Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Water Gardens


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#51 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,431 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 November 2014 - 09:18 AM

I felt exactly the same way. Surely there's a compromise that would give access from Lancaster and still maintain Johnson's idea of creating curiosity and exploration.

I was amazed by what looked like a very simple pump set up.

#52 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 06 November 2014 - 09:23 PM

Does anyone know if it'll be on again or online perhaps?

#53 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,431 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 November 2014 - 09:30 PM

http://video.kera.or...deo/2365348326/

#54 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 21 January 2015 - 07:39 PM

Mayor Betsy Price in December renewed old discussions about the Water Gardens wall. A 14-year-old plan calls for moving the wall southward, closer to Lancaster, which would open up room for new entries at the southeast and southwest corners and a possible restaurant at the southeast corner. In 2013, Downtown Fort Worth Inc. recommended revisiting the idea, which planners view as a way to boost the quality of life on the emerging mixed-use corridor. http://fwbusinesspre...-developer.aspx

 

 

 

 

I like the idea of new entries, a restaurants may be out of place though, I don't imagine the architecture would fit in at all. 



#55 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 21 January 2015 - 08:59 PM

Austin, I believe that this 14 year old plan had both Philip Johnson, the Water Gardens architect, and Ruth Carter Stevenson involved.  Mrs. Stevenson was instrumental in the design and planning of the park back in the 1970's.



#56 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 22 January 2015 - 12:23 AM

 

Mayor Betsy Price in December renewed old discussions about the Water Gardens wall. A 14-year-old plan calls for moving the wall southward, closer to Lancaster, which would open up room for new entries at the southeast and southwest corners and a possible restaurant at the southeast corner.

 

I like the idea of new entries, a restaurants may be out of place though, I don't imagine the architecture would fit in at all. 

 


 

What we really need next is a corporate sponsor and of course a delivery dock, dumpsters and potty-ports. 

 

 

Starbucks or MacDonald.  With Starbucks you can convert 15th street into an iconic drive thru or with MacDonald you can have ready made grounds for an iconic indoor playroom (slides/bouncehouses/crawling tunnels); and even plant the Golden Arches atop Water Park Mountain - "Tear the wall down!"

 

I repeat: This idea is moronic and add to it that it is also not in the spirit of the Carter Foundation who wished to bestow upon the city a non commercialized gift. This is a lead into Corporate Naming Rights.



#57 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:57 AM

It is not moronic to open up the wall.

 

A restaurant - I reserve judgement on.  But the wall is not a positive for the street.

 

Also, if what John says is correct, and this is part of a plan that "had both Philip Johnson, the Water Gardens architect, and Ruth Carter Stevenson involved," then perhaps it's a bit rash to call it moronic.

 

Also the 2nd:  Johnson's original vision was created when the south end of downtown was a barren wasteland and the south end of his park was butting up against nasty elevated freeway and a massive surface road.  Things have changed.


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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#58 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 22 January 2015 - 11:20 AM

Austin55 posted a plan of the expanded Water Gardens on the Fort Worth Forum here: http://www.fortworth...ic=5435&p=81567

It's too pixelated to read the date, but it has Philip Johnson's name on it.



#59 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,431 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 22 January 2015 - 11:48 AM

As hard as it is to read anything from that, I have a hard time seeing Phillip Johnson being involved in a plan that contradicts his original vision, while at the same time, addresses the fact that there's no longer an elevated freeway from which to shield the south end of the park.

#60 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 22 January 2015 - 07:46 PM

I like the idea of new entries, a restaurants may be out of place though, I don't imagine the architecture would fit in at all. 

 

 

A restaurant - I reserve judgement on.

 

 But the wall is not a positive for the street....Also the 2nd:  Johnson's original vision was created when the south end of downtown was a barren wasteland and the south end of his park was butting up against nasty elevated freeway and a massive surface road.

 

Interestingly, the instantaneous voicing of some reservations about the kind of development in the works when the wall is dismantled is the first evidence am enough for this to be considered a "bad" idea.

 

Then there is the unknown. It is as though there is a guarantee that the wall will be removed in a surgically unnoticeable way, when there is just as much a guarantee that it will be totally eradicated. to meet the needs of a restaurant.  The uncertainty should be further evidence that this is a "bad" idea.

 

Freeway or street - it does not seem relevant .  If the purpose of the wall was to shield the water gardens from either the freeway or the street, then the only thing that has changed is the elimination of a "nasty elevated freeway. The massive surface road that would continue to provide unwanted noise and interruptions still remains.  

 

The Water Gardens is in itself its own positive that has achieved its greatness by effectively calming a small swath of a busy urbanized area. The wall a remains the guardian of this achievement and it is a positive for the WG. 

 

I love what Lancaster Avenue is becoming, but it should achieve its own greatness by way of its own efforts. 

 

I question why the Water Gardens should be compromised for the sake of revitalizing a street.



#61 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 23 January 2015 - 08:43 AM

I agree.  I hope wiser decision makers will seriously ponder the potentially adverse consequences of fully opening the Gardens in the close proximity to a restaurant or other commercial establishments.  And, just to the west, the Omni Hotel expansion may be a factor if the May Owen Center site is selected for that project.



#62 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 23 January 2015 - 08:55 AM

"Mrs. Price, tear down this wall!"

 

It seems obvious to me a restaurant is a better use of downtown real estate than a wall...  Think of it the other way - if there was a restaurant there , would you say, "let's knock this place down and build a wall to keep road noise out of the water gardens"? 



#63 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 23 January 2015 - 08:57 AM

I agree.  I hope wiser decision makers will seriously ponder the potentially adverse consequences of fully opening the Gardens in the close proximity to a restaurant or other commercial establishments.  And, just to the west, the Omni Hotel expansion may be a factor if the May Owen Center site is selected for that project.

 

Downtown is purely the domain of "commercial establishments" - that's practically the definition of a downtown.  Anything too "precious" to coexist with commerce shouldn't be anywhere downtown.  For the record I think the water gardens'll be just fine next to a restaurant.  (they are both places where people go to enjoy themselves- why would that be incompatible?)



#64 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 23 January 2015 - 09:10 AM

I would agree with you if we were talking about a public park with playground equipment, baseball diamonds, and rides for children.  Obviously the Water Gardens is not in that category.



#65 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 23 January 2015 - 09:18 AM

I think I see what you mean - because it's a water garden, you can't have restaurants next to it.  Kind of like how this https://goo.gl/maps/K89gs seems so out of place...



#66 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 January 2015 - 10:49 AM

Downtown is purely the domain of "commercial establishments" - that's practically the definition of a downtown.  Anything too "precious" to coexist with commerce shouldn't be anywhere downtown.  For the record I think the water gardens'll be just fine next to a restaurant.  (they are both places where people go to enjoy themselves- why would that be incompatible?)

 

 

I think I see what you mean - because it's a water garden, you can't have restaurants next to it.  Kind of like how this https://goo.gl/maps/K89gs seems so out of place...

 

Yes, downtown is the domain of commercial establishments, yet there is and always will be zoning ordinances that restrict or regulated establishments within every area of the city.  You might rethink your stance on free-willing commercialization if the restaurant in question would be "Hooters" or Rick's Cabaret; and would you see them as compatible or incompatible?  I could imagine that  they might just wish to exert their rights to operate along Lancaster Avenue as being compatible and legitimate commercial business.  Would this then seem like a good idea?

 

If Philip Johnson is considered a great artist in the realm of modern-American Architecture, then yes, The Water Gardens is a precious masterpiece that cannot be repeated again by him. As it matures, it has become more and more iconic.  The idea that the city has the wisdom to tastefully alter a widely viewed icon is so risky, that it verges on being reckless.  The city and the architectural world was filled with trepidation with the idea of changing the Kimbell Museum or even the Amon Carter.

 

RG, I do not consider a fountain in a piazza to be a garden and I would think that most would agree with that observation, and would compare your citing with Sundance Square, not with the Water Gardens.  My feelings about a garden is that it is a place of quietness and serenity; a place like the Japanese Gardens.



#67 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 23 January 2015 - 11:10 AM

I guess this is one of those arguments where I can't convince you unless you already agree with me.  But, to answer your question about specific restaurants; anybody that would object to them next to the water garden would also object to them anywhere else in Downtown - so like Rick's Cabaret would be just as out of place in Sundance Square as next to the Water Gardens.  Something like Bird Café would be just as appropriate next to the water gardens as it is next to SS. 



#68 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 23 January 2015 - 11:24 AM

I have a hard time seeing why this has to be an either/or.  Can't there be some middle ground between tearing down the entire wall, and doing absolutely nothing.  Blank walls are not good for pedestrian places.  I fail to see how an entrance or two on the Lancaster side of the Water Gardens would completely destroy the vision.



#69 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 January 2015 - 01:14 PM

I have a hard time seeing why this has to be an either/or.  Can't there be some middle ground between tearing down the entire wall, and doing absolutely nothing..... 

 

 

....But, to answer your question about specific restaurants; anybody that would object to them next to the water garden would also object to them anywhere else in Downtown - so like Rick's Cabaret would be just as out of place in Sundance Square as next to the Water Gardens.  Something like Bird Café would be just as appropriate next to the water gardens as it is next to SS. 

 

Interesting and controversial. Who determines how much wall is room to be removed and how much is not to be removed?  Who determines what is appropriate and what is not appropriate?  The difference in Sundance Square and the Water Gardens is that the former is a private domain and that the latter is a public domain; and, as such, would likely be opened to any and all bidders.

 

A rather risky can of worms the mayor is willing to open.



#70 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,431 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 23 January 2015 - 01:22 PM

If the mayor follows a plan that Phillip Johnson and Ruth Carter Stephenson were able to influence before their deaths, would you agree that she's on pretty safe footing?

#71 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 24 January 2015 - 12:26 AM

If the mayor follows a plan that Phillip Johnson and Ruth Carter Stephenson were able to influence before their deaths, would you agree that she's on pretty safe footing?

 

If it can be determined definitively that Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stephenson planned for the eventual wall to be removed and replaced with a restaurant, then I would have no other alternative but to agree.

 

The West Freeway Overpass was removed circa 2001.  Before his death in 2001 2005, Mr. Johnson, the Amon Carter Museum's original architect, designed and completed the building's most recent expansion in 2001. At the time, he would have had the opportunity to voice his opinion about the possibility of removing or changing the wall now that the overpass had been removed. Ms. Stephenson, who died in 2013, also had many opportunities to voice her opinion about the wall and even had opportunity to witness the changes being made and planned for Lancaster Avenue.  My guess is is that the FWST would have archival record of both of their opinions which would go a long way in settling the debate.

 

Other than her sheer determination, the evidence for the mayor's agenda is murky and has not received any support that I am aware of from either the late Mr. Johnson's associates or the Carter Foundation for her agenda.  Again, my guess is that her agenda is likely to become more controversial as more details come to light.

 

If support is given to the mayor's agenda from the Johnson and the Stephenson factions, I will then defer to their final judgement. Until then, I believe that instead of being on pretty safe footing, the mayor has instead climbed out on a limb; and therefore, I am not inclined to agree.



#72 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 12:29 AM

I like the idea there isn't an entrance to the park from Lancaster, so I am against building a new entrance. But I also think the park is too well hidden from the public on Lancaster. What's needed, besides installing signs announcing what is behind the wall, is a water feature of some type. Something as simple as a water fountain or water slide facing Lancaster outside the wall should do the trick. ;)



#73 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:07 AM

Rename, Architect Philip Johnson passed away in 2005.  I'm almost certain his firm was very involved in the Water Garden's new Master Plan.  I remember reading in the paper that all of the work that was done on the north side of the park was under Johnson's supervision. This added a new northeast entrance and the plaza built in front of the Convention Center where 13th Street was located.  At the same time, planning was done for the south end of the park where it would expand into the land vacated by the removal of the I-30 overhead and the narrowing of Lancaster.  I'm still on the fence about the restaurant, but I really do think that it would help the grassy area of the park if there was an entrance on or near Lancaster.  This part of the Water Gardens is very nice, yet hardly anyone ever goes there.  If an entrance was placed into the park, visitors would be able to see the grassy area and the mountain from a different viewpoint.



#74 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:44 AM

^ John, exactly why I'm in favor of tearing it down. Without the wall, you would simply look in and see the Mountain. The WG's central plaza and nearly everything else would still be secluded from any streets. If the wall was removed and nothing else was added, the backside of the mountain would make a perfectly suitable entrance, in my opinion. 



#75 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 25 January 2015 - 01:02 PM

I would support an architectural re-design of the south end so long as the aesthetic values of the Gardens are preserved.  This is especially important in light of the planned commercial development in the immediate vicinity. I realize that architects hold dual values of both aesthetics and functionality.  Mr. Johnson evidently exhibited such when he departed from the serenity and tranquility of the northern section of the Gardens to design the "Mountain" so that children could climb it and the "active pool" area for greater public participatory enjoyment on the south end near Lancaster Avenue.  So I can understand if Mr. Johnson would not be put off by exposing the south end to greater public access.  All I've been suggesting is a cautious approach so as not to spoil the whole Gardens by turning it into a public playground.  Don't think that couldn't happen.



#76 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 08 July 2015 - 05:07 PM

Here's the higher res version shared by jsfslls . It's still not high res enough to view all the annotations though. It does make it clear that Johnson was involved though. 

 

wg.jpg

 

SCR591_1.jpg



#77 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 July 2015 - 07:31 PM

Following what has arisen very recently regarding the new development plans of the Stockyards and because of that, I think that there ought to be some legitimate concerns about modification to enhance access to the WG involving the southern elevation wall.  And though those concerns may ultimately be drown out,  I imagine that Mayor Price will be more careful before outright championing development of sensitive places in the city. For that I am optimistically grateful.

 

The proposed revision with SW and SE openings appear to be at first glance a tolerable compromise.  Tucked away as they are; the openings provide access into the WG without the wholesale removal of the important southern wall and the tranquility it encapsulates.  

 

Like the Stockyards, the Water Gardens will be faced with the prospect of being irreversibly changed for and at the alter of development and the riches that it promises.



#78 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 08 July 2015 - 09:06 PM

That white shape on the southeast corner appears to be a building, which concerns me.


- Dylan


#79 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 09 July 2015 - 05:46 AM

If you're referring to Water Gardens Place (MidSouth Bank Building), it's been there for years.



#80 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 July 2015 - 07:27 AM

No, there is actually a restaurant building proposed for the portion of the Water Gardens that was originally inside the old Lancaster Avenue right-of-way.  There is also a restroom building located at the opposite corner within the gained space from the street vacation.



#81 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 09 July 2015 - 07:31 AM

That white shape on the southeast corner appears to be a building, which concerns me.

 

 

... Or did you mean the sort-of-triangular building on the same block as the gardens, not across Main Street? I can't read the descriptions on the map but it looks like some sort of food-service installation, there is a service door on the south east wall closest to Lancaster. The roof or interior of that building seems to have shapes that mimic the deep pool or the mountain, could be an interesting feature that previews the signature shapes of the garden to those entering from that corner. I am more interested in learning what the long trapezoidal shaded structure is between the end buildings along Lancaster; it looks as though the description begins with "seep landscape" or something to that effect. It might be instructive to have a readable version of just that part of the plan posted to clear up ambiguities. 



#82 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 09 July 2015 - 08:41 AM

This looks fantastic to me, and I'd love to see it happen.


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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#83 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 09 July 2015 - 08:11 PM

No complaints, here...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#84 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 08 January 2017 - 02:19 PM

There was a stabbing in the WG yesterday.

http://www.star-tele...e125271679.html

Sounds a bit concerning given the random nature.

#85 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 09 January 2017 - 04:56 PM

An arrest was made

http://www.star-tele...e125427349.html

#86 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:05 AM

Funny about instant stereotypical perceptions.  When I first glanced at your post "stabbing in the  WG yesterday."  Without reading the article, I thought, "man attacks woman in Water Gardens at night."  Three perceptions here that turned out wrong:  1) man attacks woman, because it happens that way almost every day as reported in the news media; (2) in the Water Gardens, because of its secluded nature, and, woe tidings!, the city will have to close down this park; and (3) it happened at night, because that's the best time of day to be attacking someone, being dark and all.



#87 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:49 AM

Funny about instant stereotypical perceptions....

 

Me too.

 

This assailant is a massively deranged person who is known by authorities; and who is without a doubt known by family and friends. I have very little doubt, that F&F are aware of this person's past offenses.

 

It is time for family and friends to say something to officials when they believe that a person has crossed a stage when they are capable of both harming themselves and harming others. 

 

I don't want to hear again the excuse that "we're surprised" when an innocent person has been assaulted.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users