Jump to content


* * * * * 1 votes

DT: Former Bank One Bldg. has gone Condo.


  • Please log in to reply
1085 replies to this topic

#51 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:35 AM

I haven't heard about the "Mom and Pop" part, but the redevelopment of the Tandy Center will have a space that would be suitable for a full service grocery store. The South of Seventh development also has plans for a grocery.

#52 tcole

tcole
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:35 AM

DR: The concept you refer to as "build it and they will come" is a little off the mark. We know that there exists demand for DT residences. By thus supplying more of those residences and contributing to the critical mass of DT dwellers, you thereby stimulate (or further stimulate) demand for such services (grocery, hardware, etc.). It is thus not a "field of dreams" concept but one of "priming" the demand pump.

#53 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:36 AM

Parks are critical to quality of life in any high-density environment, and downtown will need to get them into the plan. Of course, Trinity Park is just a short bus ride away (or even a nice walk across the Lancaster Viaduct) for Upper Westside residents. There has been rumor that the surface parking lots in the center of Sundance Square could become green space. Hyde Park planning is well underway for 9th and Throckmorton.

So all is not as bleak as it might appear.

On the other hand, without continued attention and support our parks can be lost. Witness the interest in paving parts of Forest Park to provide zoo parking.

#54 Urbndwlr FW

Urbndwlr FW
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:36 AM

Woah that's ugly. I agree with the concept of building the base out to the streets to increase retail space, improve pedestrian friendliness, but I don't think architectural integrity was even a consideration in the design of the high-rise. That rendering resembles that of a cold-war era housing project in NYC along the East River. (or maybe one of theose hideous Miami high-rise condo towers that are always in the American Way mags) Wow.

Don't get me wrong, I REALLY like the reuse fo the building as a condo/apartment tower. In fact, I'll be first in line to consider buying or renting a unit there. However, the high-rise facade needs to be redesigned so that it doesn't replace one eyesore with another.

My proposal:

Either
1) replace the glass facade (floor to ceiling) so that it looks as it did orignially: smooth planes of glass on each side, and do not have any balconies. Instead, have two common outdoor spaces: one of the roof and indoor/outdoor public penthouse w/ a wrap-around deck, or

2) redesign the facade so that there is more symmetry to it. hard to articulate, but I'd suggest a facade that has more prominant spandrels every 2-3 floors to minimize the irregularity caused by the balconies.

Another thing I would like to see is some kind of roof-top feature, perhaps a pyramid shaped structure such as that tower in Atlanta with the metal pyramid structure on top.

#55 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:37 AM

Hyde Park planned on southern end of downtown
Heritage Park on north end of downtown,
Trinity Park/ Trail that wraps around downtown
Burnett Park
Water Gardens


There are several parks in or near downtown. Most are in mediocre condition as FW apparently hasn't really dedicated lots of $$ to Parks dept to keep them in ship shape. I run in Trinity Park virtually every day, and it is in great condition. They put in a crushed ember running path a year ago, which is great for running (better on the knees than concrete).
The volume of people in the park is higher than it used to be, but still surprisingly mellow. I think the Trinity Trails are some of the city's best kept secrets. A great asset for downtown (urban, that is) dwellers.

#56 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:38 AM

Urbndwlr, I have to agree with you. Trinity Park is great. I also use the Trinity Trails quite often; however, I do it on bicycle. It is a great asset for all of us urban dwellers. I can ride all the way out to Benbrook Lake, up to the Stockyards, or almost to Lake Worth. Actually, some of my friends in the Fort Worth Bicycling Association have worked up a route that makes a loop out of the Trinity Trails on the west half of Fort Worth. They used to start it at the Tandy Parking Lot and would ride down the Clear Fork all the way out to Benbrook, then ride north to Lake Worth and then back down the Marine Creek Trail through the Stock Yards and then finish back at the Tandy Center.

Mr. GHughes on this forum is also a cyclist.

I'm really off topic! However, I would love to hear additional comments about the new look for the tower.

#57 salvag

salvag
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:38 AM

I like the new design. I always thought the angled base made the building look ugly. I'm glad to see it squared off and I think it's a great idea to add retail down there.

I'm just happy that they are finally doing something with it. It has sat idle for far too long and frankly I'm tired of looking at it.

I read in the FWST that construction could begin as early as March. Can anyone confirm this?

#58 dismuke

dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:39 AM

Quite frankly, I am having a hard time figuring out what the building is supposed look like. The tower in the drawing appears to be either square or rectangular. But that is not the shape of the present structure. Is the plan to thusly extend the exterior of the tower out? Or does the drawing simply do a poor job of conveying depth?

I agree that adding some sort of rooftop setback or pyramid would help.

One of the interior drawings shows slanting beams - presumably the ones from the current base. One thing that I sure hope that any rehab does is in some way cover up the ghastly concrete on those beams. Although I considered the sloping glass windows to be somewhat interesting when viewed from the lower level of the lobby, I thought the concrete beams made the building's interior incredibly ugly. To me, they looked like they were something left over from a Texas Department of Transportation highway project - except that the concrete work on most TX-DOT projects has a smoother texture and is more attractive. I understand that the beams themselves serve a structural purpose and must remain - but please cover them up with wood, marble, granite, metal, plastic or anything besides that ugly concrete.

#59 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:39 AM

It is my understanding that if the project is approved by the City Council in late February, removal of the remaining asbestos may start in March. It would probably be a couple of months before any visible signs of construction would be taking place.

#60 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:39 AM

Dismuke, the rendering is looking at the building on one of the diagonal faces. Then you have the two long sides running diagonally away from the viewer. I was given an .avi file that really gives a good look at the building. I guess over the weekend, I can upload it to the web site and then anyone who wishes to look at it can download it. The plan is to keep the octagonal tower. That rendering is not the best that I have seen.

The sloping columns and beams of the building's original structure must remain in order for the tower to remain standing. I doubt that they will be covered as the concrete is a "finished" concrete, suitable for a surface that will be exposed to view. Actually, in my opinion, I thought that the concrete texture added to the whole architectural experience of the tower.

#61 Thurman52

Thurman52
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:40 AM

I am very supportive of the designs and the additional housing.

#62 salvag

salvag
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:40 AM

City may act today on tower project
By Anna M. Tinsley
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH - City leaders will consider a plan today to redevelop a downtown eyesore -- the tornado-ravaged former Bank One tower -- that calls for more than $16 million in public funding over the next decade.

Developers want tax abatements, economic development grants and special help in removing cancer-causing asbestos to turn the shuttered building into a high-rise residential tower by 2004.

At ground level, the tower's sloping design would be expanded and squared off to allow stores and restaurants to ring the building.

"This is an excellent opportunity -- the best opportunity we've seen in three years -- to make good use of the property and enhance the redevelopment potential in the heart of the city," City Manager Gary Jackson said.

"It's well-structured, but it requires broad public support."

The council is scheduled to vote on the plan today during its 10 a.m. meeting at City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton St.

The city's share of the plan would be more than $7.4 million. Add in requested help from Tarrant County commissioners, hospital district and public assistance would top $16.9 million.

Commissioners and the hospital district could vote on the plan in the coming weeks, officials said. Commissioners will be briefed on the proposal today.

"I'm recommending that the City Council approve this and encourage the county and county health district to do the same," Jackson said.

If all entities agree, work on the tower could begin as early as next month, officials say.

Dallas-based TLC Realty Advisors has teamed up with Greenfield Partners, a national pension fund adviser, to buy and redevelop the building this year, said Tony Landrum, TLC president.

They plan to convert the tower into 270 high-rise residential units with balconies and 30,000 square feet of stores and restaurants. The residences could either be sold or rented. In the adjacent parking garage, 300 free public parking spaces would be made available.

A new 4-story base would be added to the outside of the building to make room for stores. On top of the base -- which would be wider than the building and extend to the street -- a plaza would provide an outdoor area for residents and at least one swimming pool.

"This is a landmark project, the kind that doesn't come along very often in cities other than Chicago, New York and San Francisco," said David Pettit, director of development for Downtown Fort Worth Inc.

"We want Fort Worth to become a 24-hour city," he said. "This type of development will make us a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week downtown."

City officials today will consider:

• Contributing $3.7 million to the development over the next decade through tax abatements and economic development grants, which are similar to tax rebates. Other tax abatements from the county and hospital district would add $2.2 million, said Tom Higgins, the city's development director.

• Adjusting the downtown tax increment financing district, or TIF, to provide $3 million to help remove asbestos from the tower. The cost of removing asbestos, which is scattered throughout the building, has stalled efforts to redevelop or demolish the building.

The city's share would be more than $1 million. But it would still have to approve a new plan as soon as next week that allows the TIF to fund work such as asbestos removal, Higgins said.

Workers could begin removing asbestos next month and could begin construction in July, Landrum has said.

• Agreeing to pay $2.7 million into a 10-year garage lease through the TIF to provide 300 public parking spaces that would be free during the day for the first hour and on evenings and weekends. The entire lease would be as much as $8 million, with the county and hospital district paying the rest.

• Raising the TIF district funds limit to $72 million from $50 million.

"All this is a significant level of public participation, but the minimum required to accomplish the project," Jackson said.

The TIF, overseen by Downtown Fort Worth Inc., was created in 1996 to spark investment and development downtown. The district allows tax revenue from new construction or increases in property values inside the district to be diverted into a special fund for public improvements. The TIF can also issue bonds to pay for long-term projects.

The downtown TIF already has helped several businesses, including the Ashton Hotel, the Pecan Place Condos, the Wells Fargo building and the new Bank One building.

City officials say the project would create 250 to 350 construction jobs over the next 1 1/2 years and 80 to 110 permanent jobs.

The new development would generate about $35 million in new tax revenue over 20 years for all taxing entities, estimates show.

Pettit said the development would be a shot in the arm for the community.

"High-rise residential is just not built today in the Southwest," Pettit said. "To do it in Fort Worth, and keep one of our modern icons in the skyline, that's tremendous."

The tower is owned by the Block 82 Partners, a group led by Fort Worth businessman Ed Bass that bought the building in March 2001 after its previous owners opted not to repair it.

The 454-foot-tall building has remained mostly vacant since a tornado ripped through the structure in March 2000.

No structural damage occurred, but the building's future has been uncertain ever since.

#63 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:41 AM

The City Council today took the next step and approved the tax incentives for the project. If the other governmental entities go along, removal of the remaining asbestos may start next month with construction actually starting in July.

#64 Radar13

Radar13
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:41 AM

NBC 5 mentions that development company TLC is making the proposal. I've not been able to find anything on them.

Anyone else?

#65 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:51 PM

In the first week of February, the FW Star-Telegram had an article on the company and its founder, Tony Landrum. I believe he was born in Fort Worth and now lives in Dallas. TLC are partners with Ed Bass in developing the new Bank One Building across the street.

#66 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:51 PM

The Bass Family are no longer owners of the Block 82 Tower. TLC has purchased the building as of Tuesday, and it looks like the remainder of the asbestos will start being removed in April. It also appears that some of the top floors will be condominiums.

#67 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:52 PM

I would really like to see more opportunities for "ordinary" individuals to own residential property downtown. A substantial percentage of owner-occupied space will bring a stronger sense of identity and permanance to downtown living.

I hope future abatements will work toward that goal.

#68 Urbndwlr FW

Urbndwlr FW
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:52 PM

GHughes,

I agree that I would like to see a greater amount of home ownership down here. When residents own their dwellings rather than rent them there is a greater sense of attachment to the building and neighborhood, and hence people seem to invest a greater amount of time and money in their immediate community/neighborhood.

When you say "ordinary" what do you mean? Often people use that word to mean people of modest means - is that what you mean? The federal gov already provides tax incentives for developers to provide "affordable" units in their projects. The only way that the market (without subsidies) can provide "affordable", for-sale units that are well-constructed in an urban setting such as downtown, is if buyers are willing to accept less square footage. In other words, if land cost and construction costs are kept at a constant, the only way to get the units in the "affordable" range ($150,000ish) is to reduce the size of the units. In denser cities people are willing to accept urban units that are smaller than suburban ones. If Sundance West is any indication, the market does appear to be willing to accept relatively small units (not very big apartments) if they are in an urban setting that offers more amenities around the building.

As people move to Fort Worth from larger cities such as Boston, NY, Chicago, and San Francisco, they don't carry they suburban mentality that many people here assume that the entire market has. Many of my fellow downtown neighbors are exactly that: people who relocated from big cities who are happy to live in smaller spaces so long as there is stimulating activity around them in the neighborhood.

#69 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:52 PM

My use of the word "ordinary" was to contrast with developers and building-owners, who of course DO own residential property downtown. What I should have written was "owner-occupied."

I understand the county's abatement on the Bank One Tower (which needs a new name, such as "Twister Center") provides transferable benefits to individual owners if it goes condo. (I'm sure it's more complex than that).That is the sort of thing that will encourage owner-occupancy.

#70 reaule

reaule
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:54 PM

Ran across this article in Affordable Housing Finance Magazine...

http://www.housingfi...date/index.html

Bush Again Proposing Single-family Tax Credit

Like last year, President Bush has again proposed a single-family tax credit to promote low-income homeownership as part of the tax provisions in the administration's fiscal 2003 budget.

The proposal would provide developers a five-year credit with a present value of up to 50% of the cost of the housing unit, which could be a single-family home, condominium or cooperative unit.

States would allocate the credits like the low-income housing tax credit, with per capita first-year credit authority of $1.75 in calendar 2003. The cap would be indexed for inflation beginning in 2004.

Housing supported by the credit would have to be built in census tracts with median incomes no higher than 80% of the area median, and eligible home buyers could have incomes no higher than 80% of the applicable median income (70% for one- and two-person households). The program would not be restricted to first-time home buyers.

Home buyers – but not investors – would be subject to credit recapture if a home is resold to a nonqualified buyer within three years of the initial sale. The maximum recapture would be 80% of the gain on resale, and the recapture amount would be phased out over the three-year period.

In addition, if a credit-supported housing unit is converted to rental property by the initial home buyer within the first five years, no deductions for depreciation or property taxes could be claimed during that period.

The single-family tax credit has received strong support from many housing industry groups.
“The administration’s proposal for a new single-family tax credit for developers of single-family housing represents a bold step forward to broaden homeownership – especially among minorities," said Judy Kennedy, president of the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders. “The single-family credit would do for affordable single-family housing what the low-income housing credit did for the expansion of multifamily housing.”

#71 Andy N

Andy N
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:54 PM

From my lofty vantage point high atop the Bank Of America Building, I noticed port-a-johns and a lone white truck yesterday inside the fence at the former Bank One Tower. Today, the port-a-johns are still there and the lone white truck has been joined by numerous vehicles commonly associated with the construction workers. It seems the transmogrification is afoot!

What a turn-around for this structure. I am a little disappointed that I did not get to exercise my front-row window view on an implosion, but the benefits for a revitalized tower outweigh the loss of 20 seconds of high-explosives entertainment.

AN

#72 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:54 PM

I would have to agree with you there. Also, a remodeled building certainly will look better than a surface parking lot.

#73 LatinaSage

LatinaSage
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:55 PM

bah.. by doing this, having the condos, wouldnt that reduce the parking spaces left for the employee at the city of fort worth, its bad enough trying to find a spot, and if that place fills up with people, it would be a overly populated..

i dunno.. i personal dont trust that building, its been thro alot.. id hate to live up there and go thro another disaster again

#74 Green Frogger

Green Frogger
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:55 PM

What in the world are you talking about? This is a tremendous opportunity to revitalize and improve the central business district. It will start more life to downtown as well as adding more opportunites and even jobs. I am not sure about parking for the city workers, but I don't ever have a hard time finding a parking spot in the middle of the day.

#75 BB

BB
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:56 PM

Three years ago when the building was still fully operational, there was parking for everyone that used it. Theoretically, that parking should still be there, correct?

#76 dismuke

dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:56 PM

My guess is that more parking space will probably be available than when it was an office building. I suspect that far fewer people will live in the building than worked there. Regardless, new developments downtown are a good thing - and if they result in shortage of available existing parking spaces, then that is easy enough to fix: you simply build more parking.

#77 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:57 PM

First-off, welcome LatinaSage. Your artwork really livens up the page.

But on to parking... there's plenty. There continues to be plenty and the cost to park is relatively low. Is it in the same block as your destination? Maybe not. But downtown is small enough to cover on foot, one end to the other, in what, 10 minutes?

As one who looks at our air quality (literally seeing it) and hopes for better days, all that parking is a frustration. It is one of the major contributors to the absence of effective public transportation in Fort Worth. And it reinforces our autocentric lifestyle. As TCU restricted its parking, students got on buses and began walking more. It works on a city scale, too.

#78 TADAMS

TADAMS
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:57 PM

So does all of this talk mean that we're finally on the way with active renovation of the building. I've read nothing in the papers and seen nothing on the news. Would be nice to know that they've gotten started. By starting now, it seems that Pier One, Bank One and Radio Shack would all be turning on their lights and opening their doors at about the same time. Won't that be nice. Now we just have to hope for something to happen with the Landmark Tower!?

#79 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:57 PM

You are all correct about the parking issues. With residential at the building, there are fewer people living there than the number that worked in the building before the tornado. The parking garage was designed for an adequate number of spaces for supporting the square footage of office space. Therefore, the landlords can lease parking spaces to those who are willing to pay for it. That is what is happening at the garage now. With the building vacant, only people who work for Bank One in the parking garage use it at this time. The remaining spaces are leased for people wishing to pay monthly for a parking space.

From what you all have said, it appears that workers are ready to start removing the asbestos again from the structure. It will probably be July before we actually see visible signs of work being done to the building.

#80 dismuke

dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:58 PM

The people doing the project ought to consider putting some sort of photo exhibit in the building's public area documenting its history and showing how it looked before the tornado, immediately after, with the plywood in the windows, then the metal panels and finally during the various stages of reconstruction. Newspaper clippings of how the building was scheduled for demolition and of the plans to do a nighttime implosion because of 9/11 should also be included. Few buildings of such recent construction have such an interesting history. I think such an exhibit would be interesting to those of us who remember all the changes and will become even more so as the years go and new people move to the area and become familiar with the building.

#81 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:58 PM

Dismuke, that is a great idea! I don't know if the building's owners read this forum, but you never know, they may take the idea and use it.

#82 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:58 PM

Dismuke, you appear to be an excellent repository of the information and could be of great help to anyone wishing to pursue what you describe. Certainly the interpretive aspect would be critical.

An iteresting question appears: how does one influence the private sector in something that really is of public import? Is that something the city could have negotiated for as part of tax abatements?

#83 Urbndwlr FW

Urbndwlr FW
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:59 PM

LatinaSage,

True urban communites don't have ten parking stalls per shopper in the lot. We, as a community have to get over the notion that it is a tragic when we have to spend 30 seconds looking for a spot, or, heaven forbid, have to parallel park. I don't mean to give you a hard time, but I have flashbacks to conversations with members of my grandparents' generation when I hear naysayers site the abundance of traffic as a negative in our downtown. Heck, traffic (foot and automobile) is a sign of a successful city center.

John is right, a residential use will not be nearly as parking intensive as an office building.

#84 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:59 PM

Overall, I think the project is a real plus for the city.

1. We get to keep an existing building; therefore, our skyline would not shrink as it would if it had been demolished.

2. We add more apartment units in Downtown!!!

3. Redevelopment of the tower will allow the amount of parking over and above what is required for residential to be leased to office workers in other buildings.

#85 cloudgriff

cloudgriff
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:00 PM

I was wondering if the Bank One Tower project has started yet, or when it will start. There hasn't been any posts on this subject for a while, so does anyone know what's happening? And Uh... I've never used an ezPost thing, so if I did this wrong I apologize. Thanks.

#86 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:00 PM

Welcome to the forum and you did your post correctly.

At the current time, asbestos removal has resumed on the building. That is work that is being done on the inside, so there's no visible means of work going on at the building. Once that is complete, then heavier construction work will begin on the building. According to the schedule for completion of the project, that should start anywhere from late July to around Labor Day. I don't know the timetable for replacing the curtain wall. That will be the most visible sign of work on the building.

#87 Prairie Pup

Prairie Pup
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2004 - 05:00 PM

From the Star Telegram
Posted on Wed, Jul. 23, 2003

Tower rehabilitation project to begin soon
By Sandra Baker
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH _ The exterior of the tornado-ravaged former Bank One Tower in downtown Fort Worth will be removed beginning in a couple of weeks, with the removal of the building's remaining asbestos to begin immediately afterward, the building's owner said Wednesday.

Tony Landrum, president of TLC Advisors, the building's owner, said he is close to selecting and contracting with a firm to remove the asbestos.

"If everything goes well, we could sign a contract by late next week," Landrum said.

He said by mid-August a general contractor is expected to begin the first phase of the asbestos removal: removing the exterior of the former office tower.

As the so-called curtain wall is removed, the building will be wrapped in a heavy black canvas-like plastic which will aid in the asbestos removal as well as further construction work, he said.

The curtain wall is the patchwork of glass and metal panels that make up the building's exterior.

Landrum has joined in partnership with Greenfield Partners, a Cincinnati-based pension fund advisor, to convert the former office tower into 270 residential units and 30,000 square feet of stores and restaurants. The $65 million project has received $16.9 million in public funding.

Workers will begin at the top of the 35-story building and work floor-by-floor until they reach the fifth story, he said.

All of the friable asbestos, or that asbestos which is brittle enough to become airborne and is considered more hazardous, was removed by the building's previous owner. Asbestos is a cancer-causing material that was once used extensively for fireproofing.

Even though the remaining asbestos is classified as nonfriable, federal and state regulations required that it be removed. The asbestos is in paint that was sprayed on some of the structural columns that extend through the building, Landrum said.

The entire process of removing the exterior and the remaining asbestos could last until March, he said.

Landrum said he is on schedule with the building's renovation. The project is expected to be finished by January 2005.

The redevelopment of the Bank One tower is the first of several planned residential projects that city officials have said will provide a boon to downtown Fort Worth.

In addition to the former Bank One tower, Trinity Bluff on the north edge of downtown could bring as many as 1,500 units, and several hundred additional residences are anticipated from the redevelopment of the Landmark Building, the Transport Life Building and the Charles D. Tandy Center.

Moreover, apartments are planned for the T&P Terminal Building on the south edge of downtown at Lancaster Avenue and the former Cotton Depot on the east edge of downtown.

Landrum said the four streets surrounding the building will not be shut down completely during construction, but there may be occassional temporary closings to accommodate large construction equipment.

Work is beginning about four months after TLC acquired the building at Fourth and Throckmorton streets from Block 82 Partners, a limited partnership led by Fort Worth businessman Ed Bass.

Bass had acquired the building in 2001 from Loutex, a Dallas-based company. Loutex began repairing the severely-damaged building following the March 2000 tornado, but work stopped when Loutex decided its insurance coverage would not meet construction costs.

A few tenants, including the Reata Restaurant, which had moved back into the building were forced to leave. The building also was under contract a short time to Trammell Crow Co. before it was bought by the Bass group.

Bass originally planned to implode the building but ran into problems with asbestos removal and higher insurance costs after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Landrum said he has been in several design meetings and that a new curtain wall will be selected soon.

#88 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:03 AM

It will be great to see this come together.

As the so-called curtain wall is removed, the building will be wrapped in a heavy black canvas-like plastic

Well, I think someone did suggest hiring Christo in one of our earlier discussions. Can't wait for the new nicknames ("Plank One" is still my favorite).

Bass had acquired the building in 2001 from Loutex, a Dallas-based company.

Is Loutex Dallas-based? I thought it was a holding company in a complex stack of holding companies ultimately owned by SITQ Holdings (Canada) and Canderel (also Canada).

#89 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:05 AM

Looking for more follow-up stories, I ran across this outdated description of the building (from the Plywood Period) on glasssteelandstone.com:

glasssteelandstone.com/US/TX/FtWorthBankOneTower.html

#90 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:06 AM

Black? Fort Worth? Summer?

Can you say, "radiant heat absorbtion"?

I suppose there might be a better way to raise the inside temperature of the building while they work on it, but that black wrap solar heating plan is the most cost effective.

#91 10ucTransplant

10ucTransplant
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:06 AM

these units will rent for? Is it going to be a mix of condos/apartments or soley one or the other?

#92 dismuke

dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:06 AM

Moreover, apartments are planned for the T&P Terminal Building on the south edge of downtown at Lancaster Avenue and the former Cotton Depot on the east edge of downtown.

What is a Cotton Depot and where is it located?

#93 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:07 AM

The plan for the old Bank One Tower is to have a mix of apartments and condominiums.

The old Cotton Depot is located at 701 E. 5th Street and it is a railroad freight depot. It was not as well known as the Santa Fe Freight Depot or the T&P Freight Warehouse. The building served as a freight station and warehouse for the Cotton Belt Railroad. It has a small two story administration building and a long one story brick warehouse.

#94 dismuke

dismuke
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:07 AM

Ok. I know what you are talking about now. In fact, I think I might actually have been in it years ago when I first moved to Fort Worth. If I remember correctly, it wasn't very big and wouldn't be able to house very many apartments. Are they planning to build new buildings to go along with it?

#95 John T Roberts

John T Roberts
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:07 AM

From what I understand, they are planning to build new apartment units along with renovating the warehouse.

#96 chrisalan80

chrisalan80
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:08 AM

My Question is: When?

#97 chrisalan80

chrisalan80
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:08 AM

The sooner the better.

#98 AndyN

AndyN
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:08 AM

I did an ALTA survey on the Cotton Depot building about three years ago. At the time, the project was put on hold due to difficulties in arranging the financials. Apparently it is back on track, because when I drove by this afternoon, I noticed that the old boxcar that was on the side of the building was gone and a large part of the newer, concrete portion of the warehouse has been demolished. The older, brick warehouse is not large enough for apartments of any substance, but will be the facade for the new construction.

This property is somewhat isolated from downtown being just north of the highway spur, east of the Santa Fe railroad and somewhat higher than the adjoining north property, divided with retaining walls.

#99 apearson28

apearson28
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:09 AM

any visible construction yet?

#100 renamerusk

renamerusk
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:09 AM

Yeah baby!! I'm in heaven 'cause work is to start in just two more weeks. Can it get any better that this?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users