Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

UWS: State National Bank (4 ST/2007)


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

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

Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:15 PM

This story is from the Fort Worth Business Press, but the article is not online right now. State National Bank will be building a 4 story building on the northeast corner of W. 7th and Summit Ave. The size of the building will be 40,000 square feet. The estimated completion date for the building will be mid 2006. The designers for the project are Schwarz Hanson Architects.

#2 lobster

lobster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts
  • Location:downtown Fort Worth ;]

Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:31 PM

here y'go :(

Posted Image

#3 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,783 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 04 February 2005 - 02:23 AM

At least it isn't some awful modern glass building; I approve of the hue.

I think they could double the size and height easily; and predict that unanticipated demand shall make them consider doing so. .. we hope!

"Keep Fort Worth Folksy!"

#4 lobster

lobster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts
  • Location:downtown Fort Worth ;]

Posted 04 February 2005 - 09:24 AM

I just realized.. northeast corner of summit & 7th... isn't that where the "Summit Ruins" sign stood for a couple of years diagonally across from the 7-11?

#5 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2005 - 09:46 AM

For some reason the building reminds me of The Ball Park in Arlington, or whatever itís called now.

#6 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 04 February 2005 - 02:11 PM

I like it. It is true to Fort Worth and those vacant lots desperately need to be developed. As it is now it seems like Seventh is disconnected from downtown. Now if someone will do something with the corner of Henderson and 7th!

#7 Shocker

Shocker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Downtown Ft. Worth

Posted 04 February 2005 - 05:46 PM

I just realized.. northeast corner of summit & 7th... isn't that where the "Summit Ruins" sign stood for a couple of years diagonally across from the 7-11?

View Post



I think the "Summit Ruins" sign was on the northwest corner. I believe this project is on the other side of Summit from the "Ruins" sign, just north of 7-11.

#8 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 05 February 2005 - 12:10 PM

It's nice, not much detail, but it'll fill a lot. What would really make this building great is if it had ground level retail. Summit and 7th street should someday have a light rail station, and retail would go great at that corner. Also, if the building is on the NE corner, why not have that nice looking tower actually face the corner? I think that would really tie the building together and give it more visual impact from the street.

#9 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 05 February 2005 - 12:12 PM

I may be mistaken, but I believe this is the former Summit Ruins site.

#10 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

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

Posted 05 February 2005 - 09:17 PM

Jonny, isn't a bank considered ground floor retail?

JBB, this is across Summit Street to the east from Summit Ruins. It is not on the same site. The property was purchased from the developers of the Firestone Apartments.

The article is now online at: http://www.fwbusines...ebath=&subname=

#11 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,038 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 06 February 2005 - 12:33 AM

Also, if the building is on the NE corner, why not have that nice looking tower actually face the corner? I think that would really tie the building together and give it more visual impact from the street.



I agree with this. Having it face away from the intersection makes it look very awkward - almost as if 7th were merely some side street or alley way.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#12 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2005 - 03:48 AM

I agree about the tower. My first impression of the rendering was, "Why'd they put the most interesting feature in the back of the building?" Of course, most of their customers will find that more convenient since they'll be approaching the building from the parking lot. At least the parking is in the rear.

My second impression was that I wish the side facing 7th street had included something more inviting to pedestrians. Maybe a couple of small shops. Okay, it's intended to be just a bank. It sitll might have been nice to put an entrance facing 7th. Maybe there is one - the picture's a little grainy.

Overall, the form is okay. Apart from the tower, it seems fairly plain. The columns add a little bit to an otherwise flat face, but not too much. Can't get a feel for the materials. Maybe they'll publish more detailed renderings soon.

#13 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 06 February 2005 - 11:08 AM

Jonny, isn't a bank considered ground floor retail?

View Post

Yes, technically, but I was thinking more along the lines of what gdvanc described. Restaruants, shops, etc...something that adds vitality to the street. I don't think a bank would do a very good job of that.

#14 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 08 February 2005 - 09:02 PM

My assessment of the planned State National Bank Building:

Positive aspects:

1) Massing. They went vertically rather than horizontally. I really commend them for this. Would probably have been cheaper to build a 2 sty building w/ 20,000 sf floor plates rather than 4 sty with 10,000 sf floors.
2) Facade material. Brick - good, appropriate, will age better than synthetic stucco (assuming they don't choose an ugly type of brick)
3) Full-height windows on ground floor. Another ped-friendly element.
4) Location. More critical mass of financial services in Downtown - continuing the growing momentum toward Fort Worth's growth into a regional economic capitol.

Negative aspects:

1) Setbacks/ layout on site. It appears from the drawing that there is a parking lot between the building and Summit and the building won't be built to the sidewalk on Summit. If I am right, that is an unbelievably bad urban design flaw. Hopefully I'm wrong and it has short setbacks on 7th and Summit.
2) Bland design. It's just not very imaginative. Even with the same general budget, size, and site constraints I really think I (with the architectural ability of a trained monkey) could design a more distinctive building - and I don't mean "edgy" design. Don't expect any design prizes for this one.
3) Building faces the back, not the front. IMO, should have had another "active" corner facing the intersection - even if 7th/Summit isn't where its front door will be located.

A sophisticated developer and a good architect should be able talk even the most uninformed client out of building a suburban-style site plan in an urban district.
BTW, aren't the building's layout on the site and its windows on the street guided by the new urban design requirements?

Not to vilify the designers at Schwarz-Hanson, however every office building shown on their online portfolio sits behind a parking lot - not exactly a legacy of good urban design. Maybe they're slowly turning the corner.


Hopefully I'm wrong about the site layout.

#15 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 08 February 2005 - 09:06 PM

The "tower" part of the building (on the building's NW corner) strongly resembles the small tower atop the small pink brick building up the hill (is it the Klabzuba office building?).

Same architect? Just an initial concept drawing that included an adjacent building's design?

#16 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 08 February 2005 - 09:49 PM

Not to vilify the designers at Schwartz-Hanson, however every office building shown on their online portfolio sits behind a parking lot - not exactly a legacy of good urban design.  Maybe they're slowly turning the corner.

View Post

Isn't that more of a reflection on the developer or client than the architect? Don't most architect design according to the client's specs or requirements?

#17 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 08 February 2005 - 10:18 PM

The design is a product of both. The problem is that many architects, in an effort to be accommodating to their developer clients, produce very bland, generic designs. Sure, maybe the developer or the bank has horrible taste in architecture and the architect was able to mitigate them to at least "save" the project from being a disaster. Given Schwarz Hanson's portfolio, I don't think that they would have produced a design any better than this given even the most open minded, deep-pocketed client.

I am glad the bank is coming to our city, and I wish them the best. It does, however, make me nervous when organizations that maintain very rural cultures and presumably tastes apply their tastes to urban districts such as this.

#18 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

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

Posted 08 February 2005 - 10:27 PM

Urb, I don't think it was done by the same architect. Schwarz Hanson is a fairly young architectural firm and I think One Lexington Place was designed by Gideon Toal, but I'm not 100% certain.

The developer for the project is Innovative Developers, Inc. (IDI) and their concept is to produce buildings on an economy budget. Not knowing the whole story, I would probably say that the architects did the best they could with the budget and design constraints outlined by the developer.

#19 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 08 February 2005 - 10:32 PM

John, you are a gentleman and a professional, and I respect your diplomatic position on this.

I don't think that the building design is that out of the ordinary, I just find our local standards for ordinary to be poor.

I understand cost constraints. They built this for about $265 per square foot. Not cheap. They had better not have any drive through lanes facing 7th or Summit on this thing. The bank pad site to the west down 7th Street is already such an offensive use of that site, the impact of a second new, poor example of urban design will set a very bad precedent.

#20 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

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

Posted 08 February 2005 - 11:23 PM

I actually view the bank pad site to the west as "temporary" construction, until a higher and better use of the land arises.

I do agree with you in that this could be setting a bad precedent.

#21 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:16 AM

I have to agree about setting a bad precedent. That part of town has several empty lots. Good development and interesting designs could really make it an impressive part of town. Last time I was in FW, I was really disappointed by the new bank recently built there, and this bank building is bland and disappointing as well.

#22 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 09 February 2005 - 09:35 AM

Even with the unimaginative design, it is still light years ahead of the bank to the west.

#23 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 09 February 2005 - 01:19 PM

agreed jbb

#24 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 09 February 2005 - 05:20 PM

Even with the unimaginative design, it is still light years ahead of the bank to the west.

View Post


True. Beggars can't be choosey.

#25 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 10 February 2005 - 12:10 AM

Even with the unimaginative design, it is still light years ahead of the bank to the west.

View Post


True. Beggars can't be choosey.

View Post



who exactly is the beggar? you should expect great things from our Downtown. don't be ashamed or afraid of having high standards.

#26 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 10 February 2005 - 06:12 PM

I'm confused...I thought you guys wanted quality development in FW. Now that development is taking off in a part of town that is prime for impressive development, you're willing to take anything. You can go to W. Berry St. to see what happens when poorly designed, unimaginative development is allowed to flourish. Why the change???

#27 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:39 PM

I don't understand what's up with the UWS. A few years ago it seemed like it was being hyped so much someone might mistake it for the real Upper West Side in NYC. Yet, aside from those two massive (and in many ways flawed) apartment complexes, there is NOTHING there. Just vacant lots and a few squat office buildings.

I really wonder why when all of a sudden development picks up again in that part of town, it's a measly 4 story bank. I still think the area has potential to be the epitome of succesful urban development, but it seems less and less likely that anything decent is going to come out of the ground there...I mean, why did an invaluable corner fall victim to a gas station? It makes little/no sense.

#28 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:44 PM

For the record, I never said that we should settle or just take what we can get. I said that the design was better than the bank a block away.

#29 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 11 February 2005 - 04:00 PM

I don't understand what's up with the UWS. A few years ago it seemed like it was being hyped so much someone might mistake it for the real Upper West Side in NYC. Yet, aside from those two massive (and in many ways flawed) apartment complexes, there is NOTHING there. Just vacant lots and a few squat office buildings.

I really wonder why when all of a sudden development picks up again in that part of town, it's a measly 4 story bank. I still think the area has potential to be the epitome of succesful urban development, but it seems less and less likely that anything decent is going to come out of the ground there...I mean, why did an invaluable corner fall victim to a gas station? It makes little/no sense.

View Post



Johnny, you raise a subject of highest and best use and value as it relates to development and planning. This is one that is very interesting and very complex.
The one thought I would impart is that you might want to begin by seeking to understand the various agendas that all involved parties have. Land owners. Land owners' investors. RE brokers. Public policy makers (elected officials and appointed officials). Local businesses. Non-local (entering) businesses. Consumers. Residents/other interested/affected members of the community.

It is very rare that any action (development) takes place that has a positive impact on each party's agenda. That is presumably why you will see negative feedback on virtually every project that takes place in the public domain (i.e. visible, accessible to, or othersise affecting the public).

The free market perspective assumes that each party in that equation makes rational decisions (that optimize their own personal utility curve and that when each party maximizes his/her own utility curve, that it will be the optimal result for the overall society).

The problem is that real estate (esp land) markets are highly inefficient, and that these individual party agendas often drive decisions that result in sub-optimal outcomes for many of the other parties.

I believe that our duty (as the "residents/other intrerested/affected community members") is to proactively influence policy makers (city planners), local architects, developers, and the busienss community to make sure that they at least are very aware of our agenda (in this case that agenda appears to be the creation of a dense, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, well-designed district around our Downtown). Somehow, the goal should be to align interests as much as possible - can explain my thoughts in more detail later if anyone is interested.

You ought to contact a member or two of the planning dept and go meet them to inquire about how you can get involved. Good place to start.

#30 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

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

Posted 11 February 2005 - 04:54 PM

I believe that our duty (as the "residents/other intrerested/affected community members") is to proactively influence policy makers (city planners), local architects, developers, and the busienss community to make sure that they at least are very aware of our agenda (in this case that agenda appears to be the creation of a dense, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, well-designed district around our Downtown).  Somehow, the goal should be to align interests as much as possible - can explain my thoughts in more detail later if anyone is interested.


Urb, I would love to hear your thoughts in more detail.

You ought to contact a member or two of the planning dept and go meet them to inquire about how you can get involved.  Good place to start.

View Post


Jonny, I'm providing a link to the Planning Department's contact page. Fernando Costa is the Planning Director and he is a personal friend. If you want to go straight to the top, then he is the person with whom you should have a conversation. I also know a couple of other people in the Planning Department, as well. This includes the Historic Preservation Officer, Julie Lawless.

#31 Thurman52

Thurman52

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edwards Ranch

Posted 30 April 2005 - 10:05 AM

A sign went up this week for this project. I am glad it's more than a small branch like the one a block up next to Cash America/ Pier One

#32 Thurman52

Thurman52

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edwards Ranch

Posted 06 August 2005 - 10:37 AM

Looks like the put a construction trailer on the back of the lot this week.

#33 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 26 May 2006 - 01:46 PM

Looks like they have two stories of the steel up for this building.

#34 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 02 September 2006 - 08:34 PM

Some shots (from today) of the progress:

IPB Image

IPB Image

It does add some mass to 7th, but otherwise, this project has certain...flaws.

Number One - Yes, that is a parking lot between it and Summit. A parking lot, and a monument sign at the 7th & Summit intersection. The parking in general seems a bit excessive - there's parking between it and Summit, a huge lot behind it, a lot under the surface lot (from what I can tell), and (correct me if I'm wrong) they're going to make a paved lot almost all the way up 7th to the Fort Worth Weekly building. That's a heck of a lot of parking. (sarcasm) Yay. (/sarcasm)

Number Two - the entrance. In the parking lot, oriented to the parking lot, and completely ignoring 7th (and Summit, really). Doesn't appear that there is going to be an entrance on 7th, and of course there can't be one on Summit, because of Number One. That's just pathetic. Same problem applies to Schwarz-Hanson's other new bank building going up further west on 7th, actually...

On the whole, it's another big disappointment, at least to me. With just a couple of design changes, this would have been a much better building:

Move it up to the corner of 7th & Summit, and put the entrance at the corner, with another on 7th perhaps. Oh, and maybe don't pave everything from the end of the building down to FW Weekly (that's a lot of blank pavement, you know?). That's it.

Sigh.

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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#35 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:53 AM

Good suggestions. I mean, c'mon, just orienting the tower to face the intersection would have made this building 10x more acceptable. Schwarz-Hanson has definately not impressed me. frown.gif

#36 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:18 AM

QUOTE(Jonnyrules23 @ Sep 4 2006, 10:53 AM) View Post

Good suggestions. I mean, c'mon, just orienting the tower to face the intersection would have made this building 10x more acceptable. Schwarz-Hanson has definately not impressed me. frown.gif


I agree with a lot of what has been said about the building being just short of good, but I kind of like that the tower orientation is similar to the klabzuba building behind it. From the Summit & 7th intersection you can see both. I'd actually like to see a couple more buildings with similar tower orientations. It's quirky.

#37 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:31 AM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Sep 5 2006, 10:18 AM) View Post

I agree with a lot of what has been said about the building being just short of good, but I kind of like that the tower orientation is similar to the klabzuba building behind it. From the Summit & 7th intersection you can see both. I'd actually like to see a couple more buildings with similar tower orientations. It's quirky.


I don't think it's the tower's orientation that bugs me, it's the fact that said tower seems to be the building's only entrance, which means that the only entrance faces not 7th Street, not even really Summit, but a big parking lot. That's just plain lame.

I hope they prove me wrong, and there is going to be an entrance up on 7th. Looking at the other Schwarz-Hanson building down the street (the Citizen's National building, which I think is even worse), I doubt that will be the case.

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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#38 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 23 October 2006 - 11:13 AM

Well, some GREAT news regarding this building, news that actually bumps this whole project up a few notches in my book. Driving past the site yesterday, I saw a sign featuring office leasing information. Also listed was availability of ground-level retail and restaurant space! This will be a great opportunity to actually start, you know, DOING SOMETHING with the Upper West Side.

So, yeah, that's nifty.

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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#39 hooked

hooked

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 23 October 2006 - 03:08 PM

I wouldn't get too excited just yet, AG. Remember, "space available" doesn't mean it will ever get leased. Also, as John mentioned above, the bank is considered "ground floor retail."

I tend to agree with cberen about the design. While maybe not great, I think it's unique enough to add to the area. And, with the tower thing, I'd say the building actually "faces" both 7th and Summit. I also like the fact that the building goes right to the sidewalk on 7th, with parking on what I'd consider the back of the building.

#40 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 23 October 2006 - 04:50 PM

QUOTE(hooked @ Oct 23 2006, 04:08 PM) View Post

I wouldn't get too excited just yet, AG. Remember, "space available" doesn't mean it will ever get leased. Also, as John mentioned above, the bank is considered "ground floor retail."


Oh, please understand, I'm not jumping for joy just yet. I'm just glad that they are making the space for potential ground level restaurant and retail, which is more than I was expecting from this building - I was just thinking the whole ground floor would be the bank.

Having the *potential* is better than not having it. smile.gif

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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#41 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:25 AM

QUOTE(Urbndwlr @ Feb 10 2005, 01:10 AM) View Post

QUOTE(cjyoung @ Feb 9 2005, 06:20 PM)
QUOTE(JBB @ Feb 9 2005, 10:35 AM)
Even with the unimaginative design, it is still light years ahead of the bank to the west.
View Post



True. Beggars can't be choosey.
View Post




who exactly is the beggar? you should expect great things from our Downtown. don't be ashamed or afraid of having high standards.


Sure. If I had the resources, we would be up there with Seattle. I hate that Fort Worth is the Rodney Dangerfield of cities. I'm just being realistic about the Bubbas that control this city and I think developments will get better over time. Not every development in Dallas is great either.

#42 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:03 AM

QUOTE(cjyoung @ Oct 24 2006, 10:25 AM) View Post

Not every development in Dallas is great either.

Ain't that the truth. But for some reason it seems FW gets a disproportionate number of bland, unimaginative developments. Even at a time of growth for the city, and a push to urbanize, FW is still getting bland crap like this. It leaves me to question is the city leaving the urbanization of FW soley to the developers or is the city pushing some type of plan?? I know Dallas has Forward Dallas, a plan that is encouraging mixed-use, pedestrian friendly projects to developers instead of the normal strip mall designs.
There's a developer in Dallas that built a very surburban style shopping center in Uptown. The outcry and criticism was enormous. An architectural critic wrote a scathing article about the shopping center in the DMN, a city councilman criticized it, and from what I understand, there were lots of calls and letters to the developer from citizens expressing thier disappointment with the development. The developer himself had to defend his design in the DMN. Althought the center is a success and I think is almost fully leased, I think such actions send a message to developers that citizens are expecting better developments than the norm and set a standard for the city. FW seems to have a design-whatever-you-want attitude toward development. People should have marched with torches and pitchforks when Montogmery P. was completed, but it seems most people think it's great. What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??

#43 texastrill

texastrill

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:EFW

Posted 24 October 2006 - 01:44 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 24 2006, 11:03 AM) View Post

QUOTE(cjyoung @ Oct 24 2006, 10:25 AM) View Post

Not every development in Dallas is great either.

Ain't that the truth. But for some reason it seems FW gets a disproportionate number of bland, unimaginative developments. Even at a time of growth for the city, and a push to urbanize, FW is still getting bland crap like this. It leaves me to question is the city leaving the urbanization of FW soley to the developers or is the city pushing some type of plan?? I know Dallas has Forward Dallas, a plan that is encouraging mixed-use, pedestrian friendly projects to developers instead of the normal strip mall designs.
There's a developer in Dallas that built a very surburban style shopping center in Uptown. The outcry and criticism was enormous. An architectural critic wrote a scathing article about the shopping center in the DMN, a city councilman criticized it, and from what I understand, there were lots of calls and letters to the developer from citizens expressing thier disappointment with the development. The developer himself had to defend his design in the DMN. Althought the center is a success and I think is almost fully leased, I think such actions send a message to developers that citizens are expecting better developments than the norm and set a standard for the city. FW seems to have a design-whatever-you-want attitude toward development. People should have marched with torches and pitchforks when Montogmery P. was completed, but it seems most people think it's great. What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??

Are there any buildings or any other projects in Dallas that you would say is more FW?Or FW projects that would be more attractive in Dallas?

T E X A S T R I L L - G O C O W B O Y S

#44 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 24 October 2006 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 24 2006, 11:03 AM) View Post

What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??


I think you've stumbled across the answer here. No one else cares. Only a handful of people on this forum as far as I can tell are really outraged by the hole and the Target. Most average Joes think it's great.

#45 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:11 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Oct 24 2006, 05:24 PM) View Post

I think you've stumbled across the answer here. No one else cares. Only a handful of people on this forum as far as I can tell are really outraged by the hole and the Target. Most average Joes think it's great.

You're talking to the wrong person, I love the hole and was all for it. I thought it added a point of interest to the warehouse. The "urban development" behind the warehouse is what is awful. I also don't have a problem with Target, Ross, or Dollar Tree. It's the design. But as I said, if that's what the citizens of FW consider good urban development than so be it. The point I was attempting to make was that it seems other cities have set a standard of expectation for good developments and developers seem to listen, be it mixed use shopping centers or skyscrapers. It just seems FW has no standards and as you said "noone cares". So you can expect more bland, circa 1980's four-story buildings, and more huge parking lots. As my sister says, "How can a city with so few buildings have so many ugly ones?" Because noone cares that's why. Or like CJ says, "Beggars can't be choosey".

#46 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 24 October 2006 - 07:32 PM

I, too, actually like the MP hole now. I was leery at first, but I think it's nifty now.

As much as it freaks me out, I have to agree with vjackson. (!!!) smile.gif I'm not sure enough people in Fort Worth, as a whole, *care* about good urban design. While I'm excited that the developers of this SNB building are making space for ground-level retail/restaurant, the fact remains that the design of the building is both rather bland and flawed in some ways, and the fact also remains that it's going to be surrounded by a minor sea of parking, including up to the 7th Street/Summit corner. And of course, everybody knows my issues with the asphalt Pacific Ocean at Montgomery Plaza. We need to start demanding higher standards of urban design, as vjackson mentioned that Dallas is doing. I try and spread the word through occasional postings on my blog, but I'm just one guy.

I will say this - a lot of my friends, all around the same age as me (24, for the record), prefer good urban settings to suburbia. They're not all so crazy in to it like me, but they do want to see more of it.

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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#47 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 03 November 2006 - 06:35 PM

Fort Worth's Planning Dept is quite progressive. For examples of the ways which the City influences urban design check out the urban design guidelines for Downtown, Trinity Uptown, and for Fort Worth South.
Also the MU1 and MU2 zoning ordinances encourage many of the positive, urban, pedestrian-friendly design elements that we desire in our central city.

Remember that we cannot legislate good taste though. The duty of good design falls to the parties involved in the design of the building (architect and developer) but these are significantly affected by tenants and neighborhood organizations too. Developers will choose their battles wisely, so if they think a certain type of design will anger a neighborhood organization, they will likely opt for an alternative that will be less controvercial. The problem is that it isn't easy for a NA to exert too much specific control over the actual design. Still, voicing an opinion leaves an impression and can tip the boat in the right direction.



QUOTE(vjackson @ Oct 24 2006, 12:03 PM) View Post

QUOTE(cjyoung @ Oct 24 2006, 10:25 AM) View Post

Not every development in Dallas is great either.

Ain't that the truth. But for some reason it seems FW gets a disproportionate number of bland, unimaginative developments. Even at a time of growth for the city, and a push to urbanize, FW is still getting bland crap like this. It leaves me to question is the city leaving the urbanization of FW soley to the developers or is the city pushing some type of plan?? I know Dallas has Forward Dallas, a plan that is encouraging mixed-use, pedestrian friendly projects to developers instead of the normal strip mall designs.
There's a developer in Dallas that built a very surburban style shopping center in Uptown. The outcry and criticism was enormous. An architectural critic wrote a scathing article about the shopping center in the DMN, a city councilman criticized it, and from what I understand, there were lots of calls and letters to the developer from citizens expressing thier disappointment with the development. The developer himself had to defend his design in the DMN. Althought the center is a success and I think is almost fully leased, I think such actions send a message to developers that citizens are expecting better developments than the norm and set a standard for the city. FW seems to have a design-whatever-you-want attitude toward development. People should have marched with torches and pitchforks when Montogmery P. was completed, but it seems most people think it's great. What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??



#48 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 04 June 2007 - 09:20 AM

I think this is the building I saw this weekend. All I can say is awful, bloody @#!! awful. What a wasted opportunity to turn that corridor into something impressive. mad.gif

#49 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

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

Posted 04 June 2007 - 08:35 PM

I was downtown taking pictures on Sunday and I captured a shot of the building. For those of you who haven't seen it, now you can offer your opinion of the new State National Bank.

IPB Image

#50 CurtisD

CurtisD

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:32 AM

^^^^^
It might not look so bad if it were amongst other buildings. It looks to have been constructed on a tight budget and the design is totally without imagination and it is definitely a no-frills stucture. Plus those brick column things seem cheap and unnecessary. The only good thing I can say about it is the large first-floor windows. All in all it looks like something I would expect to see in a small town's revitilazation efforts, like maybe in Weatherford. Another forgettable building for FW.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users