81 replies to this topic

[Fort Worthology]

I can't find it on the site, and I've always been curious. What's the history behind the Star-Telegram Classifieds building? When was it built? What style would it be classified as (my girlfriend and I debate this)? Anything else of note about it? I've always thought it neat, in a way - it certainly stands out from its surroundings!

[John T Roberts]

Great pictures! It is an International Style building (same as Landmark Tower). It was originally built for Tarrant Savings. I will try to do a little more digging on its history. I think it was also designed to be taller than it was actually built.

[Sam Stone]

John, It seems a little bit more ornate than most International Style buildings I've seen. Is this becuase it is shorter than it was intended to be? I can see how the louvers and such would stand out less on a taller building. Or does International Style include some buildings with a few decorative touches? I always figured it was late Art Deco. Is this splitting hairs?

[Buck]

If this matches Landmark Tower, can we get it torn down too?

This would be my No. 1 Building I'd Like To See Demolished in downtown.

[cberen1]

If this matches Landmark Tower, can we get it torn down too?

This would be my No. 1 Building I'd Like To See Demolished in downtown.

I pretty much hate this building also, but I wonder if that is partly becasue of how it is presented. It isn't kept up well. The surroundings are bleak. If it was the office for a small company that cared what the outside looked like, it might be a little more presentable.

[cjyoung]

If this matches Landmark Tower, can we get it torn down too?

This would be my No. 1 Building I'd Like To See Demolished in downtown.

More than the ugly SBC/AT&T building?

[Sam Stone]

I think it could be a much cooler building with a few small touches:
powerwashing
extend the canopy/awning all the way around the building
get rid of the cheap signage, replace with silver letters on top of the awning
install a more inspiring entrance, maybe relocate it to the center of the building
get rid of the floot to ceiling windows on the ground floor, the buildng needs a base
replace mirrored ground floor windows with clear ones
install a simpler lighting scheme
fill the gaps between the aluminum panels--the shadows contribute to the dirty grimy look the building has.

OK, so all put together that's kind of expensive. But I think at heart, it's not a bad building. It's just been neglected. And I think it's a differnet case than Landmark Tower. It's been continuously occupied and it's only 4 stories. Adding a couple stories might not be a bad idea either.

[safly]

Why add more stories? Do they need more computer/IT space?

They should have moved in the SF Rail Building. IMO. Not UT-DAllas-Arlington-Fort Worth at SFR.

[seurto]

I sorta agree with Sam Stone on this. That building almost looks like it came out of the old silent movie "Metropolis" with the industrial/art deco look. Do we know when it was built? I tend to think with the right amount of tweeking (probably lots o' $$$$), it could be an interesting look.

[hipolyte]

I like the building, and feel the 'spacy' look is kind of cool. Variety adds spice in a way 'preplanning' cannot, and this one is certainly different.
There's not much activity around it at the moment, but things change.

[hipolyte]

Nice pictures, too.

[John T Roberts]

I checked the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and the building was not built in 1951; therefore, it is not an Art Deco building. Tarrant Appraisal District states it was built in 1961. From the looks of the building, I would say that it was of the era of the Landmark Tower, so I would put its construction date in the mid-1950's.

[jatherton]

The rib-like protrusions and the stubby little things sticking off of them once held panels of some kind. They must have been rigid, screenlike things, because every one of them hung in front of the windows. I seem to recall that they were blue. With the screens and the zigzag awning, the effect was of a sixties era coffee shop except four stories tall.

It was a thing of rare ugliness. But it is not much better now. In the late seventies or early eighties when the panels were removed, I dared hope it was the first step in dressing up the building. Evidently it was the first step in taking the panels down. They never did anything else to it except for the addition of a skyway on the fourth floor connecting it to the editorial floor of the Star-Telegram.

I've tried to find a photo. No luck so far.

[Fort Worthology]

The rib-like protrusions and the stubby little things sticking off of them once held panels of some kind. They must have been rigid, screenlike things, because every one of them hung in front of the windows. I seem to recall that they were blue. With the screens and the zigzag awning, the effect was of a sixties era coffee shop except four stories tall.

It was a thing of rare ugliness. But it is not much better now. In the late seventies or early eighties when the panels were removed, I dared hope it was the first step in dressing up the building. Evidently it was the first step in taking the panels down. They never did anything else to it except for the addition of a skyway on the fourth floor connecting it to the editorial floor of the Star-Telegram.

I've tried to find a photo. No luck so far.

Blue panels, huh? I'm trying to picture it in my mind. Like a dark blue, or a lighter color?

I'm still a fan of the building. I'd love to see it given a good cleaning and restoration. I hate those mirrored windows - clear would look much better and be more International Style anyway. I guess the S-T doesn't feel the need to do anything with it, though.

[Fort Worthology]

Well, I've put together this little rendition of what I think the Classifieds building might have looked like back when it was Tarrant Savings. I could be completely wrong about the look of the panels, and if I am I hope somebody corrects me. The rooftop sign is pure fancy, and I really don't think the building had one, but it was crying out for it.

[Fort Worthology]

Word on the grapevine is that the S-T Classifieds building has been sold. Has anybody heard anything about this?

If true, I feel a preservation fight coming on. I don't want to see this one get demolished - we have precious little mid-century/Googie/International style stuff that's good enough to keep, and this is one of them IMHO.

[Dismuke]

It is one of the VERY few buildings from its time that I actually kind of like - definitely one that was better than its era.

[Birdland in Handley]

I'd bet it's late 50's or ealy 60's and I'd call it Googie, except that term is usually used for service sector buildings. Let's call it New Frontier or Telstar. 50's and 60's are the most endangered styles in town; note how the 50's courthouse got the styrofoam fool the eye coating in the eighties. Aluminum? What is the trim? Spruced up and protected, this could be a fine part of our downtown.

[safly]

Thinkin XTO here.

[Dismuke]

50's and 60's are the most endangered styles in town; note how the 50's courthouse got the styrofoam fool the eye coating in the eighties.

I have little sympathy for that courthouse. It deserved to be covered up - they went out of their way to make that thing ugly. And putting it right next to the 1890s courthouse made things even worse.

Fort Worth really never had all that many buildings from that era to begin with. Fort Worth's economy seems to have pretty much stagnated relative to Dallas and Houston from the 1950s through the 1990s. Not sure why this was the case but in one respect people today are better off for it because it prevented so a lot of pre World War II stuff from being destroyed and replaced by stuff from eras in which buildings were ugly.

Dallas has quite a lot more '50s and early '60s architecture. The old Republic Bank builiding (not sure what its latest name change is - it is the one with the rocket ship spire on top) is, I think, one of the better 1950s skyscrapers I have seen. That's not an especially high standard to beat - but it would sure be a shame to see the aluminum skin on that building replaced. The old Dallas Hilton /Dallas Grand is sitting empty and is beginning to decay. I think the place is butt ugly - but it is a remarkably intact example both inside (at least what I saw of it last time I was there) and out of that period's architecture. Dallas also has some interesting examples of office buildings from that period in areas outside of downtown.

My take on such buildings is that the period from 1950 - late 1970s exemplified a steady, unrelenting period of aesthetic decline in general of which architecture was but one element. As a result, there are some buildings from the 1950s and early 1960s period just before everything totally collapsed into the sewer that, today, have aesthetic merit when viewed from the perspective of all that came afterwards. But if one were to view them from the perspective of what things were like in, say 1930 - well, their claims of aesthetic merit look rather shallow. In some 1950s buildings, one can sometimes see a very watered down afterglow of the wonderful spirit of futuristic optimism that was so evident in the art-deco period of the late 1920s and early 1930s. I think those buildings should be kept around.

Inherent in the world view of any architectural style is its regard for and estimation of the human beings and institutions that will ultimately use and occupy its structures and of the building's relationship to them. What is so wonderful about pre World War II architecture is its noble view of human beings, human institutions and what they are worthy of. The modernists criticized the various historical revival styles of the late 1800s and early 1900s as being second-handed and pretentious - and I that is a valid enough point. But that fact notwithstanding, a classical revival banking lobby, for example, had a grandeur that is utterly lacking in post World War II architecture. Ok - so it is borrowed grandeur. But it is still grandeur, nevertheless.

A pre World War II banking lobby communicated to everyone who walked into it that this place is IMPORTANT - and you, too, by virtue of the fact that you are conducting a business transaction here, even though you might just be a poor wage earner, are important and worthy of such grandeur. By making a simple deposit in this bank, you, too, are part of a financial system, an economy and a civilization that is grand, highly productive, wealthy and, above all, special.

To use another example - take an old rural Texas courthouse. Most tend to be VERY grand buildings. And yet the people that they were built to serve were, for the most part, rural "bumpkins", most of whom lived a hard life and did not have more than a 6th grade education (though in the late 1800s - as evidenced by old textbooks - a generic 6th grade education was MUCH superior than the typical one of today). And yet these people were considered to be worthy of grand architecture. There was no reason why court could not have been held in a large wooden shack - and that certainly would have saved money, something which was always in short supply in 19th century rural economies. Instead, those old courthouses proclaimed to anyone passing through that, while the town might have been out in the middle of nowhere, it was an IMPORTANT PLACE and part of a wider and very grand and wonderful civilization. They also conveyed that the activities that took place inside those buildings were also IMPORTANT - they were part of a legal and justice system which was a crucial element of a free society and worthy of a great deal of respect and even admiration. And even something so commonplace as a dispute between a couple of humble sharecroppers was worthy of all of the dignity, importance and grandeur that the building conveyed.

Post war buildings were all too often dominated by a general view of human beings as being little more than ants - interchangeable and individually unimportant. And such buildings conveyed the notion that the buildings themselves and the activities that took place in them were also unimportant. Some buildings, of course, conveyed this premise more thoroughly and consistently than others.

A few years ago when I refinanced my house, I was able to do most of the necessary work over the phone - which was very convenient to me. But when everything was in place, I had to meet with the lender in person and sign the paperwork. Turned out the meeting took place in a bank branch located in a supermarket. Here I am in one of the larger financial transactions I have personally undertaken and yards away are frumpy looking housewives in sweatpants buying butter and eggs while their screaming kids beg for candy and junk food. This really illustrated to me just how much post World War II attitudes and popular culture have cheapened so many aspects of our lives. The implication was very clear that a financial transaction involving many thousands of dollars was of no more significance and worthy of no more ceremony and dignity than a commonplace spur of the moment trip to the grocery store one might make when one is grungy looking from having done work around the house.

Now, I will admit that refinancing my house was not all that big of a deal to me beyond the savings in interest. But that location was where first time home buyers also conducted their transactions - and when I bought my house, that was a VERY big deal to me. Had I signed the paperwork on my initial mortgage in the same place I signed the papers to refinance - well, I am sorry, that would have very much cheapened an experience that should properly have been regarded as special and worthy of a certain amount of dignity, respect and, yes, even ceremony. The fact that the supermarket situation was regarded as acceptable by the bank has certain implications about how the bank views its customers and how it views the importance of such transactions. Where do bank officials get such views from? The overall popular culture and the intellectual trends which animate it. Indeed, most of the bank's customers have been conditioned by today's popular culture and their lack of exposure to anything better to not regard closing one's first mortgage in a supermarket as being out of place.

All too often, post World War II architecture sends the clear message that NOTHING is important or special - not the buildings themselves, not the institutions that are housed by them, not the people that will occupy them. And I HATE how such architecture and the mindsets responsible for it have cheapened so many aspects of modern life. My life is special and it is profoundly important and worthy of respect. So is the life of every other decent and peaceful human being. There are certain institutions that are also special and worthy of respect and even admiration. Showing respect for and treating with dignity individuals who are worthy of it is an act of justice. Feeling and giving voice to admiration that one properly feels towards individuals and institutions that are worthy of it is an act of justice. To deliberately and knowingly withhold such respect, dignity and admiration when it is properly called for is a profound act of injustice. Post World War II architecture - especially the garbage of the late 1960s and 1970s - does just that. To systematically seek to undercut and destroy all regard for the very concepts of "respect" "dignity" and "admiration" as such, - well, I regard that as a profound evil. It is nothing more than nihilism and since the late 1960s such an influence has, unfortunately, wormed its way into all corners of our popular culture - and it has certainly had an influence in architecture as well.

In contrast to all that followed, a lot of the stuff from the 1950s looks very innocent by comparison - and certainly some of it should be kept around as examples of what the world was like back then. Very little from the late 1960s and 1970s will be worth keeping no matter how old it gets. I personally cheer whenever buildings from that period are demolished or changed into something unrecognizably different. It would certainly be hard to make a case for preserving them beyond the need to document the era. How does one admire a building that was built on an aesthetic premise that rejected the very notion of admiration as such as nothing more than quaint, old fashioned sentimentality? How does one respect a school of architecture which showed respect for nothing? How does one regard as special a building that was designed on the premise that nothing is special?

Whenever you hear a person who constantly expresses a negative or cynical view of human nature - well, they are speaking for themselves, indeed, they are especially speaking about themselves. Whenever you hear people say that nothing in this world is special or important - well, that includes themselves and their own lives. The dominant theme of the architectural styles of the post World War II decades, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, is that nothing is special or worthy of respect or dignity or admiration - including the buildings themselves. I say we take them at their word. Those buildings are not special - and we should treat them accordingly.

[cberen1]

The fact that the supermarket situation was regarded as acceptable by the bank has certain implications about how the bank views its customers and how it views the importance of such transactions. Where do bank officials get such views from? The overall popular culture and the intellectual trends which animate it. Indeed, most of the bank's customers have been conditioned by today's popular culture and their lack of exposure to anything better to not regard closing one's first mortgage in a supermarket as being out of place.

I'm not sure I'm on board with most of this, but I really want to take issue with this one statement in particular. The supermarketization of banking has, in some respects, been fantastic for the consumer. It is part of a monumental shift in the banks' attitudes towards customers. Bringing the bank to the consumer has made bank services much more accessible to the everyman. This includes the easier access to credit (of which I'm not entirely in favor)and other financial products and services. The democratization of banking has represents the banks being more in tune with consumer needs, not less.

But, I'll agree that the architecture has suffered. Banks had really built some grand buildings over the years. Who is going to build them now? Oil companies?

[Dismuke]

The supermarketization of banking has, in some respects, been fantastic for the consumer. It is part of a monumental shift in the banks' attitudes towards customers. Bringing the bank to the consumer has made bank services much more accessible to the everyman. This includes the easier access to credit (of which I'm not entirely in favor)and other financial products and services. The democratization of banking has represents the banks being more in tune with consumer needs, not less.

Actually, I agree with you completely on this.

Back in the era when banks had grand and beautiful lobbies, branch banking was illegal in most, if not all, states. One had to go downtown in order to bank. And banks kept "bankers' hours" which meant that they would often close as early as 3:00 PM in the afternoon. That was NOT a good thing.

The scarcest, most finite, most precious and most irreplaceable commodity/resource that exists in this entire world is the hours, minutes and seconds which make up a human being's life. The advent of new products, technologies and services that enable people to save the precious hours, minutes and seconds of their lives from having to be consumed taking care of unrewarding chores, hassles and drudgery and to instead spend them in ways that are more productive and/or rewarding is ALWAYS a good and wonderful thing. Things such as branch banking, ATMs and online banking are wonderful and the amount of time they have saved for millions of banking customers over the years, if added up all together, would translate into countless lifetimes worth of hours, minutes and seconds saved.

For me to deposit a check, it probably takes me about a half hour to drive though multiple stop lights to get to my bank, wait in line at the drive through window/inside lobby, take care of my business and drive through the multiple stop lights on my way back home. The advent of direct deposit has drastically limited the number of occasions I have to go to the bank. If a person is paid weekly, that half hour's worth of time savings amounts to 26 hours a year - that's over a full day of time added to the person's life that he can spend on something more rewarding, or actually a full day and a half if one looks at it in terms of hours that are not spent sleeping. I will gladly take such time savings over spending time waiting in line in a banking lobby no matter how grand and beautiful it might be.

So I certainly do not have a problem with something that comes along to save people time and hassle - and if branches in supermarkets make it easier for people to take care of business, then I am all for them.

But there was ZERO savings of time or convenience in my closing a mortgage inside a tiny cubicle in a supermarket lobby verses in an office inside a more formal branch. That supermarket I went to was clear on the other side of town in an area that I almost never go to. To sign the documents, I had to get in my car and go somewhere. Why a supermarket? My point is that some activities and transactions that we make are more important than others and, therefore, are worthy of a higher level of ceremony and dignity. Signing a mortgage worth many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars is NOT on the same level of routine or importance as buying a pack of cigarettes or chewing gum. If you go to a very high end retail store don't you expect the interior decor, the store fixtures and the attire of the staff to be of a higher standard than you would find, say, in a thrift store or in a Wal-mart? Of course you would. Ask yourself why. To expect such a higher standard is not an attack in any way on Wal-mart or thirft stores and the many beneficial things that such institutions provide to their customer base. It is just that some things in life are more special than others - and those things which are special should properly be regarded as such.

Buying a home, especially one's first home, represents, for most people, an enormous personal achievement and a major milestone in their life. A mortgage is the largest and most important financial transaction that most people will ever be involved in. It is a VASTLY more important and special transaction than buying corn chips, beer and toilet paper at Kroger - and it ought to be treated as such. Now, for things such as making an ordinary deposit or withdrawal - well, I don't have a problem with doing that in a supermarket. It means people have quicker and easier access to their money - which is a good thing.

Banks had really built some grand buildings over the years. Who is going to build them now? Oil companies?

Why not banks? Why can't a banking kiosk in a supermarket lobby have an element of grandeur and style? Why shouldn't it? Try to imagine what an architect/designer in the 1920s would have come up with if he was given the task of creating a mini bank location in a kiosk that could be placed pretty much anywhere such as a large store or in a train station, etc. My guess is what he would have come up with would have looked very impressive. Just because something is more convenient does not mean that it has to be cheapened.

You mention oil companies. If you look at old oil company advertisements, you will see pictures of gas station attendants in very official looking uniforms - those attendants looked like they were important. That's because the oil companies regarded themselves as an institution that was important - and they wanted their employees to reflect and project that importance. The job of gas station attendant was not a high paying job back then - and factoring in for currency inflation, the people who have that job today probably make just as much if not more than they did back then. Some gas stations and other service establishments still have their employees wear uniforms - but they are usually very undistinguished and blend in with the plastic and Formica of the store's countertop area. Back in the early 20th century, the uniforms that service people wore reflected a much higher regard for and pride in the institutions and jobs that they symbolized than such uniforms do today. Like banking and so many other areas of our daily lives, that, too, has been something that has been cheapened in the post World War II decades and most especially since the late 1960s. Sure, buying gas is more convenient than ever - I LOVE pay at the pump. And I sure don't want to have to pay extra money for full service when I can easily and more quickly put the gas in myself. I LOVE convenience and the innovations that make such conveniences possible. We enjoy countless conveniences today that were simply unheard of back in the "Golden Era." What is missing today, however, is certain, usually subtle, nuances that reflected the pride and importance that people and even commonplace institutions once regarded themselves with. Our lives are poorer as a result of it - and sadly, most people are not even aware of what has been lost.

For those who don't understand what I am talking about, all I can suggest is spend some time looking at a wide variety of vintage photos of people and ordinary commonplace institutions from the decades prior to World War II. Then compare what you see with their counterparts today. You will see a certain element of QUALITY and PRIDE, even in ordinary everyday commonplace things, that is missing today. Look at the crowds that walked the streets. Adults back then, even those in humble circumstances, looked like GROWN UPS. Look at old college yearbooks, especially the candid photos. You will see young students engaging in fun and prankish behavior. But they also look so MATURE - and if you look at old high school yearbooks, kids often went out of their ways to look like they were GROWN UP. Today we have the pathetic phenomenon of people in their 50s and 60s trying to look and dress like they are teenagers. Look at interior photos of hotels - and not just the very high end ones. Look at photos of ordinary big city stores and the people who staffed them. Those places looked like they were IMPORTANT. Compare them with their counterparts today. Technology has made our lives easier and better than those of our grandparents in so many ways. But look at the old photos. Something very wonderful has disappeared from our culture - and it can be very hard to describe because its manifestations were often subtle. They were subtle because they were the consequence of a mindset that was widespread and taken for granted - a mindset in which people regarded themselves, their daily lives and commonplace institutions in a vastly different light than people do today. Back then, our culture regarded certain aspects of life and certain institutions as being special. Most of us privately DO regard important people and events in our lives as being special. But today that emotion is largely private - it is rarely expressed and reflected by the popular culture at large. Technology has made our lives easier and better than those of our grandparents' in so many ways. Our daily lives and the institutions that make them possible ought to be regarded today as being MORE special than they were back when such beneficial conveniences, technologies and innovations were not yet available. But the exact opposite is true. Everything has been cheapened - including the way most people and institutions view themselves and the expectations they have for the people and institutions around them.

[safly]

For those who don't understand what I am talking about, all I can suggest is spend some time looking at a wide variety of vintage photos of people and ordinary commonplace institutions from the decades prior to World War II. Then compare what you see with their counterparts today. You will see a certain element of QUALITY and PRIDE, even in ordinary everyday commonplace things, that is missing today.

I hear ya on that. But you also have to take into account that a picture knowingly being taken of you was a major setup and RARE. Probably being photographed 10 times out of the year mostly. Of course this brings up the confusion as to why certain cultures really shun having their picture taken, something about having their soul taken away from them for a moment. As for the way teens dress, that is purely based on ones judgement on things as to class/no class, but THERE IS a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE. Really have to look at the time when teens or babyboomers kiddos really had a voice in society, had the means of making "real" change. So I say look no further than at that point in time, a time when AUTHORITY and societal figures were being questioned, soemtimes RIGHTFULLY so. So when you say no to The MAN, why look like The MAN. Especially when papa is no longer at home and has to recover from work or WAR battle or did not make it back or ALL BACK, and momma learns of the word depression and self sufficient. Things tend to get put on the wayside when dealing with your child turned "grownups" attitudes. Very foreign it must have been.

It's funny how I do notice those exact sentiments by you when looking at my father's pictures in contrast to his friends during his college years. He went to UT in the 60's and was dressed like a Harvard type. Seemed to always wear a tie in all his pics, buzz cut, maybe a prep sweater, always in loafers, sometimes a houndstooth or deep plaid coat or similar. His friends came from a different stock that seemed to have tried and tested the waters a bit more in society. College to them seemed more let's just cut loose at UT and have our way with Austin and Daddy's money. That was NEVER the case for my father, having been a first FULL generation American (Funny how we have more generation of TEXAN on his side), only child of a college accepted (but never allowed to attend) Mexican American mother and an Army WWII Veteran of a Mexican national who later was a naturalized US citizen by participating in one of our deadliest foreign wars in US History. Image meant something back then, non-commercialized image. It meant that your first impression was going to be more face to face, not on the phone or behind a computer. It meant that dressing the part was going to reveal a sense of who you are now and AIM TO BECOME, that you WANT TO BELONG and want more in America. It meant to people that you want to be taken seriously and always considered, and your upbringing was no laughing matter.

Then came POLYESTER.

[Dismuke]

So I say look no further than at that point in time, a time when AUTHORITY and societal figures were being questioned, soemtimes RIGHTFULLY so. So when you say no to The MAN, why look like The MAN.

It is certainly common for most young people to go through a "rebellious" phase and to question, and sometimes even challenge, the authority figures around them. Such a phase is often an unavoidable byproduct of the process of developing one's own convictions and values. But, in this context, what we are talking about is when such rebellion and challenge to authority is a widespread cultural phenomenon, not just a phase in some individual's private life.

Whether an attitude of rebellion is valid and appropriate depends on what it is that one is rebelling against. To rebel against standards which one rationally believes to be incorrect and irrational may very well be valid and, in some cases, even heroic. To rebel against standards as such - which is what the counterculture of the 1960s was all about - is nihilism and beneath contempt. There was a HUGE difference between the generation that came of age in the 1920s that rebelled against the ostentatious ornamentation and prudish views of sexuality that defined the Victorian era verses the hippies of the late '60s who mindlessly, blindly and nihilistically rebelled against anything and everything from previous generations and those that maintained any standards at all.

Whether or not it is appropriate to question and challenge someone who is held up as an authority figure depends on the nature of the authority figure. It is entirely valid to question the authority of individuals and institutions which one rationally believes to be incompetent, corrupt and unjust. It is NOT appropriate to question authority figures on no other grounds than the fact that they are regarded as figures of authority. That is nihilism and, once again, something that is beneath contempt. Observe that there was zero rationality or consistency when it came to the counterculture hippies challenging authority. These were people who fawned over, quoted and praised as "progressive" brutal dictators such as Mao, Che and Fidel who demanded absolute obedience and did not think twice about murdering any person who challenged their authority in even the smallest of ways. So whose authority did these people challenge - sometimes by resorting to the use of force? The administrations of their college campuses and the ordinary cop on the beat whom they referred to as "pigs." Contrast their "challenge to authority" with the Founding Fathers' challenge to the authority of the British Crown. Contrast it with Martin Luther King's challenge to the authority of Jim Crow laws or the challenge of the Polish Solidarity movement against the tyranny of Soviet communism. The theme of "rebel against the establishment" and "challenge to authority" given voice in much of today's popular culture is NOT the legitimate, heroic challenge to authority of the movements I mentioned - it is the voice of the counterculture hippies' blind nihilistic rebellion against anything and everything.

You mention "The Man." That is a notion and theme that seems to be pretty commonplace in post 1960s popular culture - and I am NOT sympathetic with it. Exactly who is this "man" anyway? For all of the many problems our country faces, we live in the freest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen - when you compare the lot of life that is dealt to people in other parts of the world and to people in previous eras of history, we are the lucky ones. Yet, since the 1960s, we have had generations of young people taught by their popular culture that they need to be bitter and angry against "The Man." Try talking about "The Man" to the brave young people who died while attempting to get on the civilized side of the Berlin Wall so that they could be free to live their lives as they saw fit. Try taking about "The Man" to those who were subjected to sub-human humiliation and then perished in the Nazis' concentration camps and the Communists' Gulags. Try talking about "The Man" to the hurricane victims in Burma who are being allowed to die so that the dictators who enslave them may cling to power. Somehow grievances such as the fact that one has to have a job in order to pay one's bills, that professors give bad grades to students who do not turn in homework or study for tests and that bad grades can impact one's future employment opportunities do NOT rise to the same level. And yet our popular culture tells young people that such facts of life are the fault of "The Man" and that they are supposed to be bitter and angry about it.

Furthermore, trying to be regarded as trendy, hip, chic and cool by going through the superficial motions of rebellion and challenge to authority by wearing certain types of clothing and haircuts is NOT the same thing as the young adult who goes through a rebellious period as part of the process of forming his own convictions and identity as an individual. People who "rebel" because it is trendy are SHEEP and the most pathetic of conformists.

Yes, trends in things such as fashion and architecture DO change. They always have and always will. That is a good thing - life would be pretty dull if everything stayed the same forever. The issue is what are things changing from verses what are they changing to? The rebellion during the art deco era against the senselessly excessive ornamentation of the Victorians was appropriate. The rebellion of the early modernists against the second-handedness of various forms of historical revivalism in architecture was valid and appropriate. The rebellion of post World War II architects against ornamentation as such and aesthetic standards as such is nothing more than nihilism. To take the example of clothing - the changes in fashion during the early decades of the 20th century were very dramatic and MUCH more radical than what we have seen in recent decades. If one were to pluck a random person from the streets of downtown Fort Worth in 1900 and place him/her in the streets of downtown Fort Worth in 1940, he/she would look MUCH more out of place than would a person plucked from the same street in 1968 and set loose on the streets of downtown Fort Worth today. A person from 1968 on today's streets would merely be considered to be on the scruffy side and no more. A person from 1900 would have looked like a museum piece in 1940. I would say that there is no question that the fashions of 1940 and the attitudes behind them represented a RADICAL and MAJOR improvement over those of 1900 - especially one considers the sheer discomfort that women in 1900 had to go though in order to look nice. So change and even radical change can be a good thing. But there is a MAJOR difference between the changes that took place in the first half of the 20th century when it came to fashion verses the changes that took place in the late 1960s. Prior to the late 1960s, regardless of how radical the changes were and how much they might have been a rebellion against the status quo, people attempted to look NICE and ATTRACTIVE. In the late 1960s, the attempt was to look UGLY and SCRUFFY on purpose. That is nothing more than pure, undiluted nihilism. And while things in that regard have fortunately improved in a major way, there are still certain major sub-cultures, especially among the young, where such a mindset when it comes to clothes is what people are expected to sheepishly conform to.

I also do need to mention that things HAVE improved in many ways since the 1970s - especially in things such as architecture and clothing. The fact that "retro" has been regarded as cool for the past couple of decades is, I think, an indication that people realize that something special has been lost and and are trying to recapture it. Architecture is ALL OVER the place today. It is pretty much "anything goes" - you have everything from historical revivalism to the nihilistic variety of modernism and even isolated example of authentic originality. If you look at the people walking the street, you will see individuals who are dressed attractively side by side with those who look like they are primitive savages. I have a friend who often wears clothes either made in or similar to those from the 1920s and 1930s and is able to walk about town and not get hassled or any odd looks. Someone who walked the streets of 1940 wearing clothes from 70 - 80 years earlier would have been regarded as a total freak. I regard the fact that so much we see today is retro or retro-inspired to be an indication that most people have rejected the nihilism of the 1960s counterculture and want something better. Unfortunately, our popular culture is still dominated by voices of that same nihilism that most people have rejected and nobody has come along and offered a clear and unique vision of a new and better direction. When you see a society that is highly focused on its past, that is a sure sign that something is profoundly wrong with its present. What is wrong with our present in this context is the nihilistic bankruptcy of the counterculture and the fact that those of us who wish to be inspired by something better and who are not aesthetic originators in our own right have no place else to turn but the past in order to find it.

[safly]

Jimmy Crow Law aside (which is why I REFUSE to do cakewalks to this very day), I'm a HUGE fan of the 50's and 60's. What I consider the Golden Era of the US (baseball, auto, aviation, film and fashion).

[cbellomy]

Dismuke, I've nodded quietly in agreement to your posts for a long time, but I've always had trouble with your generational calculations. You pin the coldness of minimalism and modernism on the counterculture of the 60's, but you do so completely incorrectly. That coldness was exactly what they were rebelling against. The rebirth of classical influence in architecture happened with baby boomer architects. It was their fathers, home from a war where wonderful classical architecture was left in ruins, who chose to eschew beauty in architecture and choose function as the sole dictate for design.

I say this as someone who was born in the mid 60's, whose parents were of that older WWII generation, whose brothers were baby boomers -- one of whom, a hippie even. It was my dad's generation who tore down the Aviation and Medical Arts buildings in favor of Carter-Burgess and Burnett Plazas, not my brothers'. If we must assign blame, let's do it where it's due.

[Dismuke]

It was my dad's generation who tore down the Aviation and Medical Arts buildings in favor of Carter-Burgess and Burnett Plazas, not my brothers'. If we must assign blame, let's do it where it's due.

Actually you make a very valid point and I admit that I do need to draw a better distinction in that area. Thanks for pointing it out. Of course it was the older generation that was already well in their adulthood who were responsible for the buildings that existed when the hippies roamed the streets. You don't find many people in their early 20s in any generation who are far enough along in life to either commission or design buildings of any significance.

You pin the coldness of minimalism and modernism on the counterculture of the 60's, but you do so completely incorrectly. That coldness was exactly what they were rebelling against.

That, I don't agree with. I am not even aware of any significant number of counterculture types even making statements against cold minimalistic architecture. If you know of and can point me to any evidence or references to what you say, I would be very much curious to look at it.

Even if significant numbers were on record as being against such architecture - well, what were their reasons and what did they advocate in its place? On aesthetic matters regarding everything else - well, the track record of the hippies is consistently awful. So I cannot see how their taste in buildings would be any better.

Now it is very possible that people from that generation went on to build buildings that were an improvement over sterile minimalism. But certainly not everybody from that generation was a hippie. And there were people who were hippies who eventually grew up and developed a more rational outlook on life.

It is also possible for extremely irrational movements to be right on a very narrow, concrete issue for reasons having nothing to do with their wider ideological outlook - what I call "being right by accident." I would say a good example of this regarding the counterculture was the issue of the military draft. In fact, I suspect that had it not been for the military draft, chances are very good the whole counterculture movement would have been much more limited in terms of its impact. I am personally very sympathetic to the horrible situation young men in the late 1960s faced with regard to the military draft - and I consider it an outrage. The premise of the draft is that the ends justifies the means - and that it is perfectly acceptable to force a young man at gunpoint into a bootcamp and compel him to give up years of his life in service to the State and send him to potentially die in a war that he may or may not support. In other words, the premise is that your life belongs to the State or to society and that the State and society may dispose of it as it sees fit. Such a practice is the exact opposite of what it means to be a free country - i.e., a country based on individual rights. The hippies were against the military draft. But they were against it for reasons that were VASTLY different than respect for individual rights. The hippies were self-proclaimed collectivists. And they were against the military draft because they were hostile towards and wanted to tear down the military, the government and all institutions that public at large had respect for. But if you were a young man in the late '60s and early '70s facing the possibility of being conscripted and perhaps being sent off to be sacrificed in a god forsaken jungle that you had zero desire to be a part of - well, suddenly here comes a bunch of scruffy looking people who ARE speaking out against it. It is understandable why someone in that position might feel a certain gratitude and affinity towards them for reasons that have nothing to do with their wider philosophical agenda. Indeed, such a situation is one of the dangers that anyone who is a "single issue person" when it comes to political matters faces. People who feel very strongly and passionately about some very specific political issue are often inclined to align themselves with any movement or group that happens to stand on the same side as they do on that one particular issue regardless of how corrupt and disastrous that movement's wider ideological agenda might be.

For that reason, there were people at the time who were NOT nihilistic in their basic outlook on life who nevertheless got caught up for a while in some aspect or another of the various movements and causes championed by the counterculture. It is not uncommon for good people to get temporarily caught up in very bad movements - especially when they are young. One of the things that corrupt political and intellectual movements seek to do is capitalize on people's legitimate grievances in hopes that, by doing so, they might end up buying into the rest of their ideological package deal. The counter culture attempted to do that in any number of ways. So if it is indeed correct that hard core counterculture types were on the record as opposing minimalistic modernism in architecture - and I still have my doubts about it - my very strong guess is that this would be little more than another example of "being right by accident." Again, the track record of counterculture types on aesthetic issues is consistently awful - why would architecture be any different?

[Dismuke]

Dismuke 12 May 2008

"For those who don't understand what I am talking about, all I can suggest is spend some time looking at a wide variety of vintage photos of people and ordinary commonplace institutions from the decades prior to World War II. Then compare what you see with their counterparts today. You will see a certain element of QUALITY and PRIDE, even in ordinary everyday commonplace things, that is missing today. Look at the crowds that walked the streets. Adults back then, even those in humble circumstances, looked like GROWN UPS. "

I am not sure what your point is nor am I sure what on earth that photograph as to do with that particular quote from my earlier posting.

The fact that the KKK apparently held some sort of parade in Washington DC in the 1920s - well, ok, so they held a parade. What is your wider point? Are you suggesting that it was commonplace for people to walk around in Klan garb? Are you suggesting that Klan membership was commonplace? It was certainly in certain parts of Texas and a handful of other states for a small number of years in the early 1920s - but that was the extent of its influence.

I think you are taking my words and attempting to twist them into a VERY different context than what was intended.

If your point is that commonplace racial attitudes at the time were horrible and disgusting - well, that is certainly true enough. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I was talking about - and you certainly have zero grounds on which to make any assertion that I somehow am sympathetic to the racial attitudes at the time, if that is the insinuation you are attempting to smuggle in.

[Dismuke]

I'm a HUGE fan of the 50's and 60's. What I consider the Golden Era of the US (baseball, auto, aviation, film and fashion).

Safly - then check out this YouTube clip from 1962 I stumbled across a couple of nights ago. It is all in German but it is still very fun and features a very famous pop star of the time named Peter Kraus who was known as the "German Elvis." This clip includes German pop songs of 1962 mixed in with ones from the 1920s. I am not quite sure what the point of the juxtaposition between the two eras was. But one of the things I found interesting was the clothing styles from the 1962 scenes. Some of them were actually quite cool looking even at such a late date. Of course, it was only just a very few years later that everything quickly went to pot and the norm was for people to look scruffy.



And here is another Kruas video from 1960 - a short but kind of charming clip



The '50s and the EARLY '60s certainly had some good aspects. But I will always be primarily a late '20s and early '30s guy.

[safly]

Interesting pieces.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Joe DiMaggio, CHUCK YEAGER, MLK Jr., Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, the ENTIRE RAT PACK, James Dean, ELVIS, Stingray Corvettes, Mustangs, '57 Chevy, Formula One driving, John "F" Kennedy (remember that?), Yankees baseball, Dodgers baseball, NASA and Texas OIL.

[cbellomy]

Dismuke,

One of the defining characteristics of the hippie movement, if you recall, was the whole back-to-nature thing. Modernism in architecture was supposed to mark a triumph of intellect over emotion in the age of reason. Hippies wanted no part of any of that. And if you look where they did congregate in urban areas, they were typically older neighborhoods with older buildings, like Haight-Ashbury. (Or, in my brother's case, Arlington Heights long before it became trendy again.) Modernism was antiseptic. The hippies were playing in the mud. I don't think that was a coincidence.

I'll put it another way. If there was a poster boy for cold analytical thought in post-war America, he was probably Robert McNamara. Before he became Secretary of Defense for Kennedy, he worked his way up the Ford Motors organization to the job of president, largely by dint of his preference for making decisions almost solely on the basis of statistical analysis and modeling. He ended up running the Vietnam War much the same way -- much to the dismay of the anti-war hippies. Is there any doubt of their resentment of the type of thinking that produced McNamara, that also produced the buildings you (and I, for the most part) hate?

I'm not especially fond of what the hippie movement became, but I am sympathetic to what drove them out of mainstream society as they saw it. I do think it's important to remember those times in accurate historical context.

[Brian Luenser]

And back to the building in question...

I really like this building. In the dark. Really. In really bright light in mid day it looks pretty icky to me. At night, on a cloudy day or in very subdued lighting, I like it a lot. I would sure hate to see it go. It is in a class of one, like or not.

[safly]

I think it's crappy and too white. Just like those Klan robes.

Sorry, trying to relate with blended both, eh stories and together mixed uhh and.... ehhh nevermind.

Naw, really, it makes no sense and it looks COMPLETELY INCOMPLETE! Should have been built around a busy DT strip, where nobody would notice it's hideous face.

I would convert it to something like this. A fav of mine.

[Birdland in Handley]

I really like this building. And I can see from the forum that extreme, playful (opponents read: extreme, inept/almost vernacular) examples of this era are unpopular, so they are quite endangered. Please bear with my subjective defense of 50’s and 60’s angular, shiny, rockety architecture.
Call it Googie or Populuxe or what you will. That style expressed much optimism. We saved/defeated the old world; Hooray, it’s a post-war world! Rockets have fins; cars have fins; why shouldn’t buildings have fins? Our Spaceman John Glenn came back safely from orbit! Telstar connected New York and London! London—England swings! Metallic & shiny= Mod!
(Must admit this post is influenced by generational bias. I remember being impressed by the Telstar linkup and space launches on TV as a kid. I have “Telstar” running through my head as I type this and I still play the ’45 from time to time.)
These buildings were the last gasp of common commercial projects attempting to be modern (and to be optimistic [or opportunistic]). By the mid-to-late 60’s borrowings from existing styles became the norm. Too soon came the sheet metal Mansard roofs!
Still, even the best of that era simply looks dorky to a lot of people. Personal taste is probably the most important factor, but the quote below has stayed with me since I read it in the early 70’s:
James Laver wrote in Victoriana, in 1967 when Victorian styles were not just being rehabilitated, but treasured and copied: “It seems to be a law in our own minds that that the fashions of our mothers are hideous, the fashions of our grandmothers quaint, the fashions of our great-grandmothers charming and the fashions of our great-great grandmothers beautiful” That quote is about fashion in clothing; but as it’s in an introductory chapter and the book discusses all Victorian design, I think he means it broadly. He goes on: “ It almost seems as if there were a ‘Gap of Appreciation’ stretching across a given number of years. . .”
And--people who like Googie/Populuxe--what are your faves around town?

[Fort Worthology]

The building's main problems are that it's filthy, and no longer complete - note the above old discussions of its former appearance. Give it a power wash, get rid of the crappy mirror tint, restore all its original trim, give it better signage, and presto - a neat little slice of Googie International.

I'm still trying to find out if it's actually been sold. Not heard anything beyond the original rumor.

[Dismuke]

Dismuke:

I took your suggestion and looked at some vintage photos of these people of the 20’s as you suggested and posted the one I believed most related to your theme of hippies and nihilism were the bane of existence. What I found were some men of faith (not Nihilist) dressed in white robes ........ If you think Nihilism is destructive, you might want to take a second look at Faith.

Excuse me, but what on earth does this have to do with anything I wrote? I defy you to find anything I have ever written here or anyplace else where I have in any way advocated faith. For your information, I do not have a religious bone in my entire body. I do not subscribe to any religion nor do I accept things as true on the basis of faith. You could not have picked a more wrong tree to bark up on this than me. If you wish to take exception to or to challenge something I have written - well, I am fair game, as is anyone else who expresses an opinion in a public forum. But if you wish to attack what I say, please do so on the basis of something that I have actually said as opposed to wild conclusions you have jumped to regarding my world view and for which you have zero evidence.

And while I am not in any way religious, I happen to have close friends who are religious and for whom I have a great deal of respect and regard despite whatever philosophical disagreements I might have with them on that particular matter. I do not know a single one of them who has any tolerance in any way whatsoever for any form of racism (and if they did they certainly would not be among those that I consider to be friends). So even if I were religious, your bizarre attempt to smear me as a racist is very much off base and, actually, quite outrageous.

[Dismuke]

Modernism in architecture was supposed to mark a triumph of intellect over emotion in the age of reason. Hippies wanted no part of any of that.

cbellomy -

You make some intelligent and very well presented points - some of which I definitely wish to respond to. But since I am pressed for time at the moment, my reply will have to be in the next day or so.

[bhudson]

This building has never offended me. I see it at it as I do one of my loves: neglected 50's and 60's Airstream trailers. Properly polished, this building would be one of the absolute offbeat gems of downtown. Whether that can be done with this building is dependant on the grade of aluminum (if, in fact, the exterior is even aluminum).

This building could be made quite attractive with or without glass embellishments. There is plenty of room for this style in downtown, if properly cared for and maintained, and I hope it is never torn down. What I really hope for is that someday the Star Telegram isn't in the building. For the foreseeable future they will never have the spare change lying around to spend a penny on the appearance of an otherwise functional building.

[cbellomy]

Modernism in architecture was supposed to mark a triumph of intellect over emotion in the age of reason. Hippies wanted no part of any of that.

cbellomy -

You make some intelligent and very well presented points - some of which I definitely wish to respond to. But since I am pressed for time at the moment, my reply will have to be in the next day or so.

I look forward to it!

[Dismuke]

I am afraid that this posting is longer than I wished for it to be. cbellomy has raised a number of intelligent and interesting observations and I wish to respond to them fully - and unfortunately, it is hard for me to do so briefly.

- - - - - -

One of the defining characteristics of the hippie movement, if you recall, was the whole back-to-nature thing. Modernism in architecture was supposed to mark a triumph of intellect over emotion in the age of reason. Hippies wanted no part of any of that.

This is absolutely correct - that is exactly what the hippies were about. They were openly self-avowed irrationalists The hippies were dead set against the triumph of intellect over emotion in the age of reason - and instead advocated the triumph of emotional whim over reality. They were opposed to the very existence of an Age of Reason and proceeded to lower themselves, both physically and pharmaceutically, down to the dank primordial mud while proposing to drag the rest of us down into it with them.

If what you say is correct and they did, in fact, attack modernism in architecture on on the basis that it was too rational - well, in this context, I guess I will have to defend the modernists. I profoundly disagree with the notion that 1950s modernism in architecture somehow represents a triumph of intellect and reason - but that is a completely separate debate and a relatively minor one when considered against the HUGE issue of reason verses irrationalism. To attack a person, institution or idea on grounds that it is too virtuous - well, that is profoundly vicious and is the very essence of nihilism. Whatever flaws the modernists (or anyone else for that matter) might have, being too rational is NOT one of them.

Now, I supposed one could say: "perhaps the hippies did not regard rationality as a virtue." But if so - well, they have then removed themselves entirely from the realm of serious and legitimate debate and consideration. To dispense with reason is to place one's ideas in the same realm as the rantings of an inmate of an insane asylum. It may be worth dissecting for the purpose of uncovering the nature and consequences of their fallacies - but it is not possible to have a serious conversation or debate with such a person. If one dispenses with reason - well, on what other basis is there to resolve disagreements and disputes other than, perhaps, fists and guns? If someone tells you that they do not regard rationality as a virtue - take them at their word and run.

Now, it is important for me to emphasize here that I am NOT in any way "anti-emotion." Quite the contrary - emotions play a VERY important part in the life of a rational person. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that being rational is absolutely essential in achieving a rewarding emotional life. Emotions definitely have an important role in our lives - but they are NOT a means of knowledge and they are NOT a valid substitute for one's own rational judgment. I will explain this in better detail in a moment.

And if you look where they did congregate in urban areas, they were typically older neighborhoods with older buildings, like Haight-Ashbury. (Or, in my brother's case, Arlington Heights long before it became trendy again.)

It is certainly true that hippies tended to live in older neighborhoods. Another example was in Dallas where they tended to congregate in Oak Lawn (and Lee Park in particular) which, at the time, was an early 1900s neighborhood that was in decline.

But were they attracted to such neighborhoods out of respect for the aesthetics and architectural values of an earlier era - or simply because they were old and, therefore, cheap? Based on what I have seen from photos and surviving evidence, very often what they did once they moved into such old houses and buildings was stuff along the lines of what you see in the image at the end of this link: http://www.lileks.co...s/71book/7.html Somehow I don't think what is shown in that photo is a result of a respect for the aesthetic style or beauty of the old house.

Modernism was antiseptic. The hippies were playing in the mud. I don't think that was a coincidence.

You are absolutely correct: it wasn't a coincidence. To the degree a person eschews reason and reality in favor of something else, he usually ends up in the mud or a place like the gutter.

I'll put it another way. If there was a poster boy for cold analytical thought in post-war America, he was probably Robert McNamara. Before he became Secretary of Defense for Kennedy, he worked his way up the Ford Motors organization to the job of president, largely by dint of his preference for making decisions almost solely on the basis of statistical analysis and modeling. He ended up running the Vietnam War much the same way -- much to the dismay of the anti-war hippies.

Based on my limited knowledge of him, I am not a fan of McNamara - but I am not really familiar with him enough to feel comfortable about commenting on him in particular. I certainly do not equate statistical analysis, in and of itself, as a full fledged philosophy of reason. Statistics certainly have their place and valid uses. But they are of value ONLY when they are integrated into and analyzed in the wider framework of an appropriate reality-based context. Without such a context, statistics are just so much data - and if one relies on them exclusively, one can get into the old trap of not being able to see the forest because one's eyes are too focused on the algae on the bark of the trees. My understanding is that was one of the problems with McNamara.

Nor am I at all familiar with the specific grievances that the hippies might have had with McNamara. If they disliked him because they thought he was too rational - well, again, that would be an example of attacking someone on the basis of his virtues, which is vicious and nihilistic. Whether or not McNamara, in fact, deserved to be regarded a being thusly virtuous is an entirely different matter.

It is also possible, I suppose, that the hippies leveled specific criticisms against McNamara that, in and of themselves, were more or less valid. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that was the case. It still does not necessarily let the hippies off the hook. The hippies blindly rebelled against pretty much anything and everything that society and the people around them regarded as being of value. That is a very wide net. If one engages in a blind wholesale rebellion against everything, chances are good that, included in that "everything," there may be certain particular issues and institutions that deserve to be rebelled against and challenged by rational individuals. That is why it is so important to look beyond merely the issues a person happens to be for and against and ask why they are for or against them. That "why" is absolutely crucial. For example, the Nazis condemned communism on grounds that the Communists were uncivilized totalitarians. While it is true that the Communists were exactly that, it certainly does NOT follow that the Nazis were, in any way whatsoever, champions of civilization and individual rights. The REAL reason the Nazis opposed the Communists was because they were members of a rival totalitarian gang. It is VERY important that people think long and hard before making common cause with any sort of movement simply because it happens to articulate a position one is very desperate to hear on a particular issue. That was certainly the case with a great many perfectly decent young people who made common cause with the hippies on grounds that they were against the military draft and were too intellectually sloppy to look very deeply into the hippies' wider irrationalist and nihilistic agenda. Observe that most of those who "tagged along for the ride" with the hippies dropped them and moved on very quickly once the military draft was no longer an issue. It is important to keep in mind that, in the 1930s, many Germans supported Hitler on grounds that he spoke out against the Communists. But merely being against something is not enough - and in the case of those Germans, they ended up with something every bit as horrible and evil as what they were against in the first place. Just because somebody is against something you are against, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are your friend or ally.

Even if you are correct and the hippies, in fact, were against things that you or I also happen to be against - well one still has to consider the possibility that what they were for was just as bad, if not worse, than what you or I are against. And if I had to choose between someone with whom I have strong disagreements on matters of taste in architecture verses someone who is hostile to reason but shares my architectural tastes - well, I will take the former over the latter any day of the week.

I'm not especially fond of what the hippie movement became, but I am sympathetic to what drove them out of mainstream society as they saw it.

What is it that you are sympathetic with? The hippies' nihilistic desire to spit in the face of logic and to bring down the Age of Reason on the delusional premise that doing so would somehow enable them to indulge in their wildest whims without consequence? Somehow I don't think so. I have never met you - but I do know this much: you are clearly NOT an irrationalist.

Isn't it more accurate to say that you are sympathetic on the basis that the hippies were, on occasion, merely against certain things that you dislike?

As to being "out of mainstream society" - well, the hippies were certainly that. On the other hand, one could very accurately say the exact same thing about me in a great many respects - not too many people would accuse me of being "mainstream." But that doesn't put me on the same level as the hippies nor does the fact that they, too, were outside the mainstream make me feel an ounce of sympathy for them. There are two ways in which a person can be outside of the mainstream: he can be outside the mainstream because he is better than the mainstream in some particular regard or he can be there because he is worse than the mainstream. The fact that both happen to be regarded as being outside the mainstream does NOT mean that they have anything at all in common.

"...the type of thinking that produced McNamara, that also produced the buildings you (and I, for the most part) hate?"

And what type of thinking was that? It seems to me that you are equating a person of reason as a someone who is utterly devoid of passions, feelings and values - basically like a Vulcan in Star Treck. According to wikipedia, Vulcans are "noted for their attempt to live by reason and logic with no interference from emotion."

That is a VERY false view of reason and emotions. It accepts the premise that somehow the two are always and necessarily at odds with each other. Nothing could be further than the truth.

Emotions are our means of experiencing and enjoying all of the many values in life that we work to achieve by the exertion of mental effort and rational, logical thinking. Why do people struggle to pursue successful careers they are passionate about (as opposed to having a mere job simply because one needs the money) but for the enjoyment and the feeling of accomplishment that comes with the success? What is the point of working and thinking hard in order to achieve a house nicer than mere shelter and a standard of living beyond what is needed to ensure mere physical comfort? It is because of the emotional rewards that come from such things. Isn't the whole point of life as a human being the pursuit of happiness? Reason and logic are the means and the essential road map that are necessary if we are to ever have a chance to figure out what particular values will make us happy and how we should go about pursuing them.

People who abandon reason and live entirely by their whims and emotions rarely live happy and successful lives - their material and emotional lives are usually in a state of constant turmoil and, in many cases, they end up as bitter, angry resentful and envious nihilists. If you wish to have a rich and rewarding emotional life, living by reason is crucial. I will give a brief example having to do with a value that is entirely emotional: a romantic relationship. The ONLY point of having a romantic relationship (as opposed to a mere sex partner or "sugar daddy") is the emotional rewards that result from it. But observe the number of people who are in miserable and sometimes abusive relationships because they acted entirely on the basis of their emotions and disregarded reason. How many people have you known who stayed with an abusive romantic partner despite very clear warning signs early on about the person's character? Anyone acting rationally in such a situation would immediately seek to get themselves out of the relationship. But some people don't - they evade certain unpleasant and unmistakable facts of reality on grounds that they emotionally wish or hope the person will somehow change despite repeated evidence that such is not likely to ever happen. As a result of staying in such a relationship, life becomes a nightmare and the only emotion they feel is misery and perhaps even fear. On the other hand, people who find themselves in a similar situation and act rationally in accordance to the unmistakable facts of reality about the other person's character might go through an emotionally difficult and sad period as a result of the break-up of the relationship - but they have a chance of eventually finding a relationship with more compatible person and a long-term emotional life that is rewarding.

There is no necessary dichotomy between reason and emotion. There is nothing that precludes rational people from having emotionally rich lives. There is NOTHING at all irrational about wanting to have a joyous, happy life filled with beauty and grandeur. The only thing reason forbids with regard to emotions is treating one's emotions as a substitute for or as superior to one's own rational judgment. There is nothing wrong with acting one your emotions - so long as are aware of what you are doing and have concluded that it is rationally appropriate to do so.

Now, to tie this back to alleged rationality of sterile Modernism in architecture - well, I disagree. Because I do not accept a dichotomy between reason and emotion as necessarily valid state of affairs, I see absolutely no reason on earth why architecture that is supposed to "a triumph of intellect over emotion in the age of reason" has to be sanitized and sterile and lacking in passion and beauty.

There is a historical basis for associating Modernism with intellect and rationality - but that goes back to the early Modernists. The early Modernists denounced the architectural mainstream of the 19th and early 20th centuries as irrational on the basis of its adherence to arbitrary aesthetic rules backed up by nothing more than mindless appeals to tradition. They argued that a rational aesthetics in architecture ought to be based on the nature and context of what is being built - i.e, the building's location and function, the materials used, etc. They argued that a 20th century concrete and steel skyscraper ought to look like - well, a skyscraper, and not Roman temple or Renaissance villa. They argued that it makes about as much sense for modern building to look like a Louis XIV palace as it would for an automobile to look like a gilded Louis XIV horse drawn carriage. As much as I am able to appreciate and enjoy 19th and early 20th century revivalist buildings, I completely agree with such arguments. And note that there is absolutely NOTHING about such a viewpoint which precludes things such as ornamentation, craftsmanship and beauty. To rebel against the senseless ornamentation of the Victorians does NOT mean that one is opposed to ornamentation as such. That, by the way, is why I am such a HUGE fan of late 1920s and early 1930s art deco buildings. Those buildings were HIGHLY original and VERY forward looking - and yet they were incredibly beautiful and awe inspiring. They are the exact opposite of the bland, sterile and sanitized offerings that were offered later on as examples of what it means to be "modern." If you want to see an example of architecture that celebrates the "triumph of intellect over emotion in the age of reason," I submit that the place to look would be at the Chrysler, Empire State and AIG (one of my favorites) Buildings in New York City - NOT the horrible modernism of the 1950 and 1960s. There is nothing even remotely human about sterile 1950s and 1960s modernism - such buildings project a world view of the humans who occupy them not as rational and intellectual beings but rather as mere ants.

[cbellomy]

Word on the grapevine is that the S-T Classifieds building has been sold. Has anybody heard anything about this?

Not sold, but now up for sale:

Star-Telegram selling downtown annex
BY SANDRA BAKER
SABAKER@STAR-TELEGRAM.COM

FORT WORTH — The Star-Telegram plans to sell its four-story downtown annex building and an adjacent surface parking lot, as well as two other downtown parking lots.

The decision is part of the newspaper’s efforts to reduce costs, said Chet Wakefield, senior vice president of operations.

...

The listing will include the 75-space parking lot adjacent to the 30,000-square-foot building, a 22-space lot near Texas and Taylor streets, and a 66-space lot at Monroe and Texas streets.

The annex, at the southwest corner of Fifth and Taylor streets, primarily houses the newspaper’s classified-advertising operations, features copy desk and credit union. About 100 employees will be moved to the Star-Telegram main building by year’s end, Wakefield said.

I agree with you, Kevin -- I feel a preservation fight coming on.

[cbellomy]

Dismuke, I love the back and forth with you. I wish I had more time to give you the thoughtful reply you deserve. I will make the points I can, though.

I don't think it's important what to call the type of thinking that produced sterilism. (I gave it a name, do you like it?) What matters is the perception by others that such a mindset existed. I was around a lot of hippies in my tender young years, while raised by depression babies. I can tell you that my brother's hippie friends loved the quaint old buildings downtown, the quaint old cottages in Arlington Heights, etc. Maybe their expertise and interest started and ended at "quaint" -- that must have been true for many of them. But I never met anyone who was especially fond of the Continental National Bank, or the new Fort Worth National Bank, or the Civil Courts Building in its original skin. They loved the Courthouse. Medical Arts. Etc.

They were *not* happy with the "establishment" for wrecking these treasures.

Do I take the hippie side against my parents' generation? No, not in any general way. I think the hippies were the most extraordinarily spoiled generation in history, at least right up to the point they faced conscription to fight a doomed war in Southeast Asia. (On that point, my generation is incredibly spoiled.) Tune in, turn on, drop out was a disaster for this country in more ways than I can count. That said, young people have been known to be kinda, um, hedonistic and sometimes dumb. I don't think the baby boomers were particularly special in this regard, save for their numbers.

So I don't take sides at all. From where I sit in my living room recliner, everybody is right about something, and everybody is wrong about something else. The WWII generation was somewhat justified in their mistrust of all influences classic European, being associated as it was with producing two world wars and leading us to the brink of nuclear winter. That said, the reaction was overdone, the rush to create a bold new futuristic architecture too headlong. The baby boomers were right to dislike what their parents' generation was doing to our cities, even if their motivation to dislike it may have been somewhat misguided. And, in general, the American need to always be in fashion insures that our reactions are always overboard. I liked Led Zeppelin, but I didn't need 10,000 other bands to come along after them sounding just the same, only not as good.

If that analogy makes sense.

Cheers...

[Brian Luenser]

For Sale: Star Telegram Classifieds building...

At least they get a break on the ads.

3 pics from this morning. (5-21-08)





And this parking lot is also for sale.

[safly]

"We're trying to get more efficient in our operations," Wakefield said. "We pay quite a bit to maintain the annex building. It is our intent to sell it."

REALLY?

Didn't notice.

[Brian Luenser]

"We're trying to get more efficient in our operations," Wakefield said. "We pay quite a bit to maintain the annex building. It is our intent to sell it."

REALLY?

Didn't notice.

I just wonder who will care for those weeds in the planters on 5th?

[gdvanc]

I like the building, but I have absolutely no idea why.

Maybe it's "so ugly it's cute" - something that I'm pretty sure I remember someone calling me when I was young.

Maybe it's because even if it isn't particularly attractive, it's at least interesting; it has some fairly unique touches. Most ugly buildings are just unimaginative lumps of dreary eye-depressants. Intentionally so, no less! Insipidity with malice aforethought. I would offer City Hall as an example. Actually, I would offer quite a few city halls as examples.

Maybe it subconsciously reminds me of some weird 60s robot toy or electronic gizmo.

Whatever the reason, I kind of like it.

I do wonder what it looked like originally. I could only find one shot of it in the Jack White collection, but it was quite small and a bit grainy; it was in an aerial shot of downtown which had been printed in the FWST. It was taken in 1969 and the bottom two floors look quite different as far as I can tell. And if there are panels, they're not obvious to me. Really, I'm not 100% sure it's the right building. Sleep deprivation again. Sorry. Carry on.

[Dismuke]

I like the building, but I have absolutely no idea why.

I will take a stab at why I like it despite the fact that I am not a fan of buildings from that era.

First of all, it is very three dimensional. Most modernistic structures are very, very flat. This one has depth.

It is also a very vertical building - which is a trait that I admire in many buildings from the art deco era. The building calls attention to how tall it is despite the fact that the front might actually be wider than the building is tall.

The metal work on the building also gives the building a certain element of "detail" and "ornamentation" that is lacking in most modernistic buildings. I am sure that this was not intentional and that the metal work was actually designed to hold the metal panels that were once there. But, nevertheless, it still has the effect of giving the building a certain amount of texture that is lacking in most modernistic buildings.

The building has a certain futuristic feel to it - which, again, is one of the things I admire about art deco buildings. And, to give credit where it is due, 1950s buildings often tried to project that spirit. And while a lot of times I think those 1950s buildings are ugly, I do have a certain respect for their futuristic intentions. (A good but later example is the "Flying Saucer" of the Convention Center. I can't say that it is at all attractive - but it is stylized in a certain respect and projects the sort of futurism that one might see in an old episode of The Jetsons. It is one of the very few 1960s building downtown I would consider worth keeping.)

If I look at the building too long and too much, I can understand why some people say it is ugly. It is definitely a building that looks best when one sees it in passing. The building definitely caught my attention the first time I saw it - and over time it has steadily grown on me.

[cbellomy]

(A good but later example is the "Flying Saucer" of the Convention Center. I can't say that it is at all attractive - but it is stylized in a certain respect and projects the sort of futurism that one might see in an old episode of The Jetsons. It is one of the very few 1960s building downtown I would consider worth keeping.)

So, naturally, its date with the wrecking ball already has been penciled in.

To be totally candid, though, I won't really miss it. The Tarrant Savings building, I love. The CC arena, not so much.