UWS: State National Bank (4 ST/2007)
#1
Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:15 PM
#2
Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:31 PM
#3
Posted 04 February 2005 - 02:23 AM
I think they could double the size and height easily; and predict that unanticipated demand shall make them consider doing so. .. we hope!
"Keep Fort Worth Folksy!"
#4
Posted 04 February 2005 - 09:24 AM
#5 David Love
Posted 04 February 2005 - 09:46 AM
#6
Posted 04 February 2005 - 02:11 PM
#7
Posted 04 February 2005 - 05:46 PM
I just realized.. northeast corner of summit & 7th... isn't that where the "Summit Ruins" sign stood for a couple of years diagonally across from the 7-11?
I think the "Summit Ruins" sign was on the northwest corner. I believe this project is on the other side of Summit from the "Ruins" sign, just north of 7-11.
#8
Posted 05 February 2005 - 12:10 PM
#9
Posted 05 February 2005 - 12:12 PM
#10
Posted 05 February 2005 - 09:17 PM
JBB, this is across Summit Street to the east from Summit Ruins. It is not on the same site. The property was purchased from the developers of the Firestone Apartments.
The article is now online at: http://www.fwbusines...ebath=&subname=
#11
Posted 06 February 2005 - 12:33 AM
Also, if the building is on the NE corner, why not have that nice looking tower actually face the corner? I think that would really tie the building together and give it more visual impact from the street.
I agree with this. Having it face away from the intersection makes it look very awkward - almost as if 7th were merely some side street or alley way.
#12 gdvanc
Posted 06 February 2005 - 03:48 AM
My second impression was that I wish the side facing 7th street had included something more inviting to pedestrians. Maybe a couple of small shops. Okay, it's intended to be just a bank. It sitll might have been nice to put an entrance facing 7th. Maybe there is one - the picture's a little grainy.
Overall, the form is okay. Apart from the tower, it seems fairly plain. The columns add a little bit to an otherwise flat face, but not too much. Can't get a feel for the materials. Maybe they'll publish more detailed renderings soon.
#14
Posted 08 February 2005 - 09:02 PM
Positive aspects:
1) Massing. They went vertically rather than horizontally. I really commend them for this. Would probably have been cheaper to build a 2 sty building w/ 20,000 sf floor plates rather than 4 sty with 10,000 sf floors.
2) Facade material. Brick - good, appropriate, will age better than synthetic stucco (assuming they don't choose an ugly type of brick)
3) Full-height windows on ground floor. Another ped-friendly element.
4) Location. More critical mass of financial services in Downtown - continuing the growing momentum toward Fort Worth's growth into a regional economic capitol.
Negative aspects:
1) Setbacks/ layout on site. It appears from the drawing that there is a parking lot between the building and Summit and the building won't be built to the sidewalk on Summit. If I am right, that is an unbelievably bad urban design flaw. Hopefully I'm wrong and it has short setbacks on 7th and Summit.
2) Bland design. It's just not very imaginative. Even with the same general budget, size, and site constraints I really think I (with the architectural ability of a trained monkey) could design a more distinctive building - and I don't mean "edgy" design. Don't expect any design prizes for this one.
3) Building faces the back, not the front. IMO, should have had another "active" corner facing the intersection - even if 7th/Summit isn't where its front door will be located.
A sophisticated developer and a good architect should be able talk even the most uninformed client out of building a suburban-style site plan in an urban district.
BTW, aren't the building's layout on the site and its windows on the street guided by the new urban design requirements?
Not to vilify the designers at Schwarz-Hanson, however every office building shown on their online portfolio sits behind a parking lot - not exactly a legacy of good urban design. Maybe they're slowly turning the corner.
Hopefully I'm wrong about the site layout.
#15
Posted 08 February 2005 - 09:06 PM
Same architect? Just an initial concept drawing that included an adjacent building's design?
#16
Posted 08 February 2005 - 09:49 PM
Isn't that more of a reflection on the developer or client than the architect? Don't most architect design according to the client's specs or requirements?Not to vilify the designers at Schwartz-Hanson, however every office building shown on their online portfolio sits behind a parking lot - not exactly a legacy of good urban design. Maybe they're slowly turning the corner.
#17
Posted 08 February 2005 - 10:18 PM
I am glad the bank is coming to our city, and I wish them the best. It does, however, make me nervous when organizations that maintain very rural cultures and presumably tastes apply their tastes to urban districts such as this.
#18
Posted 08 February 2005 - 10:27 PM
The developer for the project is Innovative Developers, Inc. (IDI) and their concept is to produce buildings on an economy budget. Not knowing the whole story, I would probably say that the architects did the best they could with the budget and design constraints outlined by the developer.
#19
Posted 08 February 2005 - 10:32 PM
I don't think that the building design is that out of the ordinary, I just find our local standards for ordinary to be poor.
I understand cost constraints. They built this for about $265 per square foot. Not cheap. They had better not have any drive through lanes facing 7th or Summit on this thing. The bank pad site to the west down 7th Street is already such an offensive use of that site, the impact of a second new, poor example of urban design will set a very bad precedent.
#20
Posted 08 February 2005 - 11:23 PM
I do agree with you in that this could be setting a bad precedent.
#21
Posted 09 February 2005 - 07:16 AM
#22
Posted 09 February 2005 - 09:35 AM
#23
Posted 09 February 2005 - 01:19 PM
#26
Posted 10 February 2005 - 06:12 PM
#27
Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:39 PM
I really wonder why when all of a sudden development picks up again in that part of town, it's a measly 4 story bank. I still think the area has potential to be the epitome of succesful urban development, but it seems less and less likely that anything decent is going to come out of the ground there...I mean, why did an invaluable corner fall victim to a gas station? It makes little/no sense.
#28
Posted 10 February 2005 - 10:44 PM
#29
Posted 11 February 2005 - 04:00 PM
I don't understand what's up with the UWS. A few years ago it seemed like it was being hyped so much someone might mistake it for the real Upper West Side in NYC. Yet, aside from those two massive (and in many ways flawed) apartment complexes, there is NOTHING there. Just vacant lots and a few squat office buildings.
I really wonder why when all of a sudden development picks up again in that part of town, it's a measly 4 story bank. I still think the area has potential to be the epitome of succesful urban development, but it seems less and less likely that anything decent is going to come out of the ground there...I mean, why did an invaluable corner fall victim to a gas station? It makes little/no sense.
Johnny, you raise a subject of highest and best use and value as it relates to development and planning. This is one that is very interesting and very complex.
The one thought I would impart is that you might want to begin by seeking to understand the various agendas that all involved parties have. Land owners. Land owners' investors. RE brokers. Public policy makers (elected officials and appointed officials). Local businesses. Non-local (entering) businesses. Consumers. Residents/other interested/affected members of the community.
It is very rare that any action (development) takes place that has a positive impact on each party's agenda. That is presumably why you will see negative feedback on virtually every project that takes place in the public domain (i.e. visible, accessible to, or othersise affecting the public).
The free market perspective assumes that each party in that equation makes rational decisions (that optimize their own personal utility curve and that when each party maximizes his/her own utility curve, that it will be the optimal result for the overall society).
The problem is that real estate (esp land) markets are highly inefficient, and that these individual party agendas often drive decisions that result in sub-optimal outcomes for many of the other parties.
I believe that our duty (as the "residents/other intrerested/affected community members") is to proactively influence policy makers (city planners), local architects, developers, and the busienss community to make sure that they at least are very aware of our agenda (in this case that agenda appears to be the creation of a dense, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, well-designed district around our Downtown). Somehow, the goal should be to align interests as much as possible - can explain my thoughts in more detail later if anyone is interested.
You ought to contact a member or two of the planning dept and go meet them to inquire about how you can get involved. Good place to start.
#30
Posted 11 February 2005 - 04:54 PM
I believe that our duty (as the "residents/other intrerested/affected community members") is to proactively influence policy makers (city planners), local architects, developers, and the busienss community to make sure that they at least are very aware of our agenda (in this case that agenda appears to be the creation of a dense, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, well-designed district around our Downtown). Somehow, the goal should be to align interests as much as possible - can explain my thoughts in more detail later if anyone is interested.
Urb, I would love to hear your thoughts in more detail.
You ought to contact a member or two of the planning dept and go meet them to inquire about how you can get involved. Good place to start.
Jonny, I'm providing a link to the Planning Department's contact page. Fernando Costa is the Planning Director and he is a personal friend. If you want to go straight to the top, then he is the person with whom you should have a conversation. I also know a couple of other people in the Planning Department, as well. This includes the Historic Preservation Officer, Julie Lawless.
#31
Posted 30 April 2005 - 10:05 AM
#32
Posted 06 August 2005 - 10:37 AM
#33
Posted 26 May 2006 - 01:46 PM
#34
Posted 02 September 2006 - 08:34 PM
It does add some mass to 7th, but otherwise, this project has certain...flaws.
Number One - Yes, that is a parking lot between it and Summit. A parking lot, and a monument sign at the 7th & Summit intersection. The parking in general seems a bit excessive - there's parking between it and Summit, a huge lot behind it, a lot under the surface lot (from what I can tell), and (correct me if I'm wrong) they're going to make a paved lot almost all the way up 7th to the Fort Worth Weekly building. That's a heck of a lot of parking. (sarcasm) Yay. (/sarcasm)
Number Two - the entrance. In the parking lot, oriented to the parking lot, and completely ignoring 7th (and Summit, really). Doesn't appear that there is going to be an entrance on 7th, and of course there can't be one on Summit, because of Number One. That's just pathetic. Same problem applies to Schwarz-Hanson's other new bank building going up further west on 7th, actually...
On the whole, it's another big disappointment, at least to me. With just a couple of design changes, this would have been a much better building:
Move it up to the corner of 7th & Summit, and put the entrance at the corner, with another on 7th perhaps. Oh, and maybe don't pave everything from the end of the building down to FW Weekly (that's a lot of blank pavement, you know?). That's it.
Sigh.
--
Kara B.
#35
Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:53 AM
#36
Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:18 AM
Good suggestions. I mean, c'mon, just orienting the tower to face the intersection would have made this building 10x more acceptable. Schwarz-Hanson has definately not impressed me.
I agree with a lot of what has been said about the building being just short of good, but I kind of like that the tower orientation is similar to the klabzuba building behind it. From the Summit & 7th intersection you can see both. I'd actually like to see a couple more buildings with similar tower orientations. It's quirky.
#37
Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:31 AM
I agree with a lot of what has been said about the building being just short of good, but I kind of like that the tower orientation is similar to the klabzuba building behind it. From the Summit & 7th intersection you can see both. I'd actually like to see a couple more buildings with similar tower orientations. It's quirky.
I don't think it's the tower's orientation that bugs me, it's the fact that said tower seems to be the building's only entrance, which means that the only entrance faces not 7th Street, not even really Summit, but a big parking lot. That's just plain lame.
I hope they prove me wrong, and there is going to be an entrance up on 7th. Looking at the other Schwarz-Hanson building down the street (the Citizen's National building, which I think is even worse), I doubt that will be the case.
--
Kara B.
#38
Posted 23 October 2006 - 11:13 AM
So, yeah, that's nifty.
--
Kara B.
#39
Posted 23 October 2006 - 03:08 PM
I tend to agree with cberen about the design. While maybe not great, I think it's unique enough to add to the area. And, with the tower thing, I'd say the building actually "faces" both 7th and Summit. I also like the fact that the building goes right to the sidewalk on 7th, with parking on what I'd consider the back of the building.
#40
Posted 23 October 2006 - 04:50 PM
I wouldn't get too excited just yet, AG. Remember, "space available" doesn't mean it will ever get leased. Also, as John mentioned above, the bank is considered "ground floor retail."
Oh, please understand, I'm not jumping for joy just yet. I'm just glad that they are making the space for potential ground level restaurant and retail, which is more than I was expecting from this building - I was just thinking the whole ground floor would be the bank.
Having the *potential* is better than not having it.
--
Kara B.
#41
Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:25 AM
True. Beggars can't be choosey.
who exactly is the beggar? you should expect great things from our Downtown. don't be ashamed or afraid of having high standards.
Sure. If I had the resources, we would be up there with Seattle. I hate that Fort Worth is the Rodney Dangerfield of cities. I'm just being realistic about the Bubbas that control this city and I think developments will get better over time. Not every development in Dallas is great either.
#42
Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:03 AM
Not every development in Dallas is great either.
Ain't that the truth. But for some reason it seems FW gets a disproportionate number of bland, unimaginative developments. Even at a time of growth for the city, and a push to urbanize, FW is still getting bland crap like this. It leaves me to question is the city leaving the urbanization of FW soley to the developers or is the city pushing some type of plan?? I know Dallas has Forward Dallas, a plan that is encouraging mixed-use, pedestrian friendly projects to developers instead of the normal strip mall designs.
There's a developer in Dallas that built a very surburban style shopping center in Uptown. The outcry and criticism was enormous. An architectural critic wrote a scathing article about the shopping center in the DMN, a city councilman criticized it, and from what I understand, there were lots of calls and letters to the developer from citizens expressing thier disappointment with the development. The developer himself had to defend his design in the DMN. Althought the center is a success and I think is almost fully leased, I think such actions send a message to developers that citizens are expecting better developments than the norm and set a standard for the city. FW seems to have a design-whatever-you-want attitude toward development. People should have marched with torches and pitchforks when Montogmery P. was completed, but it seems most people think it's great. What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??
#43
Posted 24 October 2006 - 01:44 PM
Not every development in Dallas is great either.
Ain't that the truth. But for some reason it seems FW gets a disproportionate number of bland, unimaginative developments. Even at a time of growth for the city, and a push to urbanize, FW is still getting bland crap like this. It leaves me to question is the city leaving the urbanization of FW soley to the developers or is the city pushing some type of plan?? I know Dallas has Forward Dallas, a plan that is encouraging mixed-use, pedestrian friendly projects to developers instead of the normal strip mall designs.
There's a developer in Dallas that built a very surburban style shopping center in Uptown. The outcry and criticism was enormous. An architectural critic wrote a scathing article about the shopping center in the DMN, a city councilman criticized it, and from what I understand, there were lots of calls and letters to the developer from citizens expressing thier disappointment with the development. The developer himself had to defend his design in the DMN. Althought the center is a success and I think is almost fully leased, I think such actions send a message to developers that citizens are expecting better developments than the norm and set a standard for the city. FW seems to have a design-whatever-you-want attitude toward development. People should have marched with torches and pitchforks when Montogmery P. was completed, but it seems most people think it's great. What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??
Are there any buildings or any other projects in Dallas that you would say is more FW?Or FW projects that would be more attractive in Dallas?
#44
Posted 24 October 2006 - 04:24 PM
What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??
I think you've stumbled across the answer here. No one else cares. Only a handful of people on this forum as far as I can tell are really outraged by the hole and the Target. Most average Joes think it's great.
#45
Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:11 PM
I think you've stumbled across the answer here. No one else cares. Only a handful of people on this forum as far as I can tell are really outraged by the hole and the Target. Most average Joes think it's great.
You're talking to the wrong person, I love the hole and was all for it. I thought it added a point of interest to the warehouse. The "urban development" behind the warehouse is what is awful. I also don't have a problem with Target, Ross, or Dollar Tree. It's the design. But as I said, if that's what the citizens of FW consider good urban development than so be it. The point I was attempting to make was that it seems other cities have set a standard of expectation for good developments and developers seem to listen, be it mixed use shopping centers or skyscrapers. It just seems FW has no standards and as you said "noone cares". So you can expect more bland, circa 1980's four-story buildings, and more huge parking lots. As my sister says, "How can a city with so few buildings have so many ugly ones?" Because noone cares that's why. Or like CJ says, "Beggars can't be choosey".
#46
Posted 24 October 2006 - 07:32 PM
As much as it freaks me out, I have to agree with vjackson. (!!!) I'm not sure enough people in Fort Worth, as a whole, *care* about good urban design. While I'm excited that the developers of this SNB building are making space for ground-level retail/restaurant, the fact remains that the design of the building is both rather bland and flawed in some ways, and the fact also remains that it's going to be surrounded by a minor sea of parking, including up to the 7th Street/Summit corner. And of course, everybody knows my issues with the asphalt Pacific Ocean at Montgomery Plaza. We need to start demanding higher standards of urban design, as vjackson mentioned that Dallas is doing. I try and spread the word through occasional postings on my blog, but I'm just one guy.
I will say this - a lot of my friends, all around the same age as me (24, for the record), prefer good urban settings to suburbia. They're not all so crazy in to it like me, but they do want to see more of it.
--
Kara B.
#47
Posted 03 November 2006 - 06:35 PM
Also the MU1 and MU2 zoning ordinances encourage many of the positive, urban, pedestrian-friendly design elements that we desire in our central city.
Remember that we cannot legislate good taste though. The duty of good design falls to the parties involved in the design of the building (architect and developer) but these are significantly affected by tenants and neighborhood organizations too. Developers will choose their battles wisely, so if they think a certain type of design will anger a neighborhood organization, they will likely opt for an alternative that will be less controvercial. The problem is that it isn't easy for a NA to exert too much specific control over the actual design. Still, voicing an opinion leaves an impression and can tip the boat in the right direction.
Not every development in Dallas is great either.
Ain't that the truth. But for some reason it seems FW gets a disproportionate number of bland, unimaginative developments. Even at a time of growth for the city, and a push to urbanize, FW is still getting bland crap like this. It leaves me to question is the city leaving the urbanization of FW soley to the developers or is the city pushing some type of plan?? I know Dallas has Forward Dallas, a plan that is encouraging mixed-use, pedestrian friendly projects to developers instead of the normal strip mall designs.
There's a developer in Dallas that built a very surburban style shopping center in Uptown. The outcry and criticism was enormous. An architectural critic wrote a scathing article about the shopping center in the DMN, a city councilman criticized it, and from what I understand, there were lots of calls and letters to the developer from citizens expressing thier disappointment with the development. The developer himself had to defend his design in the DMN. Althought the center is a success and I think is almost fully leased, I think such actions send a message to developers that citizens are expecting better developments than the norm and set a standard for the city. FW seems to have a design-whatever-you-want attitude toward development. People should have marched with torches and pitchforks when Montogmery P. was completed, but it seems most people think it's great. What's to stop another developer from building more of the same on W. 7th if everyone seems pleased with MP??
#48
Posted 04 June 2007 - 09:20 AM
#49
Posted 04 June 2007 - 08:35 PM
#50
Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:32 AM
It might not look so bad if it were amongst other buildings. It looks to have been constructed on a tight budget and the design is totally without imagination and it is definitely a no-frills stucture. Plus those brick column things seem cheap and unnecessary. The only good thing I can say about it is the large first-floor windows. All in all it looks like something I would expect to see in a small town's revitilazation efforts, like maybe in Weatherford. Another forgettable building for FW.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users