52 replies to this topic

[John T Roberts]

The FW Business Press is reporting that First Financial Bank plans to construct a 34,000 square foot office building at the northwest corner of Forest Park Blvd., and West Rosedale Street.  This is the old Blackmon Mooring site.  This is good news because I had heard rumors in the spring that McDonald's had planned to build a restaurant there.

 

Below is the link to the Business Press article:

http://fwbusinesspre...th-project.aspx

[johnfwd]

Northwest corner?  Isn't that in the Midtown development?

[mmmdan]

Midtown is the northeast corner.  The northwest corner appears to have been recently clearead according to google maps.  Express docs used to be there.

[John T Roberts]

This is across Forest Park Blvd. from Midtown.  It will be built at the location where Blackmon Mooring headquarters were located.  Express Docs moved into the building at the corner when Blackmon Mooring moved out.  In March, all of the buildings on the property were demolished. 

[cberen1]

I bet this gets built a lot faster than the proposed Community Trust Bank building on Summit.  That thing has stalled.  I understand the bank is under some duress.

[mmiller2002]

Yawn.

[Jeriat]

Yawn.

Not doin' it for ya? 

[mmiller2002]

...This is good news because I had heard rumors in the spring that McDonald's had planned to build a restaurant there.

 

What if McD's built a 3-story restaurant right up to the sidewalk to beat out the Taco Bell as tallest fast food joint?

[JBB]

There's a rendering for this project up on 2 sides of the old Blackmon Mooring sign.  Looks like 3 stories, mostly glass curtain wall on the upper floors, it's really hard to tell what the ground floor will look like.  I've had no luck finding online, but I'll see if I can stop long enough to get a pic this weekend.

[John T Roberts]

I saw it yesterday coming home from work.  I was going to post the information, but I didn't get to it.

[JBB]

I got a better look at it this afternoon.  4 stories with part of the ground floor being covered parking.  Maybe a retail portion of the bank on the ground floor with a drive through?

[Austin55]

Not a bad looking building. Not urban oriented, but what can ya do.

[RenaissanceMan]

Not a bad looking building. Not urban oriented, but what can ya do.

At first I wasn't sure that I liked the building. But then I saw the shrubbery that they so keenly placed along its edge for the pedestrian-class over toward the handicap parking spots and decided that it was in fact a wonderful building.

[Jimmy]

Sure beats an empty lot.  Guess they'll have to find a new place to park that library-on-wheels or whatever that van was with LaDainain Tomlinson's picture on it.

[Fort Worthology]

Blergh.  That's what being outside the Near Southside design district will get you.

[renamerusk]

Where do you imagine is the tenant and visitor parking?

[RenaissanceMan]

While on the one hand, yes... it is an investment in a better and more productive use of the property than dirt or a blank slab of asphalt (and for that I suppose we should all bow in gratitude), it baffles me that by-and-large the practice of office building design has not advanced substantially in the last 25 years.

This insta-office is the midrise office equivalent of the McMansion. It should bear a cornerstone that reads "Est. Two Years Before People Stopped Caring." It's lazy architecture, but what's worse is that it is financially reinforced by a dozen different factors that give the architect no reason to offer anything better.

Am I glad to see an office building on the property? Yes. Am I glad that the area will be home to and benefit from the businesses and professionals that will office there? Yes. Do I believe that it will be a financially successful piece of real estate that will generate a healthy amount of tax revenue? Yes. Do I think it is the best that can be done while satisfying everything I just mentioned? No.

It is not an awful building for what it is, I just don't particularly like what it is. And that's not a comment on the aesthetics of the building. In isolation and given certain alternatives I could even be brought to say that it is pretty. But in the context of where it is and how it could function with respect to its surroundings and the needs of it's tenants, it is an all too familiar disappointment.

[renamerusk]

...... But in the context of where it is and how it could function with respect to its surroundings and the needs of it's tenants, it is an all too familiar disappointment.

 

Considering the pre-existing elements enveloping the site, like the ramp into and out of  I-30, the Vickery Street Overpass, the confluence of a major cross-town artery with another cross-town artery, railroads tracks, and the topography itself, it may be unfair to ridicule the design. 

 

Realistically, the site is limited to what it could support; and that would be a development that is designed to optimize the vehicular traffic already in place.  As much as one desires for pedestrian friendly designs, sometimes it is not feasible; and this site would be particularly hazardous for pedestrians attempting to navigate this immediate area.  It is probably the best design considering the options.
 

[RenaissanceMan]

...... But in the context of where it is and how it could function with respect to its surroundings and the needs of it's tenants, it is an all too familiar disappointment.

 
Considering the pre-existing elements enveloping the site, like the ramp into and out of  I-30, the Vickery Street Overpass, the confluence of a major cross-town artery with another cross-town artery, railroads tracks, and the topography itself, it may be unfair to ridicule the design. 
 
Realistically, the site is limited to what it could support; and that would be a development that is designed to optimize the vehicular traffic already in place.  As much as one desires for pedestrian friendly designs, sometimes it is not feasible; and this site would be particularly hazardous for pedestrians attempting to navigate this immediate area.  It is in mind probably the best design considering the options.
 

All fair points

[dfwerdoc]

too me it's all too early to say. the rendition has potential and i like the combination of stonework and colored glass and the fact that they build all the way to the sidewalk on both streets.  its way better than what cooks did down the street with their parking garage that was build in two weeks with cranes hoisting up prefab interlocked concrete. not a single cement truck ever visited the site .. that's lazy architecture and building design. 

[JBB]

i like the combination of stonework and colored glass and the fact that they build all the way to the sidewalk on both streets.  

 

Um...I see a driveway and parking between the sidewalk and the building.

[RenaissanceMan]

i like the combination of stonework and colored glass and the fact that they build all the way to the sidewalk on both streets.  

 
Um...I see a driveway and parking between the sidewalk and the building.

It's pretty easy to tell by the design that the ground floor is set to be a bank (with much of the office above presumably taken by bank professionals) and a drive through bank appears also to be set into the ground floor of the building.

[Austin55]

In all honesty though I doubt a business with limited parking would do well at this location. It bounded to the North and West completely by freeway and railroad, to the south by single family homes, and to the east by "midtown" and a large gap created by that little valley the railroad runs through. 

I guess in the future, if walking becomes the most popular mode of transportation around the building, they could build something in the space left between the sidewalk and stone part. 

[Fort Worthology]

I don't think RenaissanceMan is even calling for "limited" parking in this case - just put the parking somewhere that *isn't* right out front between the building and the street.

[mmiller2002]

Does it really matter at that location?  It's not like there's going to be much foot traffic for an office building on that corner with the freeway, RR tracks and all...

[RenaissanceMan]

Ok, in all fairness, if I'm being perfectly honest and were playing the role of the developer, I'd tell you that I know for a fact that this is a building that I know almost blindly will "work." It's got reasonable freeway access alongside a well-trafficked arterial near a couple of neighborhoods that have rising incomes and "positively established or increasingly more favorable demographics" not far from the core of a growing major metropolitan area. It's an undervalued (cheap for the project) site that has few remaining barriers and high visibility. This project will make money and just enough polish has been put on the architecture that no one could accuse it of being ugly, none of the tenants would be embarrassed to have clients visit, and none of the neighbors could be expected to pitch a major fit except for the added traffic (but, hey that's just growth and they'll be willing to deal with it because it'll have a convenient drive-through bank and atm). Slam dunk project that will take fewer than five minutes to be approved by the lender (who is almost certainly the bank that will be occupying it - perfect financial synergy). It's got enough parking to handle customers and tenants and has been green-glossed with landscaping to the point that we could at least say we made an effort to make the inevitable walk across the parking lot at least somewhat pleasant.

 

You could do this kind of project by template. I get it, it works, it makes money and it serves a purpose.

 

It also looks like it could grace a sign that reads "Coming in 1998 to the corner of North Central Expressway and LBJ Freeway." It's the real estate equivalent of dinner at Chili's or The Olive Garden. Can't fault anyone for doing it, but I can't pretend to be all that happy about it either.

 

This development in absolute isolation is no big deal. The fact that so many projects like this are designed, financed and developed as though they are in isolation is part of the problem. And I suppose that's the real problem I have with this and other projects like it - the fact that it is approached with complete indifference or ignorance to its function as being something that is part of a neighborhood. As has been said so many times before about urban development in America today, the bad is easy and the good is difficult. Until about a dozen different major conventions/institutions/policies are changed, this will continue to be the path of least resistance. It works, it's profitable (largely as a direct result of the very things that make it the path of least resistance and which, if changed would not prevent a better project from being equally profitable). It's not bad... it's just mildly pleasant mediocrity. But, with enough mediocre developments, pretty soon you've got a mediocre neighborhood. With enough mediocre neighbordhoods, pretty soon you've got a mediocre city. And, to me at least, that is a very depressing proposition.

 

I like and support growth, I like and support profit, I like and support development that is easy and efficient to finance and execute. I just also like good neighborhoods and communities that have some sense of identity. I am just lamenting that architects/developers/financiers haven't yet discovered a better approach except in those districts (i.e. downtown, near southside, etc.) where they're forced to think beyond the 1990's office building real estate template.

[Urbndwlr]

Agree with Renaissance Man. 

Well put. This appears to be a great example of what can happen when the Near Southside design guidelines are not in place.  (same goes for other parts of town)

 

I think I recall reading who the architect is on this: TMA Architects.  If that is right, this building does not look like most of the firm's work.  TMA has done a lot of very pedestrian friendly, very nicely designed buildings all across the Near Southside.  So I wonder if this is a case where the client (the bank?) forced the architect to set the building back from the street.  

 

Often the logic is that customers (bank customers in this case) want to see available parking spaces when they drive by. If they do, they will stop. If they don't, they might assume that it is inconvenient to do business there.  

 

From the relatively rough rendering, I'm concerned that this building is not a positive addition to this section of town.  I assume that it would be possible to push the building to one of the streets, either Rosedale or Forest Park, and have parking behind and on the side of the building.  

 

Hopefully the building will look much better than the rendering.  

[johnfwd]

Please have tolerance for the ignorance of a non-architect.  I know the Fort Worth Press article by A. Lee Graham below refers to 9,200 square feet per floor.  Having viewed the artist's rendering of the planned First Financial Bank building in the Midtown project area, however, it looks like a 5 or 6 story structure (judging from a rudimentary count of the vertical window spaces from bottom to top).  This leads me to believe that 9,200 square feet per floor is fairly spacious. .So, will each floor have rather tall ceilings?  Or maybe the art design is misleading.

 

By the way, this project was discussed in the commercial thread, but I'm seeking an architect's expert opinion.

 

http://fwbusinesspre...k-building.aspx

[RD Milhollin]

Looks like 4 stories to me. Each of the 3 upper floors seems to have three panels, the lower "kick panel" up to about knee level, then the window, maybe 6 feet high, then the upper panel that would go to the ceiling and conceal the crawl-space between floors. I could be wrong, but that is what it looks like.

 

edit: BTW I am not an architect.

[johnfwd]

Thanks for the above comment.  Of course, number of floors is only one factor in the vertical size of a structure; total square footage is likely the controlling factor.   The article doesn't address the height (in feet) of the planned building.  But the artist's drawing makes the structure look, to me, to be taller than other four-story buildings.  Maybe the all-glass facing makes it look more imposing, or maybe it's just my imagination.  I suppose this is much ado about nothing, but it's a slow Friday afternoon at work.

[Austin55]

[John T Roberts]

The building is four stories.  Austin has done a good job indicating the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors.  It's hard to tell from the rendering how tall each floor is, but a standard door is 7'-0" high.  You can also judge by the person in the rendering.

[johnfwd]

Thanks.  It still looks taller than some four-story buildings I've seen.  Maybe the height will warrant a full crane during construction?

[Zetna]

As a designer can I say how ugly this building is? It's stone base, curved reflective glass corner w/ glass inset looks like it was built in Austin in 1985. Well, I guess it looks like it could have used a few post-modern doodads on it for pure 1985, but maybe they were deleted due to "value engineering". I know design is subjective,so just my opinion, but even simple design should be done better than this.

[Fort Worthology]

I agree - thoroughly ugly and uninspiring in every way.

[John T Roberts]

Construction is supposed to start any day.

[John T Roberts]

All of you might want to read the comments in the other thread on the building in the "Commercial" section.

[Zetna]

I'll accuse it of being ugly.....I'd rather see an empty lot....there are so many different ways one could have done this building and have it be truly modern, inventive and within budget. I know design is subjective, but as I said in another post this looks like it was built in Austin circa 1985. At such an important, urban intersection we can do better than this.

[bg-raves]

I got a newsletter from Barron today and it has a view I have not seen here yet:

 

[Zetna]

North view perspective is nicer than south view perspective. Matching masonry on a squared off corner and punch out square windows (to match north perspective) in lieu of the inset curved corner at the south perspective could have helped the SE corner immensely IMHO.

[prideftw]

That will be nice. Our city is finally coming together, lol

[dfwerdoc]

the volumetric 

 

[JBB]

An office trailer showed up on this lot a few weeks ago and ground work started in the last week or so.

[Jimmy]

I drove by this site last night.  It was dark so I could be wrong, but it looked like construction had begun.

[JBB]

Yeah, it's been pretty slow going, but it looks like they're about to pour the foundation soon.

[Jimmy]

Drove by this site again today.  Looked like quite a bit of progress had been made, but I didn't get a photo.

[JBB]

I'm pretty sure work has stopped on this project. Little or no change over the last month and I noticed that there wasn't a soul working onsite at 1:00 yesterday.

[RD Milhollin]

Is it just me or does it seem to be a trend?

[JBB]

Is 2 major projects on hold in the middle of construction (one of which isn't anymore) a trend? 3 if you count Left Bank, which also isn't on hold anymore.

[beverlyb]

I noticed some construction workers on the site today.