Jump to content


- - - - -

Texas & Pacific Warehouse

Downtown Historic Buildings Historic Preservation Lancaster Corridor

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#101 eastfwther

eastfwther

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (vjackson @ Nov 9 2009, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
4. How viable is this redevelopment plan?


Not very, IMO. I don't mind being wrong and hope I am. I think a good comparison of this project would be the Southside on Lamar project in Dallas. Once a massive Sears catalog center and warehouse, it was transformed into lofts and retail in the 90's. I lived there when I moved back to DFW. I really think it's going to be difficult to get something this massive done in FW at this time. I know I'm going to say something unpopular, but here goes: This is just a warehouse. I would rather see new construction here than this big bulking warehouse. M. Plaza was just a warehouse too, and what's there now is nothing particularly special. It's a so so loft building now with a horrible out of place surburban shopping strip full of bland anywhere USA retailers behind it.

http://www.highrises...on-lamar-lofts/

#102 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:51 AM

Downtown Fort Worth is known for its zigzag moderne. The T&P warehouse is a contributing structure. If you nuke the building, you are taking away part of what makes downtown Fort Worth downtown Fort Worth.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#103 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:03 PM

Jeff, that was our group riding through the hole and drive around 2:30 on Sunday afternoon.

By the way, I never said that I was opposed to opening up the light well the center of Montgomery Ward's. My only opposition to it was the way that the narrow center section of the building was opened up, and that's only from a preservation point of view. I think that vehicular and pedestrian access could have been gained by another method that was more sensitive toward preservation. If the building had been built new, I probably would have thought that was a very novel idea to have a 5 story section carved through the building.

It appears that several people don't think that warehouses are worthy of preservation. Here is why the Montgomery Ward store is worthy. You can see my further reasons in the Montgomery Plaza threads. The store/warehouse was one of only 8 built in the country in the 1920's. It was a particular style of building, only built in limited supply. Now, there are only 4 left. This makes the Montgomery Wards warehouse and endangered building type. Ward's played an important part in American history; therefore, the building should be preserved. In my opinion, the Ward's building is actually more important on the National level than it is on the local level. The warehouse is not on the National Register of Historic Places or a Recorded Texas Historical Landmark. It is locally designated as Demolition Delay, the lowest level of designation in the city.

The T&P Warehouse was designed as part of a thematic complex of buildings on downtown's south end. The architect of these structures was one of the city's most important designers in the city. Also, the Texas and Pacific Railroad played an important role in the development and history of the city. Fortunately, this building is designated as a Highly Significant Endangered Landmark and has the highest level of historic designation in the city. Even if development is slow or doesn't take place, the building has the highest level of protection. Demolition would be very unlikely.

#104 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 10 November 2009 - 04:50 PM

QUOTE (AndyN @ Nov 10 2009, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyone been to the old Hard Rock Cafe empty lot on McKinney Avenue in Uptown Dallas lately?


Why no, I haven't. I tried the other day but couldn't find it. I felt like Luke and Han searching for Alderaan.

QUOTE (ramjet @ Nov 10 2009, 08:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
After many visits to Mockingbird Station, Park Lane Place, and the West Village in Dallas, all terrific places on foot, I have come to dread driving to and in them. Getting to the merchants in these developments is challenging in my opinion.


I don't think you quite get what they are doing. These places are intentionally car-unfriendly. That makes it more people friendly. Plus there's this newfangled idea in developing urban space called walking and taking transit. All three of those places are train and bus accessibile and West Village also has a streetcar line.

QUOTE
The clogged traffic in the narrow driving lanes and parking in the multi-tiered garages gives me the heem-jays. And I donít think the multi-tiered garages, particularly at Park Lane Place, are any more aesthetically pleasing than the parking lot at Montgomery Plaza.


I would say they are, because they are more tucked away.

QUOTE
Iím not sure youíre suggesting that Montgomery Plaza should have been like the developments in Dallas, but for me, its current configuration is terrific.


How many people do you actually see walking here and then how many people do you see walking that aren't going to or from a car in the garage?

QUOTE
And before folks jump on me for defending driving and ease of parking (I know very politically incorrect these days), Iím just being real. Perhaps someday when we can all ditch our cars and utilize public transit and live near where we work and play, assuming that ever happens outside of Manhattan and Center City Philadelphia in the US, parking lots and garages will become obsolete.


That's the whole point, they never will as long as you keep designing them for the car. It's almost as crazy as saying I am going to grow a beard by shaving everyday.

An article I read recently kinda fits here.

http://www.jsonline....n/69419357.html

#105 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 10 November 2009 - 07:01 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Nov 10 2009, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (AndyN @ Nov 10 2009, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyone been to the old Hard Rock Cafe empty lot on McKinney Avenue in Uptown Dallas lately?


Why no, I haven't. I tried the other day but couldn't find it. I felt like Luke and Han searching for Alderaan.

QUOTE (ramjet @ Nov 10 2009, 08:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
After many visits to Mockingbird Station, Park Lane Place, and the West Village in Dallas, all terrific places on foot, I have come to dread driving to and in them. Getting to the merchants in these developments is challenging in my opinion.


I don't think you quite get what they are doing. These places are intentionally car-unfriendly. That makes it more people friendly. Plus there's this newfangled idea in developing urban space called walking and taking transit. All three of those places are train and bus accessibile and West Village also has a streetcar line.

QUOTE
The clogged traffic in the narrow driving lanes and parking in the multi-tiered garages gives me the heem-jays. And I don’t think the multi-tiered garages, particularly at Park Lane Place, are any more aesthetically pleasing than the parking lot at Montgomery Plaza.


I would say they are, because they are more tucked away.

QUOTE
I’m not sure you’re suggesting that Montgomery Plaza should have been like the developments in Dallas, but for me, its current configuration is terrific.


How many people do you actually see walking here and then how many people do you see walking that aren't going to or from a car in the garage?

QUOTE
And before folks jump on me for defending driving and ease of parking (I know very politically incorrect these days), I’m just being real. Perhaps someday when we can all ditch our cars and utilize public transit and live near where we work and play, assuming that ever happens outside of Manhattan and Center City Philadelphia in the US, parking lots and garages will become obsolete.


That's the whole point, they never will as long as you keep designing them for the car. It's almost as crazy as saying I am going to grow a beard by shaving everyday.

An article I read recently kinda fits here.

http://www.jsonline....n/69419357.html


While I appreciate your point by point dissection of my post, it doesn't change my mind. Before moving to Austin in '06, I lived for 18 years in New York City, Albany, and Philadelphia, all urbanism, car-hating nirvanas from the get-go. And I can tell you - I love my car - and the convenience it provides of jumping out of it to go grocery store and other shopping, (don't need human interaction and lattes to purchase my corn flakes and calvins - sorry obscure city in Italy). And I love the freedom my car provides to travel the region and country. I suppose once again this is politically incorrect. So I'll drive my ute to a parking lot in Plano, ride a train to the Gap in Mockingbird Station to purchase some jeans, and get some satisfaction out of the idea I didn't have to deal with the car hating exo-mall. The grass is always greener...

#106 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 08:18 AM

QUOTE (ramjet @ Nov 10 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And I donít think the multi-tiered garages, particularly at Park Lane Place, are any more aesthetically pleasing than the parking lot at Montgomery Plaza.


Totally agree with you about our "car culture" here. We will never be New York or Chicago, at least not in any or our lifetimes. And because of that, sad to say, we still must consider the car in our "urban" developments. And in a city that has no light rail or trolley system, how do you really expect people to get to these developments? Dallas' developments incorporate mass transit and still more people drive to them. I do however disagree about parking garages vs parking lots. Parking garages can be made aesthetically pleasing (I've seen it in other cities) and can be utilized for more than parking. Residential, office, and retail can all be incorporated into a parking garage. Not to mention, the space a parking garage saves for more development. A huge parking lot, like the one in Montgomery Plaza, is just that... a parking lot. Over the years, as it cracks, gets patched, and oil stained, it will only become more unattractive. I always think garages are the better way to go.

BTW, I usually take DART or the trolley to West Village, MockingbirdStation and NorthPark/Park Lane. But if I do drive, I always prefer the parking garage. Not only because I'm the rare North Texan that likes to walk, but in the sweltering N. Texas summers, nothing is worse than getting into a car that's been sitting on an asphalt parking lot in the 100+ degree Texas sun.

#107 mmiller2002

mmiller2002

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Hi Mounttttt
  • Interests:Born 1959
    HS Grad 1977
    1982 BSEE Penn State

Posted 11 November 2009 - 12:36 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Nov 10 2009, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's the whole point, they never will as long as you keep designing them for the car. It's almost as crazy as saying I am going to grow a beard by shaving everyday.


I'm not learned in the urbanism movement. It looks cool and all, but from my view, the retailers are not going to tolerate a slow progression to urbanism such that it prevents buying Texans from getting to their shops. If its so urban and car unfriendly that they shop elsewhere, they'll fail. We need more of a hybrid approach that embraces cars and other more neato transportation. This is Texas culture, not NYC, Phila, DC, Chicago, etc. Freedom to go where you want, when you want, with who you want.

#108 Recyclican

Recyclican

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bryan, Texas (formerly Arlington)
  • Interests:Urban Planning, Conservation, Sustainability, Transit-oriented-Development, Historic Preservation.<br /><br />Hiking, camping, reading, BBQing, photography, traveling

Posted 11 November 2009 - 12:51 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Nov 10 2009, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's almost as crazy as saying I am going to grow a beard by shaving everyday.


Well, this would be the month for growing a beard. It is Movember, after all - known here in the U.S. as No Shave November.

#109 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 07:45 PM

QUOTE (ramjet @ Nov 10 2009, 07:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
While I appreciate your point by point dissection of my post, it doesn't change my mind. Before moving to Austin in '06, I lived for 18 years in New York City, Albany, and Philadelphia, all urbanism, car-hating nirvanas from the get-go. And I can tell you - I love my car - and the convenience it provides of jumping out of it to go grocery store and other shopping, (don't need human interaction and lattes to purchase my corn flakes and calvins - sorry obscure city in Italy). And I love the freedom my car provides to travel the region and country. I suppose once again this is politically incorrect. So I'll drive my ute to a parking lot in Plano, ride a train to the Gap in Mockingbird Station to purchase some jeans, and get some satisfaction out of the idea I didn't have to deal with the car hating exo-mall. The grass is always greener...


I'm not asking to change your mind.

You said we can't design for transit because it isn't convenient, but it may be one day.

I said as long as you always design it for the car, it will never be.

And you can like your car. Me designing for transit, a la West Village, doesn't preclude you from using your car. Sadly, zoning codes that stipulate designing for the car ensure transit will be sparingly used for its lack of convenienece.

QUOTE (mmiller2002 @ Nov 11 2009, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not learned in the urbanism movement. It looks cool and all, but from my view, the retailers are not going to tolerate a slow progression to urbanism such that it prevents buying Texans from getting to their shops. If its so urban and car unfriendly that they shop elsewhere, they'll fail. We need more of a hybrid approach that embraces cars and other more neato transportation. This is Texas culture, not NYC, Phila, DC, Chicago, etc. Freedom to go where you want, when you want, with who you want.


I'm guessing you haven't been to downtown Fort Worth, Mockingbird Station, West Village, Park Lane Place, downtown Plano, Addison Circle, etc. Had you have, you would have seen a transit-friendly walkable environment with stores full. The trick is to make it convenient for all modes.

#110 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 17 November 2009 - 06:46 PM

QUOTE (mmiller2002 @ Nov 11 2009, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Nov 10 2009, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's the whole point, they never will as long as you keep designing them for the car. It's almost as crazy as saying I am going to grow a beard by shaving everyday.


I'm not learned in the urbanism movement. It looks cool and all, but from my view, the retailers are not going to tolerate a slow progression to urbanism such that it prevents buying Texans from getting to their shops. If its so urban and car unfriendly that they shop elsewhere, they'll fail. We need more of a hybrid approach that embraces cars and other more neato transportation. This is Texas culture, not NYC, Phila, DC, Chicago, etc. Freedom to go where you want, when you want, with who you want.


You are right. Fort Worthís challenge is to manage the transition from low density, totally car-dependent to higher density/ less car dependent while minimizing the disruption to commerce. This isn't easy and will come with gradual growing pains as people adjust over the years. The first pains will be people getting used to less abundant, close parking, then no free parking as surface lots become scarce and people have to build garages (expensive Ė someone has to pay for it).

I think the best way to manage this is to plan wisely for density:
1) zoning that promotes/allows development that works well in higher density district, even if it is a small building. See Near South Side Design Guidelines for example. We need these on the near west side too.
2) Install mass transit before streets are choked with auto traffic - so a good alternative exists when the day comes. This addresses what we're talking about. So when West 7th Street gets choked with cars and parking lots are all full, the alternative already exists.
3) Make life easy on pedestrians and cyclists. wide sidwalks, good crosswalks, bike lanes, and tree-lined sidewalks. More people will walk or ride bikes if they are provided with good safe places to do so.

New Urbanists don't advocate eliminating cars. They advocate designing districts so that people can perform many, not all, of their daily tasks with far fewer trips. So we're talking about baby steps here, and Fort Worth is on the right track in the central city.

We currently have a few nodes or clusters of town that will have the critical mass so people can perform many of their tasks within walking distances. The denser districts that are forming are the fruits of the city's urban village program:
- Downtown
- West 7th between Montgomery Plaza and Norwood
- West 7th between University and Boland Street (consider separately b/c University is a WALL)
- Magnolia b/w 8th and Hemphill
- Berry at University
The others aren't as far along.

What I'm talking about is nothing new. It just takes a while and lots of public support to advance this type of widespread urban evolution.

#111 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 28 December 2009 - 01:52 AM

QUOTE (Fort Worthology @ Nov 7 2009, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (ramjet @ Nov 7 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm with jefffwd and others on here who prefer an alive building to an eyesore, even with it's "historical integrity" pierced by a drive through. I'm also a big fan of Montgomery Plaza. I think some on this forum have become obnoxious condescending architecture snobs. Just 'cause one has a fancy blog, doesn't make one the last word on Fort Worth development. Jeez! Lighten up...


QUOTE (jefffwd)
VERY well put ramjet!!! Your statement is not only accurate but waaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdue! Although I am not completely sure who you are referring to I believe it may end in "ology"? Just sayin'


How nice of you all. Took a surprisingly short time for this to turn into personal insults. If this forum has degraded to the point where no dissent, no criticism of this city, and no criticism or disagreement about development and architecture is allowed, and needless name-calling, then count me out. Y'all have fun.




I've been away from this board for a number of months and, while playing catch up, I wondered: "gee, whatever happened to Atomic Glee?" So I did a search for him and noticed that he changed his user ID. And, according to the search results, he apparently made good on what he implied and his November 7 posting in this thread was his last.

That's too bad. I have very profound disagreements with Kevin/Atomic Glee/Fort Worthology on a number of issues. But he is one of the more passionate, articulate and interesting posters this board has had. And I frequently find common ground with him on certain aesthetic issues. I hope that his absence from posting here is for reasons other than having allowed a few remarks by the goon squad to "get to" him. Since I wasn't here to speak up for him then, I will do so now.

Having high standards, articulating them and living by them does not make one a snob. A snob is a person who attempts to elevate his purported standards into an alleged basis for self-righteous moral superiority - usually in an attempt to boost a pathetic pretense at self-esteem. This board has had its fair share of snobs over the years. Based on what I have seen, Kevin isn't one of them.

And it is especially ironic that the allegation was seconded by an individual who, on this board several years ago, referred to people who shopped at Montgomery Ward as "low lifes." Snob? Pot meet kettle.

Also, what's with: "Just 'cause one has a fancy blog......"? The obvious resentment is dripping. Whether one agrees with his viewpoints or not, Kevin's blog is an impressive achievement that he has put a lot of work into. He has every reason and right to be proud of it.

Most people, myself included, do not enjoy confrontations. But the reality is that, if one holds and articulates a definite point of view on important matters and takes one's own views seriously, confrontations are inevitable. People will disagree with you and raise objections whenever you express your opinions in public. If the objections are substantive, then you will end up the better for it. Perhaps the other person will rip what you say to shreds - in which case, you will have learned something. And even if they don't, having to overcome the other person's objections enables you to acquire a much deeper understanding of your position and the various issues involved than you previously had.

Unfortunately, sooner or later - and usually sooner - you will encounter disagreement from those who are incapable of raising substantive objections. Sometimes you will encounter outright hostility. You will be subjected to various fallacy-ridden attempts to intimidate you into silence or submission and/or ad hominem attacks. Point such behavior out for what it is - and if they don't take it back after you have done so, then they have just revealed for everyone to see their own intellectual bankruptcy. You won't change their mind - but reasonable observers will see them for what they are.

So long as one is intellectually honest, being passionate about one's views and taking them seriously is a virtue. But it is a virtue which is often resented by those who lack it because it underscores their own superficiality. Don't let the fact that such people exist bother you or deter you any more than you would allow the existence of flies and ants stop you from going to a picnic. Having a thin skin can be a significant handicap to a person who is passionate about his convictions. Encountering and getting practice dealing with the various arrows that will occasionally be thrown at you in public forums such as this is a great way to thicken one's skin.

For all I know, Kevin is away from this board for reasons similar to why I am often absent from this board for months at a time. But if he is gone for reasons suggested in his last posting - I hope he reconsiders as he is an asset to this forum.


Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#112 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 28 December 2009 - 07:40 AM

QUOTE (Dismuke @ Dec 28 2009, 03:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Also, what's with: "Just 'cause one has a fancy blog......"? The obvious resentment is dripping. Whether one agrees with his viewpoints or not, Kevin's blog is an impressive achievement that he has put a lot of work into. He has every reason and right to be proud of it.

I've been very impressed with Kevin's blog and visit it often. It's informative, well layed out, and just nicely done. I don't agree with him about everything either, but I will give credit where it's due. He has one of the nicest urban/city blogs I"ve ever seen and it really keep me up on going ons in FW. I'm even going to buy one of his T-shirts!! I wasn't aware he was gone from this forum. I do still see him on the DFW forum.

#113 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 28 December 2009 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE (Dismuke @ Dec 28 2009, 03:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've been away from this board for a number of months and, while playing catch up, I wondered: "gee, whatever happened to Atomic Glee?" So I did a search for him and noticed that he changed his user ID. And, according to the search results, he apparently made good on what he implied and his November 7 posting in this thread was his last.


Good catch. I remeber reading that post when he put it up, but I didn't think/notice it was his fairwell announcement.

QUOTE
Most people, myself included, do not enjoy confrontations. But the reality is that, if one holds and articulates a definite point of view on important matters and takes one's own views seriously, confrontations are inevitable. People will disagree with you and raise objections whenever you express your opinions in public. If the objections are substantive, then you will end up the better for it. Perhaps the other person will rip what you say to shreds - in which case, you will have learned something. And even if they don't, having to overcome the other person's objections enables you to acquire a much deeper understanding of your position and the various issues involved than you previously had.

Unfortunately, sooner or later - and usually sooner - you will encounter disagreement from those who are incapable of raising substantive objections. Sometimes you will encounter outright hostility. You will be subjected to various fallacy-ridden attempts to intimidate you into silence or submission and/or ad hominem attacks. Point such behavior out for what it is - and if they don't take it back after you have done so, then they have just revealed for everyone to see their own intellectual bankruptcy. You won't change their mind - but reasonable observers will see them for what they are.

So long as one is intellectually honest, being passionate about one's views and taking them seriously is a virtue. But it is a virtue which is often resented by those who lack it because it underscores their own superficiality. Don't let the fact that such people exist bother you or deter you any more than you would allow the existence of flies and ants stop you from going to a picnic. Having a thin skin can be a significant handicap to a person who is passionate about his convictions. Encountering and getting practice dealing with the various arrows that will occasionally be thrown at you in public forums such as this is a great way to thicken one's skin.


Dismuke, I have always appreciated your posts for these very reasons, even if I don't always read every word (no offense intended). I'm a person with strongly held beliefs and I respect that in others. I've always believed that greater understanding and forward progress are the product of lively discourse, which I believeed was the result of people with strongly held views talking things out. It's still my favorite way to learn.

I have of late, however, come to a slightly different conclusion. There are a lot of terribly bright people who simply will not step into the the fray, not even a lively and civil discourse free from the personal attacks. And while I think these people should have the conviction to do so, ultimately I am the one who is worse off in the end. They have the "benefit" of my perspective to consider and I do not get the benefit of theirs.

If I want that perspective for consideration I have to accept that people will not always respond to strength with strength. Some, to your point, respond negatively, some respond with insincere agreement, and some will not respond at all. Knowing this, shouldn't I seek ways to draw out the valuable views of others and not just clearly articulate my own views in hopes of a response in kind?

#114 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 28 December 2009 - 06:46 PM

QUOTE (Dismuke @ Dec 28 2009, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And it is especially ironic that the allegation was seconded by an individual who, on this board several years ago, referred to people who shopped at Montgomery Ward as "low lifes." Snob? Pot meet kettle.


Please provide evidence I ever posted something like that - and I'll profusely apologize. Otherwise, you owe ME an apology for that libelous charge. I'm a fan of FortWorthology and Mr. Buchanen, but just think he crossed a civility line in his responses to alternate views of Montgomery Plaza on this and other forums. If it offended him, then I apologize. But still think alternate views to his are not inherently evil. Over the years I've been excoriated on this forum by a few of its members for being a cheerleader for my hometown, but it I never felt the need to gather my toys and go elsewhere (well, maybe one time). Perhaps we could all grow a thicker skin and celebrate (and when warranted, critique) this incredible city... angry.gif

#115 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 28 December 2009 - 10:26 PM

QUOTE (ramjet @ Dec 28 2009, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Please provide evidence I ever posted something like that - and I'll profusely apologize


Ramjet - you are not the person I was referring to who said that. I thought my wording made that clear enough - but, if not, then I am very sorry.


QUOTE
But still think alternate views to his are not inherently evil.


I am not aware of Kevin ever suggesting that alternative views to his own are somehow "inherently evil." But, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that he did suggest such a thing. So what? Why should his disapproval bother you so much?

Now, what is true is that there are clearly certain things that Kevin strongly disapproves of and has a low opinion of. But again, so what? The last thing one can accuse Kevin of being is one of those nihilistic types who constantly goes around being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Kevin has a very definite point of view on certain things and he is a staunch advocate for his particular point of view. It is not possible to be passionately for something without, at the same time, being staunchly against with equal fervor that which is its antithesis. Every time I can recall Kevin expressing disapproval against something, whether I agreed with him or not, it was a logical and necessary consequence of that which he stands for.

And having strong views about things does NOT mean that a person necessarily regards those who disagree as being "inherently evil."

In your November posting, you knocked Kevin on grounds that he allegedly regards himself as "the last word on Fort Worth development." What this ultimately translates to is knocking Kevin because he doesn't hide the fact that he has confidence in the validity of his viewpoints and because he articulates his views in a consistent and uncompromising manner. What would you have him do - water his opinions down into a bunch of meaningless touchy feely self-contradictory mush on grounds that his disapproval might wound someone's delicate feelings?

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who frequently finds himself on the opposite side of several issues from Kevin. I have no doubt that he either does or would think that I am absolutely full of it on any number of things - and this does not bother me in the slightest. I am secure enough in the validity of my own point of view that someone else's disagreement or disapproval means very little to me.

If you don't like Kevin's point of view you have two alternatives: you can ignore him or you can attempt to refute what he says by means of facts and logic. You did neither.

Kevin did absolutely nothing inappropriate in this thread. All he did was express his opinion. The fact that you might disagree or dislike his point of view is utterly irrelevant.

You assert: "he crossed a civility line in his responses to alternate views of Montgomery Plaza on this and other forums." Well, I see zero evidence for that in this thread. Disagreeing with you does NOT constitute "crossing a civility line." I have no idea what he has posted in other forums. Since people here do not necessarily read other forums, if you are going to attack someone for remarks they make elsewhere, then it is necessary to provide readers with the necessary context.

If anyone was uncivil in this thread, it was you. Your attack on Kevin was uncalled for and unjust. If his disagreement and alleged disapproval of you really bothers you - well that is your problem, not his.




Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#116 ramjet

ramjet

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Austin and Fort Worth

Posted 28 December 2009 - 11:56 PM

QUOTE (Dismuke @ Dec 28 2009, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (ramjet @ Dec 28 2009, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Please provide evidence I ever posted something like that - and I'll profusely apologize


Ramjet - you are not the person I was referring to who said that. I thought my wording made that clear enough - but, if not, then I am very sorry.


QUOTE
But still think alternate views to his are not inherently evil.


I am not aware of Kevin ever suggesting that alternative views to his own are somehow "inherently evil." But, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that he did suggest such a thing. So what? Why should his disapproval bother you so much?

Now, what is true is that there are clearly certain things that Kevin strongly disapproves of and has a low opinion of. But again, so what? The last thing one can accuse Kevin of being is one of those nihilistic types who constantly goes around being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Kevin has a very definite point of view on certain things and he is a staunch advocate for his particular point of view. It is not possible to be passionately for something without, at the same time, being staunchly against with equal fervor that which is its antithesis. Every time I can recall Kevin expressing disapproval against something, whether I agreed with him or not, it was a logical and necessary consequence of that which he stands for.

And having strong views about things does NOT mean that a person necessarily regards those who disagree as being "inherently evil."

In your November posting, you knocked Kevin on grounds that he allegedly regards himself as "the last word on Fort Worth development." What this ultimately translates to is knocking Kevin because he doesn't hide the fact that he has confidence in the validity of his viewpoints and because he articulates his views in a consistent and uncompromising manner. What would you have him do - water his opinions down into a bunch of meaningless touchy feely self-contradictory mush on grounds that his disapproval might wound someone's delicate feelings?

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who frequently finds himself on the opposite side of several issues from Kevin. I have no doubt that he either does or would think that I am absolutely full of it on any number of things - and this does not bother me in the slightest. I am secure enough in the validity of my own point of view that someone else's disagreement or disapproval means very little to me.

If you don't like Kevin's point of view you have two alternatives: you can ignore him or you can attempt to refute what he says by means of facts and logic. You did neither.

Kevin did absolutely nothing inappropriate in this thread. All he did was express his opinion. The fact that you might disagree or dislike his point of view is utterly irrelevant.

You assert: "he crossed a civility line in his responses to alternate views of Montgomery Plaza on this and other forums." Well, I see zero evidence for that in this thread. Disagreeing with you does NOT constitute "crossing a civility line." I have no idea what he has posted in other forums. Since people here do not necessarily read other forums, if you are going to attack someone for remarks they make elsewhere, then it is necessary to provide readers with the necessary context.

If anyone was uncivil in this thread, it was you. Your attack on Kevin was uncalled for and unjust. If his disagreement and alleged disapproval of you really bothers you - well that is your problem, not his.


Wait! Isn't this thread about the T&P Warehouse? I was in FW over the holidays and drove by. Sure is desolate. Sure hope it gets renovated. EVEN IF IT GETS A BIG OLE' HOLE IN THE MIDDLE. BTW, I went to Tillman's Roadhouse for dinner. Fantastic!

#117 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 29 December 2009 - 06:47 AM

Apparently I missed the part where Kevin said he was not going to post on this Forum again. If he did, then I think that ultimately it will affect him more than the rest of us because the diversity of views here is important and and he needs to mix that in with his singular approach.

While I have often had a different view of events than Kevin I have always had the utmost respect for his intelligence and his particular approach to the development of Fort Worth. I probably agree with him on much more that I disagree. Whether I agree, disagree or have no opinion on a subject that he may be interested in, I think it benefits everyone to read everything he writes carefully and consider it soberly. I read Fortworthology often and it showcases his views in an intelligent and mostly entertaining way.

However, I am concerned that by retreating (if that is what it is) to Fortworthology will give his views a more limited exposure and create a readership that is mostly composed of only those agree with him. And that's not good. In my opinion, Kevin's views need to be aired and considered and constructively criticized by the widest possible audience for him to gain credibility for his ideas. It will be hard to do that behind his Fortworthology fortress walls. Unfortunately, this withdrawal looks to some like he is not willing to stand up for his opinions in an open forum. This probably is not true, but the appearance is unfortunate.

Not that there is anything wrong with having your own pulpit. I have often thought of using one of my neglected domain names to create something similar and may end up doing that at some point.

This Forum can be a little rough sometimes, but it should be. There are a lot of good minds in play here that care about Fort Worth. Kevin needs a peer group like this that is not awed by anyone or anything to help validate or dismiss his ideas. He won't find that kind of testing ground in very many places. If the forum draws a little of his blood once in a while it may well help him in the long run.

I hope that Kevin will return soon and get back into the fray. It will be good for him, the Forum and good for Fort Worth.

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#118 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 29 December 2009 - 01:22 PM

Unfortunately, I did not take Kevin seriously about not posting. I went back an re-read everything since his last post and I did reply shortly thereafter about the tone in the forum. At the time, I just thought he wouldn't post for a few days. I haven't been on the board as much recently, but honestly did not pick up that he has not posted. I also hope that he would not think poorly of my for not picking up on his lack of activity. With that said, both of us serve on the City's Designation Advisory Committee and I saw Kevin a few days before his last post and he did mention some things going on in his personal life. I also saw him on the first Monday of December. At that time, he filled me in on more details about his life. I also think that is one reason that I wasn't too concerned about his absence. Hopefully, he will return to the board after the new year or once things settle down in his personal life.

I'm going to put out this request again. Please do not personally attack members of this forum. With that said, I would also like to say that we all need to grow thicker skins. Sometimes, non-personal comments are taken personally on this board, and they should not be taken that way. I hope that in 2010 we will be more civil to each other on this board.

There is one saving grace about the "big box" retail at the rear of Montgomery Plaza. Most of those types of buildings are designed to last between 20 and 30 years. When the market dictates, those big boxes could be demolished for construction of parking garages and more mixed use buildings on that site.

Now, I'm going to try to send this thread back on topic. The actual topic of this thread is the Texas & Pacific Warehouse. For a development to be successful in this area and at this time, the architects will have to design for both the automobile and the pedestrian. If a development is located on a future transit line, then that should be taken into consideration, as well. The architects for the warehouse should design for both the pedestrian and the automobile, but should keep the historic character intact. As I said earlier, I do not have a problem with lowering the windows. Making small sacrifices should be allowed to make the building viable.

#119 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 03:00 PM

Has there been any movement of late on this building? Everytime I drive by it I cringe since it is such a visable building for out-of-towners to see driving down I-30 or Lancaster.

#120 T&PLoftDweller

T&PLoftDweller

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 27 May 2010 - 10:33 PM

One of my neighbors posted this on our discussion board recently:

T&P warehouse building
For those of you who are interested in the development of the T&P warehouse, the building was recently laser scanned and a video produced for a fly-through view of the project.



#121 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 28 May 2010 - 05:44 AM

First, see the post before this one if you are interested in the T&P Warehouse. I don't want that post to get overlooked.
T&PLoftDweller posted a great "cyber video" of this building.

I took this photo from the Omni in April 2010. I thought I posted it somewhere but could not find it. Sorry if you have seen before.


www.fortworthview.com

#122 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 01 June 2010 - 12:05 PM

What that building needs is some dramatic lighting.

#123 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,186 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 01 June 2010 - 02:45 PM

What that building needs is any lighting!

#124 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 01 June 2010 - 03:57 PM

No, what this building really needs are occupants!

#125 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:31 AM

QUOTE (John T Roberts @ Jun 1 2010, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, what this building really needs are occupants!


touche'

#126 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 02 June 2010 - 09:20 AM

What this building really needs is a giant hole cut right through the middle to run a driveway through. You see, it has a flat face and.......


Just kidding!
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#127 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:06 AM

QUOTE (Dismuke @ Jun 2 2010, 10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What this building really needs is a giant hole cut right through the middle to run a driveway through. You see, it has a flat face and.......


Just kidding!



<head explodes>

smile.gif

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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#128 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 31 October 2011 - 01:15 PM

According to the Star-Telegram, the owners of the warehouse have received an extension on getting their TIF money. They will now be allowed to wait until the Lamar/Hemphill connection is constructed.

#129 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 31 October 2011 - 02:09 PM

I have a nameless source that I trust. A person that most everybody in town knows. He says, "ain't ever gonna happen." Says the woman has been threatening to do something forever, but will never actually do anything." Gives its chances with current ownership 0%.

I have never been in the building. Would love to go in some time. I'm not afraid of ghosts. And only a little afraid of mold.
www.fortworthview.com

#130 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,186 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 31 October 2011 - 04:28 PM

When I was a kid growing up in Fort Worth, they had a haunted house in that building. A little while later they had a paintball business operating in there. Might be some interesting debris left behind.

#131 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 31 October 2011 - 07:46 PM

Brian, I have been in the building twice over the last few years.&nbsp;&nbsp;Shortly after it was purchased by the current owner, we (Halbach-Dietz Architects) looked at the building and gave her our recommendations for it. Karl Dietz is our designer, and when he walked through, I could see the wheels turning inside his head.<br>

#132 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 02:04 PM

I still wish the city would buy it to become the new City Hall. Every department could be located under one roof with room to grow.

Regardless, I can't believe they continue to let this lady have more time with the TIF. She isn't ever going to do anything with the building.

#133 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:47 PM

This point has been debated before: I suspect that, given the size and development potential of this building, the city would rather see it finished out privately and eventually contributing more money to the city (and other entities) coffers. Converting it to a city hall would cost a truckload of money and would take it off of the tax rolls completely.

#134 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:41 PM

I do like the concept of it being City hall. They would not even need to increase the size of the windows and risk losing historic designations. (I don't know what I am talking about really, but that sounds familiar to me.)

I still think the city should have bought the old Radio Shack Technology center. A huge building that was purchased by the County but is largely empty. Just full of cleaning people cleaning up after the other cleaning people. HUGELY underutilized.

At huge as the T&P warehouse is, seems like City Hall could keep its current location as well as take a floor or two on the bottom and then it might be cost effective to convert top floors to apartments.
www.fortworthview.com

#135 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,186 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 02 November 2011 - 07:06 AM

I think they should put the police academy in part of the old Radio Shack, or maybe in the Warehouse. Rather than spend $90 million to relocate it into an all new building. (More TRV consequences)

#136 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 02 November 2011 - 10:49 AM

I do like the concept of it being City hall. They would not even need to increase the size of the windows and risk losing historic designations. (I don't know what I am talking about really, but that sounds familiar to me.)

I still think the city should have bought the old Radio Shack Technology center. A huge building that was purchased by the County but is largely empty. Just full of cleaning people cleaning up after the other cleaning people. HUGELY underutilized.

At huge as the T&P warehouse is, seems like City Hall could keep its current location as well as take a floor or two on the bottom and then it might be cost effective to convert top floors to apartments.

I thought the city was considering the old post office for its municipal building?

#137 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 12 November 2011 - 09:13 PM

Walked Lancaster tonight as it was getting dark. Very nice.

Posted Image


Posted Image
www.fortworthview.com

#138 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 30 November 2011 - 03:11 PM

Was there any thought of this becoming a hotel as well?

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#139 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:44 PM

I think the owner was always thinking mixed use with retail on the ground floor and residential above.

#140 Big Frog II

Big Frog II

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 12:16 PM

Any movement on this building?  One would think with the improving economy and hot residential market this place would be ready to go.



#141 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 30 June 2014 - 07:29 AM

I think Lancaster as a whole is just waiting on the first domino to fall.



#142 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside
  • Interests:Writing, music, photography, games, sci-fi.

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:09 AM

No news or movement, near as I can tell.  I maintain my belief that the building will never be rehabbed as long as it remains under its current ownership.


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

Fort Worth District 9 Zoning Commissioner


#143 Corsicana33

Corsicana33

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Burleson
  • Interests:Fishing, Cars, Six Flags, Architecture, Cooking, Roadtrips and Having Fun

Posted 16 February 2015 - 09:10 PM

Found some info about this project and that it is still a go, the issues seem t be the Lamar-Hemphill connector project and the TEX rail on the backside causing some of the slow down on forward progress. It was on www.prweb.com/releases/2014/09/prweb12143151.html  



#144 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 16 February 2015 - 09:14 PM

I hate to break it to ya, but it's been posted and discussed a bit in another thread.

 

http://www.fortworth...pic=4259&page=3



#145 Corsicana33

Corsicana33

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Burleson
  • Interests:Fishing, Cars, Six Flags, Architecture, Cooking, Roadtrips and Having Fun

Posted 16 February 2015 - 09:22 PM

oh ok cool thanks







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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users