FWST reported today that a Dallas investor is engaged in a possible deal to buy the building from the Bass Family and converting it to condos.
Is there hope?
Or will this be another disappointment...
If it is a go, I would like to suggest something. In Toronto there is an office building called the Royal Bank of Canada Towers. They have gold-colored windows. I think that buy changing the tint of the windows on the Bank One Building you could really attract business and residential tenants. I think it would add to our skyline. Anybody agree...
1 votes
DT: Former Bank One Bldg. has gone Condo.
Started by
jmhermus
, Apr 07 2004 08:35 PM
1085 replies to this topic
#2
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:35 PM
I, too, hope something productive can happen. Condos are good, but what are the chances of a mix of residential and office condo? Would there be business owners who would like to own their space in the building? Is that sort of thing done?
#3
Doug
Doug
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:35 PM
As referred to before, the Hancock in Chicago has offices up to a level, then apts for the upper floors then a bar, lounge, reastaurant, & observation deck on the topmost 2 or 3 floors. Maybe we could retro the Reata back up with a nice public night club up there too. We need a public access area with a 360 degree view of the merto area.
#4
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:36 PM
I think any use or combination of uses would be good for the structure. It would keep my preservationist mind at ease if the building were converted into condos. I never thought it should have been demolished in the first place.
#5
sundancing away
sundancing away
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:36 PM
Personally, I don't think we need any more residential space downtown, or at least a building of Bank One's size dedicated to residential. I agree with the tinted windows and Hancock Tower idea, a mixed-use structure, like Sundance West, though I don't think getting Reata back would be possible. Maybe Caravan of Dreams.
Fort Worth only wishes...
Fort Worth only wishes...
#6
cjyoung
cjyoung
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:36 PM
I thought there was too much water/mold damage to salvage the building.
How can this be possible? Have we been lied to about the extent of the damage?
How can this be possible? Have we been lied to about the extent of the damage?
#7
BB
BB
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:37 PM
I doubt we've been lied to about that damage. If the building is salvaged, I'm guessing that it will be stripped down to its steel and concrete shell before anything else is done. Am I correct in assuming that this would remove most of the mold and water damage from the building?
#8
jmhermus
jmhermus
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:37 PM
The problem will be asbestos removal or abatement. That, as I understand it, is why the two former owners opted against reconstruction. So, the question remains, why do it? Which is more expensive, the cost of the asbestos removal or the cost of demolition? The second question is--if it is feasible for the prospective purchaser to reconstruct the building why was it not feasible for the current and prior owner.
#9
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:37 PM
BB, the building has already been stripped down to the concrete shell. So, I doubt that mold and water damage is a big factor now in the building. I'm sure there is still some to clean up, but it is probably minimal.
Jason, the asbestos is still a key issue in repairing the building. I don't know what the relationship is between the cost of removing the remaining asbestos vs. the cost of demolition. As for your last question, I can't really answer that, either. However, I'm sure that Loutex just wanted out of the building. I think it had been trouble for them since they purchased it. I'm sure that they saw not repairing the building as a way for them to "take the money and run". As for the current owner, as demolition and asbestos costs rose, I think they did start to reconsider demolishing the building. I also believe they thought they could get the city or the TIF to pay them back on their investment of demolishing an eyesore.
Jason, the asbestos is still a key issue in repairing the building. I don't know what the relationship is between the cost of removing the remaining asbestos vs. the cost of demolition. As for your last question, I can't really answer that, either. However, I'm sure that Loutex just wanted out of the building. I think it had been trouble for them since they purchased it. I'm sure that they saw not repairing the building as a way for them to "take the money and run". As for the current owner, as demolition and asbestos costs rose, I think they did start to reconsider demolishing the building. I also believe they thought they could get the city or the TIF to pay them back on their investment of demolishing an eyesore.
#10
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:37 PM
Wouldn't the asbestos have to be removed prior to demolition anyway?
#12
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:38 PM
Yes, the remainder of the asbestos would have to be removed before demolition would be allowed.
#13
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:38 PM
So the asbestos really does not determine whether the building is reused or demolished, right? It will be a cost, and probably the same cost, regardless. The question then becomes one of structural integrity, floor plan, hanging new windows, etc.
I'm sure it's possible that a new building (or a parking lot) would be more valuable than the starter set now standing, but it's counterintuitive. In fact, if the structure and floor plan are that obsolete this soon, we might want to reconsider having the same architect do our CC Hotel!
I'm sure it's possible that a new building (or a parking lot) would be more valuable than the starter set now standing, but it's counterintuitive. In fact, if the structure and floor plan are that obsolete this soon, we might want to reconsider having the same architect do our CC Hotel!
#14
Thurman52
Thurman52
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:39 PM
I was thinking they can just encapsulate the asbestos, if it is not where it can be touched or damaged no harm.
This would lower cost and speed up re-use of the building.
This would lower cost and speed up re-use of the building.
#15
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:39 PM
Greg, you are right. Now the question becomes one of structural integrity, floor plan, new windows, and finish out. The first part of this is easy. The building is structurally sound. A new building would be more valuable than what is standing, but if you leave what is there, then you have saved a large amount of the building cost by starting from the existing structure. The structure is not obsolete because the building has a nice floor to floor height. However, one of the things that never made the building economically feasible to repair was the obsolete floor plan. That is for office space. With apartments, that obsolete floor plan may work out quite well. Usually, the old office buildings with the very obsolete floor size and layouts work very well for a residential floor plan.
#16
jobrayne
jobrayne
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:39 PM
Whatever will happen with that 'blasted' Bank One building? Thats the one that had all the windows blown out of it in a storm right? My step dad says it is a real eye sore.
Pale skinned, 31, computer technician, American living in the UK (and moving to TX).
Pale skinned, 31, computer technician, American living in the UK (and moving to TX).
#18
reaule
reaule
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:45 PM
I would like to see more owner-occupied housing downtown, but can the downtown market in Ft Worth support high-density condos? The most likely buyer of a downtown condo falls somewhere between young urban dwellers with no kids and good incomes, and back-to-the city empty-nesters. Tie in a hefty economic incentive package and now we're talking subsidized housing for the well-to-do.
#19
Urbndwlr FW
Urbndwlr FW
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:46 PM
The floors are too small for today's new office construction, but not for residential. I wasn't sure that the ceiling heights were tall enough though. John, how tall are they?
The for-sale scenario would be best if they were delivered right now in this interest rate environment. Who knows what things will be like in two years though. Either way, the building could be built out as either condos or apartments and would lease or sell very well. There is overwhelming demand for quality residential space downtown. The Fort Worth "in-town" apartment market, which is downtown and immediately surrounding neighborhoods, has the HIGHEST occupancy rate in the entire metroplex (over 97%).
The ground floor could be expanded to meet the curbs and provide new retail space. There is an existing parking garage that would easily support residential use. It should be re-faced though.
Just think what a 34th floor apartment with floor to ceiling glass and city views would fetch on the rental or sale market. $350 per square foot? $400? Higher?
And, to answer Sundancing Away's question as to whether we need more residential downtown: yes, we definitely do. We really need about 10,000 residents downtown to have a complete, self sustainging neighborhood that can support a grocery store and other ammenities. We now only have about 25% of that. The more residents that move downtown, the better the quality of life gets down here.
Subsidies: yes, do it, whatever it takes. Just make sure the developer isn't going to hang one, I mean two (remember the secret sale of the Calder?) in us like the Canadians did.
The for-sale scenario would be best if they were delivered right now in this interest rate environment. Who knows what things will be like in two years though. Either way, the building could be built out as either condos or apartments and would lease or sell very well. There is overwhelming demand for quality residential space downtown. The Fort Worth "in-town" apartment market, which is downtown and immediately surrounding neighborhoods, has the HIGHEST occupancy rate in the entire metroplex (over 97%).
The ground floor could be expanded to meet the curbs and provide new retail space. There is an existing parking garage that would easily support residential use. It should be re-faced though.
Just think what a 34th floor apartment with floor to ceiling glass and city views would fetch on the rental or sale market. $350 per square foot? $400? Higher?
And, to answer Sundancing Away's question as to whether we need more residential downtown: yes, we definitely do. We really need about 10,000 residents downtown to have a complete, self sustainging neighborhood that can support a grocery store and other ammenities. We now only have about 25% of that. The more residents that move downtown, the better the quality of life gets down here.
Subsidies: yes, do it, whatever it takes. Just make sure the developer isn't going to hang one, I mean two (remember the secret sale of the Calder?) in us like the Canadians did.
#20
edperc
edperc
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:46 PM
With all of the excitement surrounding the recent Pier 1 announcement, one would think that the city of FW would jump at the opportunity to aid in the redevelopment of the Bank One tower. Imagine how downtown could look in two years with this tower, the Landmark and Pier 1 all up and functional. It seems too bad that the talk at Radio Shack is to build so short. 6 stories would have little, if any, impact on FW's skyline. Another 20+ tower on the Trinity in addition to Pier 1's could really make a difference.
This idea of riverfront development should make us all very excited!
This idea of riverfront development should make us all very excited!
#21
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:46 PM
Edperc, you must also add the new Family Law Center to the list of construction activity. All of the development does make me excited.
#22
Kevin Lehnhardt
Kevin Lehnhardt
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2004 - 08:47 PM
It would be nice to see a public observation deck in downtown Fort Worth. I can't think of a better building for this than the Bank One Tower since it basically sits in the middle of downtown. The views of the rest of downtown in all directions would be great. It's also cool to think that Dallas and the other Metroplex skylines would come into view also from up there.
#23
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:55 PM
Urbndwlr, the floor to floor height on average is 12 feet. Several of the floors are taller, but all of the office floors were of that dimension. With today's standards that is a little cramped, but acceptable for both office and residential construction. The structure is reinforced concrete and that can always allow a lesser floor to floor height than steel.
Kevin, all of the Metroplex skylines are visible from up there. I have eaten at Reata (the top floor restaurant) many times. I would suspect that the new owners might put in a new top floor restaurant if they rehab the building.
Kevin, all of the Metroplex skylines are visible from up there. I have eaten at Reata (the top floor restaurant) many times. I would suspect that the new owners might put in a new top floor restaurant if they rehab the building.
#24
Andrew
Andrew
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:56 PM
John,
Could they realistically do units that are double height? More specifically, could they remove the the 15-20 feet of the second floor that is closest to the glass in each unit creating a two story, living room with 24' celings? The bedroom(s) would be on the second floor of each unit and the main entrance, kitchen, and living room on the first. Each unit would have a private residential entrance on the second floor.
I think each unit would be about 30-45' deep, so the removal of 15' of the second floor would still allow enough depth for upstairs living space. The loss of square footage would hopefully be offset by the increase in value created by the perception of increased space by the double height living room.
Do you think that would be possible to remove part of the floor and keep the construction costs under control? Any idea what that demolition would involve?
I think that the units would sell or lease very easily if they are built and designed well. I'd be interested, although I would want to have double pane glass windows rather than the single panes that were in there before. They didn't feel very substantial.
Could they realistically do units that are double height? More specifically, could they remove the the 15-20 feet of the second floor that is closest to the glass in each unit creating a two story, living room with 24' celings? The bedroom(s) would be on the second floor of each unit and the main entrance, kitchen, and living room on the first. Each unit would have a private residential entrance on the second floor.
I think each unit would be about 30-45' deep, so the removal of 15' of the second floor would still allow enough depth for upstairs living space. The loss of square footage would hopefully be offset by the increase in value created by the perception of increased space by the double height living room.
Do you think that would be possible to remove part of the floor and keep the construction costs under control? Any idea what that demolition would involve?
I think that the units would sell or lease very easily if they are built and designed well. I'd be interested, although I would want to have double pane glass windows rather than the single panes that were in there before. They didn't feel very substantial.
#25
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:56 PM
Andrew, those are questions only a Structural Engineer could answer. I think it would be a nifty idea. However, this building is a concrete tube design with all of the exterior columns supporting half of the weight between them and the core. Cutting those types of holes next to the exterior of the building might not be structurally feasible.
#26
jobrayne
jobrayne
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:57 PM
I am not sure how things work in FW, but does the council ever call public meetings for things like this?
re double pane glass: double glazing might have made all the difference and it might not even be an issue now, but a bit late for that now
re double pane glass: double glazing might have made all the difference and it might not even be an issue now, but a bit late for that now
#27
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:57 PM
All of the glass will have to be replaced if the building is refurbished, so installation of insulated glass won't be a problem. Also, city codes now require it.
Jobrayne, you might want to expound on your question about public meetings on the building. The Council has not discussed in a public meeting the subject of the Bank One Building.
Jobrayne, you might want to expound on your question about public meetings on the building. The Council has not discussed in a public meeting the subject of the Bank One Building.
#28
jobrayne
jobrayne
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:57 PM
well it seems so many people have different ideas and views on the building and possible projects, and without a public meeting the city really doesnt know what the people's ideas are. This person and that person thinks so and so's got it all wrong in Planning, and the folks in FW city council probably dont even know what is right or not or what people want.
Granted I'm not in FW yet so I can't truly speak for it just now, but as a possible near-future resident of FW, I think some public consultation is in order! Anyone else agree?
Granted I'm not in FW yet so I can't truly speak for it just now, but as a possible near-future resident of FW, I think some public consultation is in order! Anyone else agree?
#29
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:57 PM
Granted, we may have different ideas, but this building is in the private sector. It is privately owned and the potential buyers are a private corporation. I don't think anyone would have a public hearing over use of the building because the developers can do as they wish. The new buyers have asked for some city assistance with the project. I think it is something like $16 Milllion.
#30
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:58 PM
While I agree that private owners may pretty much do as they please, that goes only as far as their own money. Since it seems close to impossible to keep city money out of downtown projects, though, and that money is used to encourage certain behaviours, the citizens really should have a place at the table. And there is no harm in doing that early, unless the citizen input is for window-dressing after most major decisions have been made in private.
#31
jobrayne
jobrayne
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:58 PM
surely there ought to be a hearing of public views on something $16 million of their taxpayer money is going on. But I am out of this because I havent put a penny toward this unless you count my bit of Hulen shopping last year.
#32
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:59 PM
"... surely there ought to be a hearing of public views on something $16 million of their taxpayer money is going on."
One might think.
But in Fort Worth it took 15,000 signatures on a petition to force our leadership to allow citizens a voice in a $160 million project. That was last week. Time will tell if that begins a new pattern of public involvement.
One might think.
But in Fort Worth it took 15,000 signatures on a petition to force our leadership to allow citizens a voice in a $160 million project. That was last week. Time will tell if that begins a new pattern of public involvement.
#33
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:59 PM
The Dallas group that plans to redevelop the tower into 280 apartments will be presenting their ideas to the Fort Worth City Council on February 4th. This story was covered by Channel 8. They are requesting $16-17 Million Dollars from the city to redevelop the 37 story building.
#34
jmhermus
jmhermus
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 07:59 PM
By my calculations, the city would pay $60,715.00 for every apartment created. Public housing for the rich now available in Fort Worth.
Time to chime in all you forum members that so vigorously defended tax abatements in an earlier forum and convince the rest of us that this is a good deal for the average city taxpayer.
Time to chime in all you forum members that so vigorously defended tax abatements in an earlier forum and convince the rest of us that this is a good deal for the average city taxpayer.
#35
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:00 PM
Back when the Bass Family wished to demolish the building, a proposal was placed in front of City Council to ultimately have all the demolition costs that remain today rebated back to a price of approximately $12 Million and to waive all of the fees for street closure, parking space rental, permits, etc. coming to a cost of about $2 Million. Then the site would have become temporary surface parking until the site could be redeveloped for $14 Million.
The city blocks in Downtown are a little shy of one acre and yield at best, 177 parking spaces. This means under this propsoal each parking space would cost the city $78,651.69 and there would be another ugly surface parking lot. When the property was redeveloped there would have been no guarantee that another tax abatement would not be requested.
If nothing happened to the tower, and it is left in its present condition, it could sit in the middle of Downtown for 10 years or more. The Blackstone Hotel was vacant for 17 years before it reopened.
The city blocks in Downtown are a little shy of one acre and yield at best, 177 parking spaces. This means under this propsoal each parking space would cost the city $78,651.69 and there would be another ugly surface parking lot. When the property was redeveloped there would have been no guarantee that another tax abatement would not be requested.
If nothing happened to the tower, and it is left in its present condition, it could sit in the middle of Downtown for 10 years or more. The Blackstone Hotel was vacant for 17 years before it reopened.
#36
chbickfordjunocom
chbickfordjunocom
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:00 PM
mix use with a grocery store-retail shops-offices-apartments-condos would be the best use- enclose the Asbestos up date windows - let the city help and lets go
#37
tcole
tcole
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:00 PM
Been out of the loop for a few days. What exactly is the proposal? That the city grant abatements "worth" $16-17 mil or that the city actually fund the developers that $16-17 mil out of city coffers. If it is the former, what is the time horizon for the abatement? 10 years? 15 years?
#38
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:01 PM
If the city is investing shouldn't the city get some units? Public housing downtown is a good idea (transit and jobs availability is best there). 10% managed by the Housing Authority would do the job without overwhelming the facility.
#39
gdvanc
gdvanc
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:02 PM
the city's help would apparently be mostly in the form of tax abatements. perhaps we'll find more details tonight or tomorrow. criminy, even Silcox has voiced tentative support.
City to consider tower renovation - Tinsley, Star-Telegram
Tandy, bank plans awaited - Tinsley, Star-Telegram
JM: haven't heard enough details to make up my own mind, much less try to convince anyone that it's a good idea for the average city taxpayer.
City to consider tower renovation - Tinsley, Star-Telegram
Tandy, bank plans awaited - Tinsley, Star-Telegram
JM: haven't heard enough details to make up my own mind, much less try to convince anyone that it's a good idea for the average city taxpayer.
#40
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:02 PM
If the city has to provide services to the building (i.e. fire, plice, code, etc.) but the taxes are abated, who pays?
#41
BB
BB
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:03 PM
The good citizens of Ft. Worth, right? Aren't they the ones that truly benefit from these projects?
#42
quizzler
quizzler
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:03 PM
Let me figure this out......
Watch 24, FW City Council Meeting or the Mavericks/Kings.
I hate these nights.
Watch 24, FW City Council Meeting or the Mavericks/Kings.
I hate these nights.
#43
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:04 PM
The designs were unveiled today for the redevelopment of the building. It will still be in the modern style, but it will not be all glass. The angled base will be concealed within a new base that is rectangular. Inside the base will be retail and tenants and visitors will walk through the angled columns to get to the upper levels. One interesting thing to note about the base is that the corners will be notched similar to my design for a new building for the block. I hope to have copies of the renderings tomorrow evening.
#45
Nick
Nick
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:05 PM
I hope it stay the same.But heck im happy its not going away.maybe ill grow to love the new skin?
#46
djeseru
djeseru
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:05 PM
Personally, I was glad to hear about the demolition part because I just do not like glass 'monstrosities.' Even as a little girl in Fort Worth I disliked it when they built it.
But, knowing now how the world works and how money should be spent, then coupled with the Tandy vacancy, saving this building for such multi-purpose usage is the most postive step. I would just hope that they go with a different color glass...
But, knowing now how the world works and how money should be spent, then coupled with the Tandy vacancy, saving this building for such multi-purpose usage is the most postive step. I would just hope that they go with a different color glass...
#47
John T Roberts
John T Roberts
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:19 PM
Here are three renderings of the project:
#48
ghughes
ghughes
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:20 PM
I am glad to see the building extended to the street (sidewalk) at ground level because it invites people in, which is what buildings ought to do. It will be much more friendly than Portman's usual efforts that isolate his work from the street.
If someone reads this in 100 years, though, I said it first: "Oh Lordy, we covered up the sloped base of the building! How barbaric ! What were we thinking, to obliterate the signature of the architect? Just as in Rochester, Jacksonville, and who knows where else, the design was an authentic Portman. It is time for 22nd century Fort Worth to reach back to its roots and clear the coverings from the base of a great work! Let's restore the 'Bank One tower' to its pre-tornado glory!"
If someone reads this in 100 years, though, I said it first: "Oh Lordy, we covered up the sloped base of the building! How barbaric ! What were we thinking, to obliterate the signature of the architect? Just as in Rochester, Jacksonville, and who knows where else, the design was an authentic Portman. It is time for 22nd century Fort Worth to reach back to its roots and clear the coverings from the base of a great work! Let's restore the 'Bank One tower' to its pre-tornado glory!"
#49
DRStevens
DRStevens
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:21 PM
You're funny Greg! Hey, if we want all these people to live downtown, don't we need more services and attractions such as some real parks (like with grass and trees to walk the dog in and let the kids play) within a short walk? I lived in Manhattan for 2 years, a nice green park within a couple of blocks is an absolute necessity. Maybe I'm just not thinking clearly, but is there one nearby?
Also, what about groceries for example - it's a pain to get your car from a highrise and drive out to the grocery store. It is a walking life that we want if we live in an urban area. There are plenty of restaurants and entertainment venues, but the mindset in the layout is for commuting visitors, not for residents. A real, full service grocery store is a necessity. Is the answer to this - Build it and they will come?
Also, what about groceries for example - it's a pain to get your car from a highrise and drive out to the grocery store. It is a walking life that we want if we live in an urban area. There are plenty of restaurants and entertainment venues, but the mindset in the layout is for commuting visitors, not for residents. A real, full service grocery store is a necessity. Is the answer to this - Build it and they will come?
#50
sundancing away
sundancing away
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2004 - 08:21 PM
I remember reading SOMEWHERE that a grocery store will be included in a project (was not a Sundance project) and it will be a mom and pop downtown store with a deli and such...
Has anyone else heard this besides me?
Has anyone else heard this besides me?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
