings are available on the City's website for verification. 

 

Brad Patterson was the person representing the THC at the meeting.  I would also state for the record that the City's Preservation Officer does not attend the Stockyards Task Force Meetings.



#237 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 August 2015 - 03:47 PM

 I will be more than happy to provide you with the names of the City Staff who gave this direction to the Task Force in a private message. 

 

Brad Patterson was the person representing the THC at the meeting.  I would also state for the record that the City's Preservation Officer does not attend the Stockyards Task Force Meetings.

 

Please do send me a PM. With regards to the City's Preservation Officer, what I've been told is they are not permitted to attend the meetings, not that they don't want to. Thanks for the claification on THC. He was a good speaker.



#238 dangr.dave

dangr.dave

    Elite Member

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

Posted 02 September 2015 - 09:42 AM

I noticed there they have installed new signage around the Stockyards.  There is one in front of the New Isis on the corner, and one in front of the Maverick mural. 



#239 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 24 September 2015 - 10:29 AM

Yesterday, the Stockyards Task Force Voted 10 to 5 to approve the recommendation of the Design Guidelines for New Construction.  The document will now start making its rounds through the city's process with final approval by the City Council scheduled for December 1st. 

 

Here's the tentative schedule for adoption of the guidelines:

 

September 24: Urban Design Commission receives briefing on design district

October 13: City Council receives briefing on proposed zoning changes:
1. Create Stockyards design overlay district
2. Remove PD/MU-2 site plan requirement
3. Remove overlap with Trinity Uptown design overlay district

October 14: Zoning Commission receives briefing on zoning changes
October 20: City Council approves M&C initiating zoning changes
October 22: Urban Design Commission holds public hearing and votes on recommendation
November 11: Zoning Commission holds public hearing and votes on recommendation
December 1: City Council holds public hearing and votes on zoning changes
 



#240 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 26 September 2015 - 08:21 AM

Well-written commentary on the state of historic preservation in the Stockyards, and the workings of the task force set up to develop design standards there:

 

http://www.star-tele...le36639426.html



#241 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 26 September 2015 - 09:15 AM

That opinion piece was very well written.  In order to truly save the Stockyards, a local historic district must be created and form based codes must be implemented.  These two items are the only way to put every property owner on an equal playing field with each other. 

 

Fort Worth Business has an article that details exactly what happened at the meeting.  Bob Adams, Historic Fort Worth's representative, could not support the document that was passed.

 

Here is that link: http://www.fortworth...12c7b7dca0.html



#242 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 October 2015 - 01:46 PM

The first project from Heritage Development, LLC (Majestic/Hickman) will be going before the Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission on Monday.  This project involves the Horse and Mule Barns that were constructed in 1911.  The two buildings are interesting in that one half of the complex is already designated Highly Significant Endangered and the other half is designated Demolition Delay.  Bennett Benner Partners is the architect for this project, and they are proposing to upgrade the designation on the Demolition Delay portion to Highly Significant Endangered.  This is the highest level of the city's historic designations.  The are also presenting to the Landmarks Commission the renovation plans for both buildings.  The plans include altering some of the existing openings on the facades, creating new window and door openings, and installing canopies of the openings on the south elevations.

 

Majestic is not the only party in the Stockyards upgrading the historic designations on their properties this month.  Philip Murrin is seeking an upgrade from Demolition Delay to Highly Significant Endangered on three properties.  They are the Stockyards Lodge #1244 at 2408 North Main Street, The O'Keefe-Long Building at 101-107 West Exchange Avenue, and 115-125 West Exchange Avenue.  The Stockyards Lodge is the building that had the back wall collapse in 2014.

 

For the full Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission Agenda, please go to: http://fortworthtexa...icCultural.pdf.  I wish that the packets for the individual cases had been posted online today, so that you could see the changes proposed for the buildings.



#243 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,388 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 09 October 2015 - 01:54 PM

I'm assuming this news has a little bit for everyone: upgraded designations for the preservationists and progress for those clamoring for progress.

#244 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 October 2015 - 02:18 PM

You are correct.  With the absence of creating a local historic district, individual designations are the only way that the buildings can be legally protected.  However, individual designations only allow oversight on that particular property.  Individual designations do not affect a neighbor's property.  If a district was created, then the adjacent property owner would fall under the historic district's established guidelines and their project would be heard by the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission. 

 

The adaptive re-use of the Horse and Mule Barns is the first project being reviewed by any oversight committee after the announcement of the redevelopment of the area.  Yes, this is progress.  

 

Philip Murrin also should be commended for being the first of the individual property owners to step up to the plate to get his buildings locally designated as Highly Significant Endangered Landmarks.  Until he took this action, Los Vaqueros Mexican Restaurant and the Hotel Texas were the only buildings west of Main Street that were locally designated. 



#245 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 October 2015 - 10:07 PM

Fort Worth Business has an interview with Eric Hahnfeld, the Chairman of the Stockyards Design District Task Force.  The link to it is below:

http://www.fortworth...e85af0e544.html



#246 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 11 October 2015 - 08:16 AM

Here's a link to Sandra Baker's article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about the upcoming Landmarks Commission Hearings and the progress on the Design Guidelines going through Zoning and City Council.

 

http://www.star-tele...le38454042.html



#247 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 11 October 2015 - 08:22 AM

"The highly significant endangered designation, adopted by the city in 1995, provides significant economic incentives for redevelopment. It doesn’t prevent demolition, but property owners must still appear before the Landmarks Commission when making changes to the property."

 

So it sounds like this is less about actual historic preservation and more about handouts for developers.

 

I'm shocked.



#248 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 11 October 2015 - 10:04 AM

A "Highly Significant Endangered" designation with benefits should do a better job of protecting historic structures than requiring an additional stop on the way to the demolition permit shop. Once the owner take public money the public should have a "significant" say in what happens to an "endangered" building, including periodic inspections, requirements to maintain structural integrity, provide safety and fire code requirements, and be subject to city condemnation and surrender of property at FMV should they or their heirs or subsequent purchasers fail in meeting those requirements. 



#249 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 11 October 2015 - 11:32 AM

Volare, the passages that you quote from the article doesn't tell the whole story.  I am a big designation proponent and I have said many times in the past that designation protects the building against demolition, which is true.  Sandra Baker's statement, "It doesn't prevent demolition..." is also true.  None of our preservation laws totally prevent demolition, but they do throw up enough roadblocks to make it much less likely.  I will have more on that later in this post. As for the tax incentives that come along with preservation, I'm all for them, even though I have opposed other tax incentives.  The reason is that many of these preservation projects would not happen unless there were tax breaks involved. Some of our preservation successes in Fort Worth would not have happened without the tax incentives.  Many of these buildings might be vacant lots without the breaks.  Also, it is much more environmentally friendly to rehabilitate older buildings than to demolish them and build new.   For the record, I would like to say that it is my opinion that I think Fort Worth has a fairly weak preservation ordinance compared to other cities. 

 

Here is how our historic designations via the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance protect against demolition.  If a building is designated and an owner wants to demolish the structure, then the Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission is supposed to hear the case that the applicant wants to demolish the building.  They hear that case, and then if they rule that there are grounds to not demolish the building, then they will not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the structure.  To present this, the owner has to provide adequate proof as described in our Preservation Ordinance.  Say the owner, doesn't like the ruling of the Landmarks Commission, then he can appeal to the Board of Appeals.  That board can make a ruling, or send it back through the proper boards for re-hearing.  In this case, it would be the Landmarks Commission.  There are also passages in our Preservation Ordinance that talk about what happens if an owner demolished their designated structure without the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmarks Commission.  Damages assessed by the City of Fort Worth can be applied to the demolished property.  Now here is an example of how a designation does not completely prevent demolition.  A few years ago in Dallas, a property owner demolished either in the middle of the night or over a weekend a City of Dallas Landmark in the West End.  I believe this building was the Katy Railroad Freight Warehouse.  The city found out about the demolition and ordered the property owner to rebuild the building at his cost.  Nothing happened and the case went to court.  The courts finally ruled that the city did not have the legal right to force him to rebuild.   As you can see, there is an example of how the damages assesses for unlawful demolition of a landmarked building were ruled invalid and that demolition occurred with all of the legal protections in place.
 



#250 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 11 October 2015 - 01:12 PM

John thanks for your excellent and informative response. If I were trying to set up a task force to protect the most prime historic area in Fort Worth, seems like you would want someone like John (or several folks like John) on that task force. The fact that the task force was weighted so heavily in favor of development representatives and away from historic preservation interests speaks volumes.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Stockyards, New Development, Historic District

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users