Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

GOODBYE WILL ROGERS!?????


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#51 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 08 February 2007 - 08:58 AM

youve got to be kidding me.. seriously...fort worth needs someone to slap them on the hands for tearing down these structures that are historic and landmarks..name the place and time and ill be in front of the dozers.

#52 tcole

tcole

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 February 2007 - 11:15 AM

With the exception of the theater, WRMC is not going to be demolished. Part of the financing proposal from Ed Bass (note that the remainder of the Bass family is really not heavily involved) involves doantions for the complete refurbishment of the existing coloseum and a rebuild on the theater, preserving the facade. The tower is safe as well, having been somewhat refurbished in 96 to comemorate the Stock Show's centenial.

The alarmism is unfounded.

#53 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 08 February 2007 - 11:20 AM

Long time no see.

#54 tcole

tcole

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 February 2007 - 11:27 AM

QUOTE(JBB @ Feb 8 2007, 01:20 PM) View Post

Long time no see.


Long time no visit. But this topic is just too far fetched to not address. John should alter the thread's title at the very least.

#55 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 08 February 2007 - 06:37 PM

QUOTE(Jonnyrules23 @ Feb 8 2007, 01:04 AM) View Post

QUOTE(JBB @ Feb 7 2007, 10:53 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 7 2007, 09:46 PM) View Post

There are many people in this thread who are extraordinarily assumptive.


Yourself included?

Seriously...wasn't this whole thread started based on an ASSUMPTION? The assumption that because some Fort Worth treasures will demolished, Will Rogers will be too? Seems a little desperate if you ask me.


No, I have not been extraordinarily assumptive. I try to assume nothing, especially when it comes to historic preservation. In this thread I’ve been trying to tell folks that they can’t assume that the Will Rogers is protected from demolition – because it’s not.

This thread was not started with an assumption. I intended the title to be a cynical reflection on the state of historic preservation in Fort Worth. I intended it to be ironic or maybe even sarcastic. I did not intend it to be dishonest. I intended for it to educate folks to the fact that this Fort Worth landmark could easily be torn down.

Desperate? Yes, historic preservation is in a desperate state in Fort Worth – we are opposed from all sides by landscrapers, faux-progressives, and Philistines! And, yes, the Will Rogers is in desperate condition.

WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#56 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 08 February 2007 - 06:39 PM

QUOTE(cbellomy @ Feb 8 2007, 01:07 AM) View Post

I am entirely in agreement about the need for greater historic preservation (the loss of the M&O Subway being my pet peeve), but Will Rogers is not slated for destruction. There's an element of dishonesty in the title of this thread that is extremely off-putting to me. "Will Rogers Complex in Serious Peril," I could accept. It probably is. But it isn't slated for destruction just yet.



=========
Dishonest? Please read post #52 – according to the information presented in that post, the title of this thread is actually somewhat accurate (about 33% so). “tcole” says that the Will Rogers auditorium will be demolished.

Well, there you have it folks: according to our source, here on The Forum, the auditorium will be demolished.

Whoda thunk it!?!

Oops! My bad! Let’s change the name of this thread to make it more honest:
“No need for alarm, citizens of Fort Worth, 'only' 33 percent of the historic Will Rogers will be destroyed.”

Now, I’m sure the next several posts will inform us that this is no big deal (the partial demolition of the Will Rogers), and that we’re all sure that the rebuild will look just as good, if not better (hey!), than the original structure.


WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#57 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 08 February 2007 - 06:43 PM

QUOTE(tcole @ Feb 8 2007, 01:15 PM) View Post

With the exception of the theater, WRMC is not going to be demolished. Part of the financing proposal from Ed Bass (note that the remainder of the Bass family is really not heavily involved) involves doantions for the complete refurbishment of the existing coloseum and a rebuild on the theater, preserving the facade. The tower is safe as well, having been somewhat refurbished in 96 to comemorate the Stock Show's centenial.

The alarmism is unfounded.


-----
Farfetched? FARFETCHED??? What's "farfetched?" That they'd demolish the Will Rogers? Yes, hard to believe, isn't it? But according to YOU, a THIRD of it will be bulldozed! What!? What!?

Oh, I think that makes it only 67-percent-fetched.

I suggested a new title in my last post.

Are you just kidding around, or is this the current plan? Where can I get a copy of this plan?

You're saying we shouldn't be ALARMED!

Oh, I see your point. NOT.

So, the plan DOES call for demolition. Gee, I'm not worried at all. Nor alarmed.

Thanks for setting my mind at EASE!



WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#58 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wedgwood

Posted 08 February 2007 - 06:47 PM

The plan calls for a ground-up redo of the auditorium's interior, leaving the exterior untouched. I've spent some time backstage at that place. It needs this.

I believe the point being made is that it makes no sense to renovate the interior of a structure you then intend to demolish.


#59 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 08 February 2007 - 09:10 PM

QUOTE(cbellomy @ Feb 8 2007, 08:47 PM) View Post

The plan calls for a ground-up redo of the auditorium's interior, leaving the exterior untouched. I've spent some time backstage at that place. It needs this.

I believe the point being made is that it makes no sense to renovate the interior of a structure you then intend to demolish.


Oh. I see. "Rebuild" means something other to me than "interior renovation." Is it a rebuild, as stated above, or an interior renovation?
WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#60 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 08 February 2007 - 11:04 PM

I've got no problems with an interior restoration -- but I hate to see it gutted. According to the city's comprehensive plan, it received some renovation work in 1998.

I checked the 2007 city comprehensive plan and it is not listed as a capital improvement, funded or otherwise. The new arena and the realignment of Hurley were listed.

tcoles sure got ME going: his post is worded as if the auditorium will be demolished and rebuilt while keeping the old facade. This is not an uncommon trend nationwide. I've seen formerly historic buildings that only retain their facade.

I can't wait to see what John decides to rename this thread! Or, better yet, let's take a poll!
WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#61 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wedgwood

Posted 09 February 2007 - 12:19 AM

It's possible that I misunderstand, but my belief is that they fully intend for the auditorium to remain an auditorium. But yeah, outside of that, they probably are gutting the interior and starting over. I'm not sure really how they could fix much of what's outdated and problematic with that facility otherwise, and until they do it's going to be difficult to book good shows there.

Hopefully they'll remain true to the original feel of the place as much as possible while adding modern amenities, improving acoustics, etc. Fort Worth needs this room, as there is none quite like it for live music.


#62 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 09 February 2007 - 03:28 AM

I second the request to modify the thread title and subtitle. At the very least, place a question mark at the end of them. I dropped by here this evening and when I saw that - well, came very close to spilling the tea I was drinking all over the computer.

BTW - welcome back tcole! You have been even more of a stranger here than I have.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#63 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 09 February 2007 - 05:36 AM

QUOTE(Dismuke @ Feb 9 2007, 05:28 AM) View Post

I second the request to modify the thread title and subtitle. At the very least, place a question mark at the end of them. I dropped by here this evening and when I saw that - well, came very close to spilling the tea I was drinking all over the computer.


I'm sorry you nearly spilt your tea. I nearly tossed my cookies when I learned that the city, which owns the Will Rogers, has neglected to protect it by designating it as a historic property.

I second the motion for question marks behing each statement. Can you do that, John?
WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#64 austlar

austlar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 09 February 2007 - 05:43 AM

I don't have much to say about the merits of this thread. I'd like to see WRC get all the official historic protection possible, but I doubt that it is likely to be pulled down. The topic sure did stir people up, however, and it is nice to see so many people posting. The FW Forum has seemed almost moribund to me as of late.

#65 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 09 February 2007 - 05:46 AM

QUOTE(cbellomy @ Feb 9 2007, 02:19 AM) View Post

It's possible that I misunderstand, but my belief is that they fully intend for the auditorium to remain an auditorium. But yeah, outside of that, they probably are gutting the interior and starting over. I'm not sure really how they could fix much of what's outdated and problematic with that facility otherwise, and until they do it's going to be difficult to book good shows there.

Hopefully they'll remain true to the original feel of the place as much as possible while adding modern amenities, improving acoustics, etc. Fort Worth needs this room, as there is none quite like it for live music.


Actually, there's no misunderstanding on your part because I don't think there's anything out there, officially, to misunderstand. I think the only thing we have in print is quotes in the newspaper.

Other historic theaters have been restored; is it REALLY necessary to gut it, or can the problems be fixed with a restoration? It would be more costly, of course, and I'm sure they'd like to avoid spending money on historic preservation, but could it be done? What needs to be fixed? Has it always been such a poor venue, in your estimation?
WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#66 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 09 February 2007 - 06:02 AM

QUOTE(Buck @ Feb 7 2007, 01:12 PM) View Post


Will Rogers is not going anywhere. The arena plans also call for rehabbing Will Rogers and using it the same way the Justin Arena is used.

The reason we don't designate city properties as historic is because we already control their future through our elected officials.

Historic designations protect private property on behalf of the public. There is no need to protect the public from the public.



Maybe it's not going anywhere, but we really don't know for sure.

I'd like to point out that the National Environmental Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, the latter of which created the National Register of Historic Places, are legislation that are examples of the federal government regulating itself; regulating its undertakings. The feds realized, with these acts, that there IS a need for government self-regulation!

The city needs to realize this also. It needs to quickly acknowledge its responsibility, set an example (for crying out loud) for other historic property owners, and designate ALL of its eligible historic properties for regulatory protection. Period.



It's not unuusual for the government to regulate itself
WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#67 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,674 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 February 2007 - 06:10 AM

It is good to hear from you again, tcole.

For the time being, I am going to put a question mark at the end of the title and subtitle. That still doesn't mean that I won't tone down the entire title later.

#68 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wedgwood

Posted 09 February 2007 - 05:02 PM

QUOTE(Fire-Eater @ Feb 9 2007, 05:46 AM) View Post

Other historic theaters have been restored; is it REALLY necessary to gut it, or can the problems be fixed with a restoration? It would be more costly, of course, and I'm sure they'd like to avoid spending money on historic preservation, but could it be done? What needs to be fixed? Has it always been such a poor venue, in your estimation?


There are various issues with the auditorium.

One serious issue is that the green room is about the size of a closet and has no plumbing of any kind, if I recall correctly. This means that if Robert Earl Keen or whoever needs to use the restroom, he can either head to his tour bus or to the public restroom in the foyer. Which leads to the next serious issue: the public restrooms are inadequate. There need to be more of them, or the ones that are there need substantial expansion. These are things that can't be done with just a facelift.

Otherwise, the acoustics in that room are fair at best. Well, they're better than the old TCCC Theater, which was awful, but they're inferior to the Majestic in Dallas, which is a reasonable point of comparison. (That they are far inferior to Bass Hall is both obvious and irrelevant. WRA isn't that kind of room and doesn't need to be.)

Has it always been a poor venue? Hrm. Well, it has always been what it has been, but standards have changed. We now have to assess what we want to do with it. If we want it to remain useful to the entire community as a place to hear live music (or perhaps even see live theater), then it needs substantial reworking, such that can probably really be accomplished only with a gutting. If we want it to stand as a sort of museum of itself, I fear it will fall into extreme disuse and the community will essentially lose it altogether even if it still stands as is. If nobody ever goes there, is it really an auditorium, or it just a relic? It wasn't built to be a relic, after all.

I would love to see that place filled with 2500+ folks every weekend night. It could truly be a community treasure if it's redone the right way.


#69 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 18 April 2007 - 02:04 PM

Trust the city government, you say. The city is a good caretaker of its historic properties. There is no need to designate historic city-owned properties. Why should the city designate a property? -- it would only be protecting itself from itself.

[It's interesting to note that federal environmental laws & regulations DO JUST THAT: they're the federal government protecting itself -- and the public -- from itself! These laws are protections from federal undertakings.]

Someone pointed it out to me earlier, but it failed to sink in until someone else mentioned it to me the other day: the City of Fort Worth has sealed the fate of one of its historic buildings, the Public Health Building at 1800 University. It will be destroyed by BRIT.

See press release: http://www.brit.org/...FuturePlans.htm

Was there a process? Was the public involved? Was the building assessed or evaluated? Was it designated? Was its historic status even considered?

Designate! Don't hesitate!

What if they decided to sell or lease the Will Rogers to a public or private concern for a dollar? What protection would the Will Rogers have?
WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#70 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 18 April 2007 - 10:38 PM

Hurray for BRIT.

Just because something was built before you were born, that doesn't make it "historic."


#71 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 18 April 2007 - 11:56 PM

Agreed ^^^

That place just smelled like "historic".
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#72 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 19 April 2007 - 08:27 AM

QUOTE(Buck @ Apr 18 2007, 11:38 PM) View Post

Hurray for BRIT.

Just because something was built before you were born, that doesn't make it "historic."


You're right. It has to be 50 years or older. Also, something is not "historic" just because you like it. And the fact that you may think a building is "ugly," "common," or "stupid" doesn't make it "un-historic!"

Sorry, folks -- if the construction date is 1957, as I understand, it is now "historic." It fits the age requirement for the National Register of Historic Places. It appears to be in original condition. Basically, it is "historic" if it is 50 or older and retains its architectural integrity.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is “historic” and what is not. HPers, essentially, get their definition of what is “historic” from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

I recommend you check out the thread “Just what the heck IS historic preservation???
Links & Discussions about HP.” There are links that provide info on “historic” standards and guidelines. It will help you understand what is meant by "historic."

Now, y’all may not agree with the HP Act, the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, or the Criteria of Evaluation. If so, that is fine – you are entitled to your opinion, but you’re not what I would define as a historic preservationist. That’s OK by me! Some of you, however, say you favor “historic preservation,” but based on your opinions, I’m curious what your personal standards and guidelines are. They’re obviously “personal” because they don’t fit the HP Act. I think many of you favor HP only if you like the building -- and as long as there's not a more "prudent$$$" use for the building site.

The good thing about the HP Act is that it is objective -- it doesn’t discriminate against style or taste, it doesn't consider real estate value, and it provides consistency in evaluation. Now THAT'S historic preservation!

WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#73 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 19 April 2007 - 04:20 PM

You've misquoted the rules.

(Which is no surprise.)

A property 50 years old is *eligible* for historic designation.

Everything 50 years old is not historic.

See: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm


#74 Fire-Eater

Fire-Eater

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
  • Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!

Posted 19 April 2007 - 07:17 PM

QUOTE(Buck @ Apr 19 2007, 05:20 PM) View Post

You've misquoted the rules.

(Which is no surprise.)

A property 50 years old is *eligible* for historic designation.

Everything 50 years old is not historic.

See: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm


I said "It has to be 50 years or older."

I said "Basically, it is 'historic' if it is 50 or older and retains its architectural integrity."

I misquoted nothing. I never said "everything 50 years old" is historic.

Something you may not know, Buck, is that the feds and state complete environmental compliance procedures for a property *eligible* for the National Register. It doesn't have to be actually ON the register. Because of the extensive documentation and research required to actually "git" a property on the National Register (photography, paperwork etc.), if a property is *eligible* for the National Register it is considered a "Historic Property" and is eligible for protection from federal undertakings.




WWSPFD?*

History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States

For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson




*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?

#75 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 19 April 2007 - 11:15 PM

The Public Health Building on 1800 University is a GONER, and MAINLY because a better one was built on S. Main and Rosedale area. mellow.gif

KAAAAAHBOOM! devil.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#76 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:28 PM

Probably not a coincidence, but the Smith Center for the Performing Arts Carillon tower bears a striking resemblance to our very own Pioneer Tower.
It was not difficult to guess the architect and his inspiration.

Local article by Jerome Weeks...
Art and Seek

Posted Image
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles...)

Posted Image
(Bybee Stone Company, Inc.)

Posted Image
(fortwortharchitecture.com)

#77 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:15 PM

Probably not a coincidence, but the Smith Center for the Performing Arts Carillon tower bears a striking resemblance to our very own Pioneer Tower.
It was not difficult to guess the architect and his inspiration.

Local article by Jerome Weeks...
Art and Seek

Posted Image
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles...)

Posted Image
(Bybee Stone Company, Inc.)

Posted Image
(fortwortharchitecture.com)


I observed the same thing (striking similarity) and stated it earlier in a thread on this forum: "Sundance Square may add to downtown Fort Worth skyline" 5/23/11
Is what Schwartz is doing professionally honest?

#78 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:37 AM

Renamerusk, I just now saw your previous posts.

I didn’t want to be the one to suggest architectural plagiarism because I don’t really know or understand what defines that, but the Smith Carrilon bears a striking resemblance to Pioneer Tower. Given Schwarz’ notable DFW area work, he obviously draws influence from Fort Worth’s architecture in some way or another (and probably adds to it as well) but in any design profession, you can’t just regurgitate something you like and call it your own unless your client asks you to, but you still need to operate within the boundaries of originality.

Weather Fort Worth should be honored or upset really depends on how the Smith Carrilon design was sold to Las Vegas. If it was sold as a unique one of a kind design all their own, then that’s a problem. If it was sold as a nod to WRMC/Fort Worth acknowledging Pioneer Tower’s influence, then it becomes more difficult to find fault with.

What do you think?

#79 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 01 May 2012 - 03:17 PM

I don't think "dishonest" is a correct word to describe it. It is very obvious and Schwarz is very open about the fact that his designs are historical adaptations. The very fact that they are historical means, by definition, they consist of previously designed elements that were originated by someone else years ago and applied to the context at hand. If the people who commissioned the new project wanted and expected originality, Shwarz is the very last person that they would have even looked at. What he is doing is really no more dishonest than those who come out with retro looking radios or retro ties or retro watches. And I would say it is less "dishonest" than the architects of the early 20th century who incorporated elements of particular buildings from ancient Greece and Rome into their skyscrapers.

Of course, whether or not Schwarz deserves to be regarded as a "great architect" is an entirely different question. I would say that he is certainly NOT a "great architect" if one defines greatness as having anything to do with originality and innovation. Any credit for aesthetic "greatness" in his building properly goes to the individuals in the past who originated the styles that he copies. Clearly Schwarz is an admirer of the aesthetic greatness of the past - so, given the basic premise of his work, he certainly deserves credit for how well and how authentically adapts the elements he copies into his projects.

There's no rules book which dictates that every architect necessarily must strive to be a "great architect" in terms of originality and innovation. And there's no rules book that one's personal taste in something must necessarily follow hand in hand with the things that one objectively recognizes as deserving credit for greatness. It is entirely acceptable to recognize and give due credit to a certain novel as being a literary masterpiece but, nevertheless, find some low brow novel that you recognize is nowhere nearly as well written to be much more inspiring and personally meaningful to you. There are post World War II buildings that I will acknowledge as being worthy of recognition for greatness because they were innovative in some way yet do not care for very much because I find them to be sterile and antiseptic. I would rather be around mediocre borrowed, second-handed greatness of an architectural era I admire than a masterpiece of authentic, first hand greatness built in a style that I dislike. There is nothing wrong with that so long as you recognize the difference between your own personal taste and the valid standards by which greatness ought to be measured.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#80 lcbrownz

lcbrownz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poly

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:29 AM

Old News, but relevant: http://www.fwweekly....sp?article=3343

One thing about inserting links from newspapers in here, the newspapers, sometimes, pull the article after a certain period of time.



#81 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:42 AM

Thanks for pointing that out.  :rolleyes:


My blog: Doohickie

#82 since63

since63

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Location:meadowbrook

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:44 PM

I always think I can recognize architecture from the 30's because it is strikingly attractive.I hope nothing happens to ours.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users