Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

T&P Warehouse Redevelopment

Downtown Historic Buildings Lancaster Corridor Historic Preservation

  • Please log in to reply
299 replies to this topic

#51 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:18 PM

I think the more important question is, who has the money and interest in fixing it.



#52 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:31 AM

 

It will take some creativity possibly on the scale of Montgomery Plaza.  The whole thing couldn't just be apartments.  It could have some, but it is way too big for just residential.  Event space?  Hotel? Multi-function?

To lose it would be an atrocity to the city's fragile history.  Fort Worth (and most other American cities) is a fraction as old as the great and secondary European cities, some of which have survived war with their historic buildings intact.  Fort Worth needs to hold on to what it can, although a huge empty building is a liability.  

We need to get some ideas flowing before demolition by neglect is a reality.

What can this thing be???

 

 

I hope it's not creativity in the *style* of Montgomery Plaza, though...  :)

 

Honestly, the whole thing *could* be apartments over retail I think.  Previous plans (that the current owner will never actually go through with IMHO) have pegged it at, what, 350 apartments or thereabouts?  400?  Something like that, anyway.  Or they could mix up apartments on the upper floors and commercial offices on the lower floors, maybe ones designed for tech & creative startups.  Retail on the ground floor, taking advantage of the loading docks.  Parking out back.



#53 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:40 AM

To avoid being behind the ball once again, perhaps the developer should look at how other cities are supporting districts for artist lofts. 

 

http://www.florastre...-arts-district/

 

The building is huge, and multiple uses are certainly desirable, and very feasible. The T&P Warehouse is probably the last large-scale redevelopment that will be possible here from that time period, it has great location, is structurally sound (as far as can be determined ?) is massive in it's construction (all concrete) and is a blank palette for a well-financed, creative, and intelligent developer. I can't help but think the present owner is not the best hope for the building. I again wonder out loud if some code provision should be in place to force basic maintenance or perhaps a mandatory construction lien by the city who would contract to seal the building against further damage.



#54 Zetna

Zetna

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Fairmount

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:45 PM

I agree that the building could be a large retail, office, residential building, especially with the population forecast for Fort Worth by 2012. One thing that may be an issue are all the banks of small windows.....small windows may have been great for a freight warehouse, but maybe not so great for a living / office environment ..... to change anything would alter its historic significance. 



#55 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:53 PM

Re:  the windows:  the state historic commission, or whatever, has apparently already approved the enlarging/addition of windows to the building to make it suitable for residential use, so that shouldn't be an issue (apart from cost).



#56 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:00 PM

I also think the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission of the City of Fort Worth has made the same approval.  Even though the state has approval, the enlarging of the windows actually wouldn't be allowed until the Landmarks Commission approved it.  The plan is to have the windows match the size of the bank of windows in the office area on the east side of the building.  From what I can remember, all of the approvals have been made to permit renovation of the building. 



#57 Mac_Benny

Mac_Benny

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 16 April 2013 - 02:06 AM

Hi first post.

 

I lived in Firestone (2012-2013) and went to TCC's downtown campus. One of the thoughts I had was converting the warehouse into a 4-year college. Perhaps enticing UTA or Tarleton to setup a satellite College of Business there. Tartleton currently has a COB in a mid-rise off of W. Camp Bowie.



#58 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 16 April 2013 - 06:51 AM

Hi first post.

 

I lived in Firestone (2012-2013) and went to TCC's downtown campus. One of the thoughts I had was converting the warehouse into a 4-year college. Perhaps enticing UTA or Tarleton to setup a satellite College of Business there. Tartleton currently has a COB in a mid-rise off of W. Camp Bowie.

Welcome fellow member!  There is precedent in Fort Worth here...the U.T. Arlington annex located in the historic Santa Fe freight building downtown; minimal rehab costs, I guess.  But locating one college of business in that very large T&P warehouse building?  Not meaning to dampen your expectations, and I may be wrong about this, but one such college would take up about half the building maybe?   Note that the building housing the Wesleyan School of Law on Commerce Street is about half the size of the warehouse, that's my guess.  I suppose if Cleopatra wanted to partition the structure for part use by a college, so be it.



#59 Mac_Benny

Mac_Benny

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:48 AM

 

Hi first post.

 

I lived in Firestone (2012-2013) and went to TCC's downtown campus. One of the thoughts I had was converting the warehouse into a 4-year college. Perhaps enticing UTA or Tarleton to setup a satellite College of Business there. Tartleton currently has a COB in a mid-rise off of W. Camp Bowie.

Welcome fellow member!  There is precedent in Fort Worth here...the U.T. Arlington annex located in the historic Santa Fe freight building downtown; minimal rehab costs, I guess.  But locating one college of business in that very large T&P warehouse building?  Not meaning to dampen your expectations, and I may be wrong about this, but one such college would take up about half the building maybe?   Note that the building housing the Wesleyan School of Law on Commerce Street is about half the size of the warehouse, that's my guess.  I suppose if Cleopatra wanted to partition the structure for part use by a college, so be it.

 

The Santa Fe site is just a EMBA program. That is very tiny. I was referring to undergrad. Yes,the building is bigger then would be necessary for one College, but you could put a few and make the rest of the space research labs, apartments and any other space. I don't view the building needing to be utilized for one purpose.

 

Its just that I lived without a car in downtown for a year and had a blast. But had to move since I was transferring to UTA, I had to buy a car and that meant not being able to afford the rental rates of downtown. If there was a undergrad program to transfer to in downtown I could of stayed put.

 

I would think UTA would be against it, as it might canibalize their main campus, but Tarleton might be up for it. Assuming they and the A&M system have the funds to renovate the building.



#60 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 17 April 2013 - 04:24 PM

Are their characteristics of the building or property that make it unsuitable or challenging for certain uses? (ceiling height, window size/positioning, lack of room for parking, ...)



#61 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:18 AM

Parking would be a huge issue. 

 

Let's say it was standard office space.  550,000 building, less unleasable space, call it a half million renatble square feet.  Parking is usually allocated at around 4 per thousand, so you need 2,000 parking spaces (give or take).  At 175 spaces per acre you'd need 11.4 acres of surface parking or a six story, 2+acre footprint garage.

 

Retail can be a little less parking intense with only 2 to 3 spaces per thousand.  Still need a big garage.

 

Residential you can get away with closer to 1.5 - 2.0 spaces per thousand.  Still need a garage.



#62 Zetna

Zetna

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Location:Fairmount

Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:41 AM

Looks like a lot of space between the building and the RR tracks to get in parking even if it was a low height garage structure...also, looks like there is parking on Lancaster St. side and 2 short sides for retail use.



#63 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:36 AM

The city of Fort Worth is supposed (emphasis on the word "supposed") to be building a parking garage on the north side of Lancaster in that area someday (emphasis on "someday"). It's part of that new retail/commercial project that is going to start soon (????).



#64 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:46 PM

Loo

 

Looks like a lot of space between the building and the RR tracks to get in parking even if it was a low height garage structure...also, looks like there is parking on Lancaster St. side and 2 short sides for retail use.

 

Looks like roughly 2 acres.  350-ish spaces of surface parking.  Need a garage 3 - 6 stories tall.  Blocks the view of the Southside.



#65 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:26 PM

Parking garages are the worst inventions of the modern car age.



#66 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:55 PM

One of the thoughts I had was converting the warehouse into a 4-year college. Perhaps enticing UTA or Tarleton to setup a satellite College of Business there. Tartleton currently has a COB in a mid-rise off of W. Camp Bowie.

 

While I want the building repurposed sooner rather than later, I would much prefer to wait and see it restored for private use.  A building that big and that valuable (once restored) needs to be on the tax rolls.



#67 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:52 PM

I agree with you 100%, JBB.  The building has good bones and I don't see any reason why the citizens can't wait until the time is right for redevelopment.



#68 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:49 PM

I am for using it for government purposes for sure.  Prisons, schools, City Hall, High School etc...  We spend too much to build new buildings at taxpayer expense while great solid old buildings sit vacant.  Like the big fancy FAA building in the Mercantile section up North.  That should have been in this T&P building.  When we are spending money we don't have, we have to be smarter and make some compromises. 

 

I took this shot from Vickery Blvd. on Saturday night.  I always figure this is the largest building in town.

 

TampPWarehouse_zps396923a4.jpg


www.fortworthview.com

#69 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:54 AM

I am for using it for government purposes for sure.  Prisons.....(etal)

 

It would be extremely disappointing to reuse this building for a prison and to associate it with all the human misery that comes with that industry.  I hope that it will have an affirmative re-purpose in accordance with its significance to the city.

 

Keep Fort Worth folksy



#70 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 21 April 2013 - 09:08 AM

I am for using it for government purposes for sure.  Prisons, schools, City Hall, High School etc...  We spend too much to build new buildings at taxpayer expense while great solid old buildings sit vacant.  Like the big fancy FAA building in the Mercantile section up North.  That should have been in this T&P building.  When we are spending money we don't have, we have to be smarter and make some compromises. 

 

I took this shot from Vickery Blvd. on Saturday night.  I always figure this is the largest building in town.

 

TampPWarehouse_zps396923a4.jpg

 

ANY one of those, except a prison. 

In fact, I'm increasingly thinking of it as a good place for a satellite campus for a university. UT, A&M, Tech... even TCC if they needed more space.   


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#71 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 22 April 2013 - 07:23 AM

Perhaps a technology center?  As a warehouse it should have ample floor to ceiling heights to accomodate raised floors.  It's a blank slate, indestructible by many standards. Start fresh with heavy data infrastructure, power and back-ups.  Fort Worth's Informart, as it were.  20 years late, but still needed I think.



#72 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 23 April 2013 - 07:21 AM

We are, and have been I believe, far too fanciful with a situation that has lingered too long to the detriment of downtown Fort Worth--an environmental embarrassment in the least, a public safety hazard at worst.  We who live and/or work in downtown have a stake in that environment. What kind of people are we to have tolerated for decades this misuse and dilapidation of a huge imposing structure that has been euphemistically (and laughably) designated an historic preservation site?   Maybe if this were a small inconspicuously situated building we could be excused our seeming complacency.  But this warehouse takes up a spacious and highly noticeable stretch of Lancaster Avenue.  I suppose the city condones the negligence of the current owners because they pay their property taxes on time.  Cleopatra Investments Ltd, located in Dallas, should be held responsible for inaction, if inaction is there fault.  There comes a time when a city’s residents should object to the holding of a building for mere investment purposes when its being allowed to decay and is probably a public hazard. These owners should either rehabilitate it, or sell it to someone who can.  If inaction is the fault of the city, I say shame on the city.



#73 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

How do you suppose the city should go about making that happen?



#74 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:36 AM

I don't want to derail this discussion, but I would like to know how many of you want the T&P Warehouse to be demolished?  How many of you want it to remain standing, regardless of how many years it may continue to sit vacant?  Does it's historic designation have any bearing on your feelings?  Should the designation be removed?  I first thought about creating a poll, but some people don't like them because they can be weighted by the questions.  This also leads to other preservation questions that I will poll or ask the forum in another thread.



#75 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:41 AM

Do.  Not.  Demolish.



#76 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:56 AM

I didn't express my own answers to the questions that I posed.  I do not think that the building should be demolished.  The historic designation should stay, and hopefully this building will be restored at some point in the future.  It still has good bones, and was an integral part of our city's history.



#77 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:42 AM

Cleopatra Investments Ltd, located in Dallas, should be held responsible for inaction, if inaction is there fault.


There is a plan for a Lamar/Hemphill underpass and connector that will run near the building.  It will involve heavy construction around the building.  It makes sense to wait for that.  There has been little or no activity on the underpass project on the city's part.  If you want to assign fault, I think lack of progress on the underpass is the culprit.


My blog: Doohickie

#78 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:56 AM

I don't want to derail this discussion, but I would like to know how many of you want the T&P Warehouse to be demolished?  How many of you want it to remain standing, regardless of how many years it may continue to sit vacant?  Does it's historic designation have any bearing on your feelings?  Should the designation be removed?  I first thought about creating a poll, but some people don't like them because they can be weighted by the questions.  This also leads to other preservation questions that I will poll or ask the forum in another thread.

I'm no expert on condemnation or demolition issues.  But it seems to me if a building would ordinarily be condemned by the city for egregious violation of the codes or is a serious public hazard but the city cannot proceed with condemnation and demolition because the structure is in a special category called historic preservation, then I would say, remove the historic designation.  The same holds true if an owner determines the structure cannot be salvaged, that's my opinion.  At some point, a cost/benefit analysis based on the condition of the building (apart from historic considerations) should guide the city or the owner.



#79 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:22 AM

 

I don't want to derail this discussion, but I would like to know how many of you want the T&P Warehouse to be demolished?  How many of you want it to remain standing, regardless of how many years it may continue to sit vacant?  Does it's historic designation have any bearing on your feelings?  Should the designation be removed?  I first thought about creating a poll, but some people don't like them because they can be weighted by the questions.  This also leads to other preservation questions that I will poll or ask the forum in another thread.

I'm no expert on condemnation or demolition issues.  But it seems to me if a building would ordinarily be condemned by the city for egregious violation of the codes or is a serious public hazard but the city cannot proceed with condemnation and demolition because the structure is in a special category called historic preservation, then I would say, remove the historic designation.  The same holds true if an owner determines the structure cannot be salvaged, that's my opinion.  At some point, a cost/benefit analysis based on the condition of the building (apart from historic considerations) should guide the city or the owner.

 

+1



#80 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:53 PM

I don't want to derail this discussion, but I would like to know how many of you want the T&P Warehouse to be demolished?  How many of you want it to remain standing, regardless of how many years it may continue to sit vacant?  Does it's historic designation have any bearing on your feelings?  Should the designation be removed?  I first thought about creating a poll, but some people don't like them because they can be weighted by the questions.  This also leads to other preservation questions that I will poll or ask the forum in another thread.

 

Do not demolish this highly significant historical structure or remove its historical designation.

 

Today, more than ever, I believe that it is a prudent idea to have a set of ordinances that govern the ownership and subsequent property upkeep of particular buildings or places with high historical value.   In the case of this building as in a handful of other buildings in the city, perhaps the ordinances would stipulate that a stabilization standard be maintained that can not be compromised.  I would even approve of the city taking preventative stabilization steps and deferring the repayment of the expense until the property is productively restored. 

 

Should the city not have funds for this purpose, maybe applying for federal assistance can be an option:

 

http://www.nps.gov/hps/fapa_p.htm

 

http://www.nps.gov/t...-incentives.htm



#81 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:02 PM

 

Cleopatra Investments Ltd, located in Dallas, should be held responsible for inaction, if inaction is there fault.


There is a plan for a Lamar/Hemphill underpass and connector that will run near the building.  It will involve heavy construction around the building.  It makes sense to wait for that.  There has been little or no activity on the underpass project on the city's part.  If you want to assign fault, I think lack of progress on the underpass is the culprit.

 

 

Ah yes, the latest excuse...



#82 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:04 PM

I think the linked article (that is no longer online) said that the underpass construction would involve using some of the city using some of the land around the warehouse as a staging area for materials and stuff, enough that it would get in the way of work on the warehouse.


My blog: Doohickie

#83 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:42 PM

I'm just jaded because it's only the latest in a long line of excuses that have been floated by the owner to delay doing anything with the building.



#84 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:49 AM

 

I don't want to derail this discussion, but I would like to know how many of you want the T&P Warehouse to be demolished?  How many of you want it to remain standing, regardless of how many years it may continue to sit vacant?  Does it's historic designation have any bearing on your feelings?  Should the designation be removed?  I first thought about creating a poll, but some people don't like them because they can be weighted by the questions.  This also leads to other preservation questions that I will poll or ask the forum in another thread.

I'm no expert on condemnation or demolition issues.  But it seems to me if a building would ordinarily be condemned by the city for egregious violation of the codes or is a serious public hazard but the city cannot proceed with condemnation and demolition because the structure is in a special category called historic preservation, then I would say, remove the historic designation.  The same holds true if an owner determines the structure cannot be salvaged, that's my opinion.  At some point, a cost/benefit analysis based on the condition of the building (apart from historic considerations) should guide the city or the owner.

 

I recently looked at renovating a building of similar construction (much smaller).  I think the number we came to was something in the $50 / per foot to completely renovate the space to A Class space (included HVAC, adding lots of bathrooms, replacing roof, windows, adding elevators, data, electric, parking lot paving, etc.).  The job was to basically strip it down to a concrete structure surrounded by dirt and start from there.  You could probably do it for a little less and you could absolutely spend more.  The windows are going to be a big piece.  I count something North of 1000 windows and $1,000 - $1,500 per window to saw cut and replace.  That's proportionately higher than what we would have spent on on windows on our project.

 

But if the building is as I understand it to be, in fine structural shape, then I'm 100% convinced you could make it into office space at a price where you could make good money on the building.  It looks like maybe a $50 - $60 Million project, all in on the high-end.  Lease 80% out at $15 - $20 NNN and it's a money maker.



#85 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 24 April 2013 - 02:52 PM

So, again I ask, what can the city do about this?  Take it via eminent domain and develop it themselves?  And what's wrong with letting it sit empty long enough to let the free market make it happen?  I want to see it redone as soon as possible, but if the building isn't falling down, I see little if any benefit to the city strongarming the owner into doing something.  "I want, I want, I want" really doesn't work well when my 2 year old pulls it.   It won't work in this case either.  People seem to forget that this building had a freeway running about 20 feet from its front door less than a decade ago and the economy has taken a crap a couple of times since then. 



#86 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:16 PM

So far as I can tell by the replies, that's three votes for not demolishing and two votes to demolish it.



#87 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

It should not be demolished, nor should it have any holes cut through it. Rehabilitation and redevelopment can come whenever.

 

I do think the owner should clean up the Lancaster side, especially at street level. Maybe a little prodding from the city would make it happen.


Erik France


#88 Hometown by Handlebar

Hometown by Handlebar

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Side resident (East Side emigrant)
  • Interests:bicycling, history, architecture

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:33 PM

Save it. Don't make me stand in front of a wrecking ball.



#89 beverlyb

beverlyb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Downtown

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:02 PM

I really don't know what it should be, but I would hate to see it demolished.



#90 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:20 PM

So, again I ask, what can the city do about this?..... And what's wrong with letting it sit empty long enough to let the free market make it happen?  I want to see it redone as soon as possible, but if the building isn't falling down, I see little if any benefit to the city strongarming the owner into doing something.  "I want, I want, I want" really doesn't work well when my 2 year old pulls it.   It won't work in this case either.

 

But if the building is falling down or being allowed slowly to deteriorate, then you would surely expect the city to strong arm the absentee landlord into doing adequate stabilization to halt the decline of the building.  This is surely what one would expect if this was a house next door to your home?  What is the relevance of a bygone freeway to the present day condition of the building?.



#91 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:15 AM

I want to know what the lady paid for the building, and who she bought it from.  I am making meaningless interest on my savings, but at least my money is not rotting or putting me at risk. (Somebody could get injured on the property or something.)  Even if they are trespassing could probably cause trouble with a stupid jury. 

 

I also wonder if the lady has considered selling the property or if she has ever had it for sale.  I would personally rather have it sit there in bad shape than be torn down, but do wonder why she is not made to maintain it to code. (Like high weeds in back.)


www.fortworthview.com

#92 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:20 AM

Brian, the warehouse was purchased from U.S. Management, Inc. back in the late 90s.  Deed records don't say how much.  Cleopatra Investments Ltd (Ola Assem) has owned it for over 10 years now.  For tax purposes, TAD has appraised the building at $1.3 million (down from $2.7 million in 2008).

 

My vote is NOT to demolish it.

 

But, the city council should, I believe, hold an oversight hearing on this warehouse and get an update from the owner as to her plans. Or an oversight hearing on why that street construction project has been delayed, if that project is holding up rehabilitation of the structure.  Why browbeat a private owner?  Not only because of the size and location of this building, but also its historic preservation status, and the fact that it has been vacant and exposed to the weather for over a decade.



#93 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:47 AM

Because of its construction I don't think it's going to deteriorate much, so I don't think that's a good angle for forcing action.  They've tried to use tax incentives to inspire activity to no avail.  At this point I'd suggest that they need to raise the appraised value of the property based on the generally strong real estate market in DTFW.  I think an appraisal in the $12 - $18 Million range would be appropriate.  Start charging Ola Assem $400K a year to idle the property and it might stir some action.



#94 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:57 AM

Because of its construction I don't think it's going to deteriorate much, so I don't think that's a good angle for forcing action.  

 

Hmm, you don't think the broken windows letting the climate in and the sagging roof with trees growing in it constitutes a hazard to the building's integrity? If a homeowner repeatedly refuses to keep the weeds trimmed down to allowed heights the city can have the yard cut and add the cost to a lien against the property. I think the same theory should apply to property owners who fail to maintain their buildings to some minimum extent, be it keeping it reasonably sealed against weather and animals/people coming is, graffiti, etc. 



#95 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:28 AM

 

Because of its construction I don't think it's going to deteriorate much, so I don't think that's a good angle for forcing action.  

 

Hmm, you don't think the broken windows letting the climate in and the sagging roof with trees growing in it constitutes a hazard to the building's integrity? If a homeowner repeatedly refuses to keep the weeds trimmed down to allowed heights the city can have the yard cut and add the cost to a lien against the property. I think the same theory should apply to property owners who fail to maintain their buildings to some minimum extent, be it keeping it reasonably sealed against weather and animals/people coming is, graffiti, etc. 

 

I may be wrong about this, but I believe the roof and all the walls and columns are poured in place concrete designed to support substantial loads (forklifts with pallets of heavy goods).  The building we were working on of similar construction had 11 inch thick reinforced concrete floors and I'll bet these are similar.  I assume the roof deck is also concrete (although I don't know for certain this is the case).  Unlike a house, which can deteriorate relatively quickly without maintenence, a multi-story all concrete bunker will decline much more slowly. If you think about it, it hasn't been in use for a long time and it's not really gotten any worse (that we can see).  The windows are probably all shot, but the running assumption on here has been that they would all need to be replaced anyway to make the building usable, so their continued decline is immaterial.

 

So, yeah, I don't think the open windows constitute a hazard to the building in the near-term (next 5 years or so). 

 

Plus, John said as much earlier in either this thread or another about the building.  I'll dig around and find the comment.  That thing isn't going to fall down and it's not getting in any worse shape than it is already in.



#96 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:37 AM

Our firm did some preliminary studies for Ola Assem shortly after she purchased the building.  We made some quick measurements of the building and I can verify that the entire structure is poured in place concrete, including the roof.  I can't remember the depth of the structure, but it is significant and the building was designed as use for a warehouse.  Therefore, the floor loads are significantly higher than they would be for office or residential.  Another thing to consider is that concrete and steel design from the 1910's, 20's, and 30's tended to be way over-designed for the purpose of the building and structure. 

 

The windows will have to be replaced for both energy concerns and to make the building useable.  The only thing that concerns me is the water in the basement.  No telling what kind of problems can breed in that water. 



#97 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:45 AM

Eddie Vanston is currently doing exactly this sort of window replacement/enlargement on a historic warehouse structure, albeit a significantly smaller scale.  He's been authorized to enlarge the windows of the old Supreme Golf Warehouse off South Main for conversion into lofts, while still keeping the building's historic status.  It's looking good.  If you want to get an idea of the possibilities, it's a good example.



#98 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

At this point I'd suggest that they need to raise the appraised value of the property based on the generally strong real estate market in DTFW.  I think an appraisal in the $12 - $18 Million range would be appropriate.  Start charging Ola Assem $400K a year to idle the property and it might stir some action.

 

I agree that the building is severely undervalued on the tax rolls, and your suggestion to bring the valuation more in line with regional norms might spur some sort of reaction from the owner. But I also believe that allowing the current state to persist provides the owner a defense against raising the appraisal value. I do understand that the construction is robust, but even over-poured concrete has it's limits. It might withstand some major physical impact but the more likely enemy is going to be gradual erosion over time. Concrete is calcium carbonate, and water erodes limestone to form caves, and redeposits formations like stalactites and flowstone. With the windows open, a hole in the roof, and a lake in the basement I can't help but think that destruction, even on a slow and small-scale basis, is happening now, and that the longer it goes on the greater the possibility that it will become irreversible (as in small roots opening cracks that allow water to rust the steel inside the poured concrete...) 



#99 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:14 AM

I agree with you 100%, RD.  I was aware that the water in the basement is rusting the rebar inside the concrete columns, but without a structural analysis, I really couldn't say how much deterioration has occurred.  It seems that it would be prudent to properly mothball the building. 



#100 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:55 AM

 

 

What is the relevance of a bygone freeway to the present day condition of the building?.

 

My comment about the freeway was that its demolition and the subsequent street reconstruction made redevelopment more difficult.  I wasn't referring to that having an impact on the condition of the building.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Downtown, Historic Buildings, Lancaster Corridor, Historic Preservation

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users