Montgomery Ward Site Plan

Originally posted on 7/25/03:

I have added a poll to this thread transferred from the old forum. Please cast your vote relating to the site plan only. For discussion regarding the historic catalog building, go to Historic Buildings and Preservation.

On tonight's 10 PM Newscast, Channel 8 unveiled two big box retailers looking to locate behind the historic department store building. We've already discussed elsewhere about Super Target locating to the property. Now, they have announced Home Depot is also interested. Both big boxes will be constructed behind the historic store. The main building will have smaller retail establishments on the lower level, and high end luxury lofts on the upper floors. The developer is seeking help from the city and there will be two public forums on the project. One is on August 12th and the other is on August 26th.

An overall perspective:


Site Plan:


Retail Strip Elevations:

Well, let me one of the first to chime and say sounds fair. As a former resident of AMLI 7th street station, there area needs shopping and grocery. Home Depot makes sense b/c many in the area are remodeling, and landscaping.

As for the money they are asking for. Go for it.... they story indicated the grant is for environmental clean-up and the other is a loan. Not sure what if anything is the collateral, but still 13million when other ask for the kitchen sink plus more....

Bring on the development!

If they won't do the project without the tunnel, I suppose I'm ok with it, but I would have preferred they run the access road along the East side.

I'm all for the project, but I'm firmly against destroying the West 7th Street facade of the building in order to provide a grand entry into the suburban style shopping center in the back. In order for me to really support the big box development, they would have to restore the warehouse/retail store, not ruin it. I really think this will be bad for historic preservation if we let the developer get away with mutilating this landmark. I'm curious what others on this forum think about the way the store will be used. If you wish to reply, I have set up a separate thread dealing with the historic warehouse under "Historic Buildings and Preservation".

The tunnel provides more pedestrian access to more shops and/or restaurants and in an outdoor but semi-protected environment. I'm OK with it.

The tunnel is mainly a vehicular boulevard to gain access to the big box retail behind the building. Sure, there will be pedestrian access along the sidewalks that will front on the interior facades of the building, but it is my understanding that the purpose of the large archway is to provide a grand vehicular entrance into the development.

Okay, I know I don't actually LIVE in Fort Worth, but I am always very happy to be a part of it. (I like it better, simply put.)

First off. I didn't get to see the telecast. I don't even know what site to go to. But my immdiate concerns are this. What of parking? I don't like parking, heck, I don't like most cars. But they are there, and they have to go somewhere. I know that going underground can be expensive, but it may be a consideration. Also, will there be "streets" inside the development? And they aren't going to build in traditional big box (shoot me in the face please style) fashion, are they? That could be a serious problem. Parking belongs as much out of sight as possible. And the stores must be customized for a downtown area. They can't just blanket the area. That doesn't work. And the new sections must not only be built in the same style, but vertically as well. This is very dicey, and because of national power, the stores will push hard to be suburban, and to do the usual, at least to some degree. They must not be allowed to. That's the kind of thing that would keep me from moving to Fort Worth later on. Anyway, that's all I can say now, because I haven't seen much...and as I said, I don't live there.

Yet.

If they were building it new, like in the rendering, I'd think, "Hey, that's a pretty cool building". But since it is a historic building, I have problems with it.

Also, regarding the parking, the article in the Star Telegram states that of the remainder of the original building, the first floor would be retail space, then two stories of parking and five levels of loft apartments, 220 units in all. It would be called Montgomery Plaza Shopping Center.

Urban Landscape, here is a link to the S-T article. It has a schematic site plan for the project. It appears to me that the parking will be somewhat hidden from view by the big boxes and the Ward's building.

http://www.dfw.com/m...ess/6521976.htm

The article does state that two floors of the building would be used as parking. However, the site plan shows a sea of parking in the middle of all the big boxes.

AAAAUUGHH! What are they thinking?!

That'd be like trying to hide the world's largest pancake behind a small dog. Sorry, I don't know if that makes ANY sense.

Attached to this post is a letter that I have written to various local preservationists and their groups, the City Council (which has a slightly different closing paragraph but it is just stating problems with funding, if you would like to see it, post your email and I will send you a full copy.) and a development group (Artspace of Minneapolis) alongside their local partners (Historic Landmarks and Artspace Texas, all three of which developed the Victory Arts Center- the development which apparently is the first known of its kind in Texas.)

Please note that this letter has not been sent but is in the final draft and should be sent out by week's end. Comments are welcome.



I am writing to address an issue that is important to the city of Fort Worth. This issue concerns the fate of a beloved Fort Worth/Dallas structure, one popular among photographers, painters, local architectural aficionados and other local creative types. The building is the Montgomery Ward building on West Seventh, an important American structure that was home to America’s first and oldest department store, which sadly, recently went bankrupt and closed. According to my research, this structure is not registered with the National Register of Historic Structures, putting it in danger of being demolished. Being one of only less than a handful left of its kind in the country, this building should be preserved, restored, and put to a good use that adapts well to its surrounding environment.

The surrounding environment, which includes the residential Linwood neighborhood and the clubs, coffeehouses, boutiques, restaurants and galleries of one of Fort Worth’s most unique streets, West Seventh. West Seventh, according to a Fort Worth Weekly article dated back to July 2002, is slated to become the Deep Ellum of Fort Worth, a unique neighborhood south of downtown Dallas that includes all the aforementioned along with old warehouses that have been converted into large loft-style living spaces. In Deep Ellum, artists, musicians of all ages, and young professionals all mingle, wine, dine, and some even live and work there as well, all creating a real neighborhood feel.

The diversity surrounding the West Seventh neighborhood is a developer’s delight. Combined with a blend of young professionals from the neighboring medical school on West Seventh’s parallel, Camp Bowie, and the flux of artists, actors, and dancers from various Camp Bowie institutions and the Fort Worth Community Arts Center, the Montgomery Ward building could be an established haven for Fort Worth’s diverse creative community - if done correctly. Fort Worth is an oasis for the fine arts. Its vast menu consists of every single type of fine art known. From the amazing singers and musicians of the Fort Worth Opera to the twelve dancers of the Bruce Wood Dance Company to the artistic triumphs sold at Fort Worth’s edgiest gallery, Artspace III, the options are endless in our fine city. However, there is no dedicated neighborhood for artists to thrive and live inexpensively and safely in Fort Worth. The galleries are numerous but so far from each other that gallery hopping on Gallery Night to all of one’s favorite galleries is near impossible. Many galleries are islands lost in seas of gas stations and apartment complexes. The studios are so spread that tourists and even residents would need three or four days just to see all of them! Another group of individuals greatly overlooked in Fort Worth, its authors, playwrights, screenwriters and journalists, also deserve a place of their own. Since the majority of the publishing giants are in the Cultural District-Downtown vicinity, the spot is a prime location for the area’s scribes.

Many cities have firmly established artist’s neighborhoods, places where this group of working individuals can feel comfortable living among their colleagues. Denver has LoDo, New York has Chelsea, TriBeCa, Williamsburg and Morningside Heights and LA has Robertson. It’s time Fort Worth joined the ranks of these cities. The Montgomery Ward building would be the perfect place to begin.
Weber & Co., the recent of a long list of seven developers proposing to buy the building since its closing, has proposed a Towne Center suburban development - a staple development for which they are popular for, with tenants possibly including big box companies like The Home Depot and Super Target. The company’s past and current projects include the mess known as Fort Worth’s Cityview Towne Center and multiple suburban projects in Cedar Hill, Burleson and various Dallas suburbs. Reading their history of development, they have had no former experience with urban development, so why should we trust them with a gem like the Montgomery Ward building?

Referring to my statement about the surrounding neighborhood earlier - the building could be a haven for artists and professionals. But with the current proposal, which includes 220 loft-style apartments overlooking seas of surface parking and the company’s trademark tenant - Super Target. Now, the company says that this development is good for the people of the neighborhood, which I fully support. But, what about the good of the residents? Just imagine, you have just rented an apartment in the building, and you open the blinds of the windows. You would expect to see something straight out of New York City- throngs of people walking, parks, street performers, but instead, your vision focuses on masses of cars, traffic jams in the parking lots themselves and "beautiful" grey concrete. Sure, one would see people walking, but it would be walking to and from their Chevrolet Suburban to one of the major big boxes. If I wanted to own an apartment looking over big boxes, I would buy an apartment on Overton Ridge Boulevard - facing one of Weber’s other catastrophes – the Cityview Towne Center.

Having recently viewed the design plans, I am now at full force to block any selling of a contract or city funding. Not only is the design urban unfriendly, with no street lining sidewalks, which are instead covered by grass and trees - another feature of the Cityview development – but the preservation with the building is minimal. A preliminary design shows that the historic sign will be taken down because it symbolizes "economic failure" and the worst of it all – part of the building will be removed house a drive-in concept- basically to accommodate the people needing to get the parking lots of the two big box tenants.

Looking past the main street of West Seventh, the surrounding neighborhoods of Linwood, Factory Place and Sunset Heights do need basic retail establishments - such as a grocery store, convenience center, laundromat, etc., but why can’t these be established elsewhere instead of on the property of the Montgomery Ward building? Mockingbird Station, the prominent and well-known urban establishment in North Dallas near Greenville Avenue, Dallas’s "other" party district, is a perfect example of putting an historic structure to good use while benefiting the surrounding neighborhoods. The site itself is only two years younger than the Montgomery Ward building and has seen as many changes along the years as the latter. Basically, the site was preserved, excavated, and restored as office space, parking, retail, and residential. But, no actual amenity retail is on the site, discouraging big box retailers from wanting to ruin the significance of such a site. Instead, low rise apartments with a small retail square for basic amenities such as a laundromat, pharmacy and dry cleaners was built and opened opposite to Mockingbird Station with an urban, street-lined Kroger within walking distance of both residential sites.

Unfortunately, the Montgomery Ward building is located on a forty-five acre site, which would mean lots of retail, and since we are in Texas, lots of parking. So, as a twist to the Mockingbird Station development, the warehouse space could be renovated into an artists’ village, complete with studios, galleries, dance studios, classrooms for education, a black box theatre, sidewalk lined parking similar to the Camp Bowie model and possibly a mix of retail and an artists square at the south end near the back entrance of the building. The "community arts center" approach would be a good alternative to surface parking, which if, the building goes under contract with Weber & Co. would probably be what many residents of the south end of the tower would see out their windows- not a great marketing tool. Continuing with the Mockingbird Station comparison, for parking, unfortunately, they had an advantage, which the Montgomery Ward building does not- an already established parking garage, thanks to the multipurpose commercial tower to its left. Luckily, over the years the blights of the architectural corridor, such as automotive repair sites and fast food restaurants have moved and buildings with historical merit immediately surrounding Montgomery Ward are few and far between. Thus, this makes the sites perfect for a mixed-use development of alternative apartments, parking and convenience retail. An act like this would be a renaissance to the downtown community, bringing in a large amount of diversity that could include carpenters, authors, dancers and other various artists types- young and old. The foot traffic the project would bring would also be reminiscent of the days of when Fort Worth was just a young city, thriving with independent business and throngs of people on the street. The presence of the foot traffic would also be another push to the city council to finalize and approve the plans for a commuter rail, an act that would reduce pollution and make our fair city much more attractive to tourists, corporate scouts and citizens alike.

Thank you for your time.

I have a problem with the layout of the whole development. It is nothing more than a suburban development with one compromised historic building sitting on the property. I'm with Andy, if this were a new structure, I would not have a problem cutting a street through the middle of it. Since the Ward building is historic, then I feel the facades should be restored as accurately as possible.

There are also some in the city that want to see the 40 year old neon sign on the north and south sides restored. How do you feel about that, since it was not original to the building and was added at the same time the first floor was altered with the new canopy and blue glazed brick.

The information I have learned from it never ceases to fascinate, and it is wonderful to know to that there are other "Fort Worth-philes" out there, that believe in the same cause I do- improving Fort Worth for the better of its citizens (and Fort Worth.)

If my letter that will be distributed among twenty various groups by the time I have finished fully collecting data on various groups, offends anyone, let me say, first off, and I mean this one hundred percent, I'm sorry. I'm trying not to come off as one who does not care for the good of the people of Linwood, Factory Place and Sunset Heights. I care fully about each individual of fort Worth and feel all should have equal say in what happens in the city- both positive and negative. But, at the same time, I honestly feel that a suburbn developer should not even lay a finger into an urban project, especially concerning a historic structure of this merit. Developers like Weber & Co. are why in fifty years, the generation of then will look back, stare at the various tilt wall structures of Cityview, Crowley, and Deep South Fort Worth, and think "God, how could they stand this?" (Though sometimes I say that about Sundance Square, expecting putting it in the now instead of the future.)

Suburban developers (especially from that town to the east) should stay where they belong- the suburbs.

Goodnight.

Sundancing Away, I would make one correction. Deep Ellum is east of Downtown Dallas.

I also think that you should mention that Cityview Town Center turns its back on an existing man-made lake, which should be an amenity to the project.

Kudos to you, Mr. Roberts. I knew there was something that was irking me about that comment, but I could not tell.

Sundancing, I would love to hear your views about Sundance Square and other projects. Please e-mail me your thoughts.

Thank you for the kudos.

Mr. Roberts-

I feel that the inclusion of the man made lake idea is excellent, but I need to know a few things. (I do believe there is a post somewhere around here on this board, but I am multitasking and its nothing that difficult I don't believe to answer, so I hope you or someone can help make this letter presentable.)

Was any reason stated why the man-made lake development was cut?

Was it supposed to Boardwalk-esque or was it just another Cityview blight that looks bad no matter what?

Is the river branch that flows through the development a Trinity River fork?

Has Weber & Co. been unrealiable in any other development?

Mr. Roberts, around Christmas time, definitly expect cookies!

Don't feel so...uhh, well, I don't know, whatever it is about the age deal. I get that a lot, well, I used to. Not as much anymore, but I'm 17. Don't know your age, and I won't ask, but I thought I would just throw that out there.

By the way, I've done some thinking, and I have come to the conclusion that any vehicular traffic should be reduced, if not eliminated, in this project. Sounds crazy, but it can be done.

I wonder why no-one in the metroplex utilizes rooftop parking. That would seem to be particularly useful in this proposal, freeing up surface area for more retail (revenue, or at least potential revenue) as well as "green space" for the future loft renters. As an example, look into how Rice Village in Houston handles parking - very few surface lots.

Unfortunately, sometimes (often) real estate developers are unbelievable bad at developing real estate - it lies with a lack of vision and most certainly creativity. But often those deficiencies are the result of an inborn laziness provided by plentiful and relatively inexpensive space in which to "create."

I'm not suggesting this is the logic for this project (seems like pure surbanism in this case), but John, isn't there a tendency these days to separate parking structures from the occupied space? I figure they want to keep car/truck bombs from parking where they could take out the structural supports of a building similar to the first World Trade Center attack.

Again, though, no reason not to stack some parking up here.

When I look out my office window to the northwest quadrant of the immediate downtown area, it strikes me how bare it is except for the Church and all the empty parking lots. 5 city blocks of open parking and insignificant buildings in this view. We're trying to minimize vast barren seas of parking lots, not build more.

Another problem I have with these car based retail strips is exemplified in my trips to eat at Souper Salad on Park Lane in Dallas. We ride the rail to the Park Lane Station, and then have to walk about 1-2 blocks to the restaurant. The most direct path is through a parking lot with inadequate sidewalks. We have to walk down the traffic lanes, dodging traffic the whole time.

Anyone planning to go to the public hearings? Federal money is involved, so they are having two more meetings on Aug. 26 and Sept. 2nd. Your chance to tell them what you think of their design.

Although I recognize the shortcomings which Sundancing Away detailed (altering of the facade, heavy surface parking in rear), I believe that this project will be a net positive for Fort Worth.

Positives:

1) Addition of 220 res units (approx 350 residents) to central city, a 19% increase from current inventory
2) Elimination of the quasi-embarrassing dilapidated state of a major building in a high-profile corridor
3) Stopping the continued decay of the building
4) New retail momentum - with two big ones, retail traffic will increase, bringing more retail critical mass in city's center
5) New retail buildings built to Foch St, not set back behind parking lots
6) Greater windowline in center of building after being opened up

Negatives:

1) Facade changes.
2) Large surface parking
3) Risk that developer will not execute redevelopment "well"

The site plan does include a ton of surface parking, however it appears to be designed to accommodate additional development (along axis north of MW Building) with the addition of structured parking immediately to the south of the Home Depot and Super Target. This site plan is scalable.

Hey, build it. I'd hate to see Fort Worth miss this chance to be more like Arlington.

Vandals.

funniest post of 2003, Donnie. So declared.

Unlike many of you (purists?), I have no affinity for a building simply because it is old. This site was built for function when it went up. Time has not anointed this building with grandeur. It was the 1928 version of bix-box structures. A Home Depot or Wal-Mart store, 75 years from now, will not be worth keeping or restoring to its original condition for posterity's sake alone.

That having been said, the current renderings are a big improvement over what is there now. Modifying the existing structure with the wind tunnel improves the appeal of the structure--at least to me--and provides for a visual departure from the ordinary big-box setting. With some decent landscaping I think the site could remain functional and take on some appeal as well.

I hope they keep and restore the old multi-paned windows and don't go with some large-paned conventional commercial windows to replace them. The character of the warehouse relies on details like that.

Any idea what the cost difference is between restoring the old windows (or buying new ones that resemble the old ones) versus putting in conventional single or 4-pane windows?

Since I'm trying to get a consensus on how we feel about the proposal for the historic store, I would appreciate it if discussion on the 1928 building would be posted here over in Historic Buildings and Preservation. Also, please vote for your opinion of the project. I have set up a poll to express your opinions.l

I would also like to ask everyone to discuss the new portions of the project here. I know it is hard to separate everything out, but I would like to let the City Council know how the forum participants feel on the project as a whole and the adaptive re-use of the 1928 store and warehouse.

Well, I have been somewhat of a lurker on the forum to this point but this is the topic that has caused me to speak up.

As one who grew up in FW (now living in Omaha) I have many memories of driving past the old MW building while it was still bustling with activity and, more recently, while it stood empty. After some internal tug-of-war, I find myself with a negative feeling about the recently announced plans.

I am thrilled to see the grand old building have a chance to come to life again. It's hard to be against this kind of ambitious development: new, large-scale retail development in a non-suburban area, new residential in a non-suburban area, the chance for an improved streetscape.

Then there's the other part of me that says, "Can't this be acheived without blowing a hole into the front of a 75 year old landmark?" I think it can. While the idea is exciting and the design is unique, it just seems wrong.

JHorton, welcome to the forum. I agree with you.

I'm all for historic preservation, but face it guys, sometimes an old building must be altered as the neighborhood and use of the building changes. I like the new design, and I think the tunnel through the building is unique, especially for FW. Don't get me wrong, althought I had to move to Dallas I still love Cowtown, but it is lacking in imaginative architecture. Even though the parking will be surburban in style, I'm going to save my comments about the development being surburban in design until I see the architecture of the retailers.

About the overall project plan:

As mentioned in the other post, not a big fan of the 'archway' but if that is what it takes to get moving on this project so be it. I am concerned about the roadway though. How about just a pedestrian passageway or preferably leave it alone.

Could SuperTarget just move into the first floor of the existing building, or could some sort of other big box, Staples, etc. Use the rest of for small shops, bars and restaurants.

I will agree the last post I will hold on bashing the suburban style big boxes until I see renderings, but I am willing to comment on the rest of the plot.

Placing retail along Carroll St to block the expansive parking is a good idea. placing the big boxes at the very back of the project is good.

On the parking could they not place a structure in the back center along the railroad tracks? I know it sounds bad shopping at Home Depot or Super Target to get to a parking garage, but I know Home Depot has done it before when they really want into a market.

If the parking lot is broken into smaller lots with greenbelts and trees separating each lot I could see some promise.

One thing to keep in mind is the aspect of apartment units. The way they "cut" through the middle of the building, they probably added another 100 units or so. If it was one big "box" like it is now, you're limited to apartment units only facing the outside...what would go in the middle?

By cutting it in half, they are able to put units in the middle with the windows facing the new tunnel/street.

That said, I'm still a little torn with what will be going on behind the building. I think I would cringe a little when I drive over the river and my attention is sent to the two large structures in the back with large red and orange signs...instead of the grand entrance of the MW Building.

As for the Montgomery Wards sign on top, why not build a new one that says "Montgomery Plaza"? Red letters, same "font", same look and feel as the current sign?

Just some random thoughts...

Oops. After making my way to the other forum, I saw where the building is already a "U" shaped building. I assumed it was a large box. Then the cutting through the middle really isn't necessary, IMHO.

John, although the building has some historic value, that value is lost if the entire building is torn down, which is where we were headed. Unfortunately, one has to balance the desire to preserve the historic facade with today's economic reality. I like the look and concept of the plan. It remains true to the original, but works in today's economic environment. This building is simply too large to be converted to modern usage without major changes. I'm afraid the alternative is much less appealing.

I will agree that the alternative could be demolition. In Mitchell Schnurman's article, it was mentioned that Super Targer originally wanted the historic building demolished. The developer and city have reached the point where we are now with the building preserved, but the facade compromised. If you wish to discuss the historic building more, please go to the topic under Historic Buildings and Preservation.

Looks like suburbia to me. Acres of concrete interrupted by a few buildings. Nothing walkable among them without traversing a long empty space.

It's disgusting.

Thank goodness we have a landscape ordinance that requires a few trees.

I think the project could be much better if it were more "urban" and had parking garages instead of "a sea of concrete". The only way that I would support the project as designed would be to restore the facade of the Montgomery Ward Building. I know that I'm lowering my standards, but I realize that I should compromise. Weber & Company, restore the building, and I can support your suburban style development.

Ok ill catch some heat also.I Think they need to go alonge with the project.As it stands now and as some want it.Its one massive box.I hope in the year 2078 that the next gereration will not restore the origional black holes tunnels that surround the Tandy Center.after we in 2003 talk about opening up this area after Radio Shack moves to its new home.

P.S. As I have my not so fond opinion about suberia. Its not them that have asphalt seas in shopping areas.Look at Ridgmar Mall.And older strip centers all over our city.Very Very ugly.

When I saw that, it immediately reminded me of the new retail development on the South end of North East Mall. Then, I felt a cold shiver down my spine.

I personally think Weber is on the wrong track with this project. I would love to see a true urban village at this location with the Wards store as the anchor. With as much land that is available here, surely something could be designed that resembles a commercial district within a city, not suburbia. However, the most important part of this whole development is the 1928 Wards Catalog Warehouse and Retail Store. If the price for putting in a suburban development to pay to restore the facade of the building, then I would say that I am for the project. When I say "restore" in this context, I mean a true restoration. I don't consider knocking down 1/4 of the Seventh Street facade and bridging between the two buildings restoration.

Let me get this straight.

In the middle of a city that is truly doing an urban renaissance, people favor desecrating a historic building and using the result as the "centerpiece" of a standard suburban big box development. Because that's all it is, folks. It's like using a cathedral to anchor a mall.

Have we lost our minds, or our collective soul?

That being "said," I don't have so much admiration for the building that I can't accept its modification. But it needs to be for a larger purpose. This is trashy, not uplifting. If the same reshaping of the Wards building was needed to create a pedestrian arcade, or to support a bustling collection of shops and living spaces that provided a growth opportunity to the surrounding streets, then sure, let the ideas flow! But this is a power center hiding behind the skirts of a grand dame. If there is such a thing as chickens**t planning, this is a textbook example.

I am still feeling fairly positive about this whole thing. How many opportunities will we have to get this property developed into something that will be an asset to the central city before the next tornado comes through and finishes it off for good!

Now, I have the following questions:
(1) How much parking is actually needed here? Is this project planned as a regional center on the scale of say a Hulen Mall.
(2) Where and how could the river be incorporated into the site plan?
(3) Can the rail corridor on the eastern edge of the site be incorporated into the site plan for public transit?

I have not had time to post in awhile, but I have been keeping up with everything. . .

Greg, I totally agree with you. I'd be willing to tolerate the alteration of the building in conjunction with a quality project, but not for this. There are going to be restaurant pad sites, too. Just what the Cultural District needed, a f***ing Applebees.

Another development that has escaped coverage is the attempt to stretch the downtown TIF west of the river to cover that area. There is potential to generate an enormous increment from this, but there has been little public discussion of where it will go.

Sam, it is good to have you posting when you can.

I do have a problem with the whole development. Why can't we get quality retail projects here? The design for this site should be urban in nature, using the Wards store as the centerpiece. The character of the project should be similar to the West Village and Mockingbird Station.

It's tough to attract good urban developers when we (as a city) are busy growing outward with our investments and policies. Why should anyone expect Fort Worth to continue developing the center city when, between Walsh Ranch and the Southwest Parkway we are about to open thousands of acres to typical LA style sprawl? We've already built water lines out toward Alliance to help development out there, too.

Fort Worth has done a good job of reinvesting in the city center, but we are spreading ourselves thin. Our existing infrastructure is not being repaired so the city can "set aside" $30 million for that parkway, for example. You can be sure developers pay attention to such things. High quality developers avoid places that do such "creative financing."

I saw this building when I was in Baltimore in July. They did it right - even from a mile or two away, it looms impressively over the area.

It had a similar red neon sign on the top, and they simply changed the "W" and the "D" to a "P" and a "K" so it brightly spells out "MONTGOMERY PARK" - the name of the redevelopment.

Granted, the retail approach would probably work better in FW than the business-park approach - but why not do it in a way that maintains the integrity of the original building? I like the West Village or Mockingbird Station comparisons - I live near those two projects and visit them fairly often.

What do you think of this?

http://www.montgomerypark.com/

Another good example closer to home of how to do it right is the old Sears catalog center in Dallas. It is located in the once fashionable but long since very dangerous neighborhood just south of downtown known as "The Cedars" (named after a grove of trees that was in the area prior to the city's establishment). Most of it has been converted into apartments. The complex is much bigger than our Ward's building and was by no means in as desirable a location. Successfully finding another use for the Sears complex was a much bigger challenge than it is for our Montgomery Ward bulding. Nevertheless, the Sears complex has remained intact, the project has been successful and the old neon Sears sign remains with lettering altered to reflect the name of the apartments and thus continues to add a bit of light and life to the nighttime skyline.

One thing that puzzles me about the Montgomery Wards project - how come only now is demolition as the only alternative to botching up the exterior being brought up? I never heard anything mentioned before about the building being endangered - probably because it would cost a fortune to tear the thing down if the taxpayers were not forking over the funds. I think most people have always assumed that it would be just a matter of time before someone came along and found a project to restore it - as is the general assumption most people have about the T&P freight depot.

The article in the paper suggests that the roof near the point of collapse. Well, okay - but is that such a big deal in the scheme of things? It is a concrete building with absolutely nothing of significance on the inside. In that respect, it is very much like the T&P depot which has actually been home to several tire fires and junk fires over the years with absolutely zero damage to the building except for a few black soot marks on the exterior brick that can be easily water blasted away. Unlike the Baker Hotel in Mineral Wells where the hotel's original carpeting and interior decor is rotting away because of its bad roof - water pouring into the Montgomery Wards building is not going to really hurt in the long run. Even in the case of the Baker, the damage caused by the bad roof is primarily cosmetic. With the Montgomery Ward building, there is absolutely nothing of cosmetic value on the inside to worry about. And if the roof is indeed in such bad condition that it is on the verge of collapse, the whole thing is probably going to have to be replaced whether it collapses or not. I doubt that its collapse would add all that much to the cost of any project - except for perhaps a bit more expense for the removal of debris.

If the project is indeed as risky as the Star-Telegram article makes it out to be, then it will not be built at all if the city does not fork over the money. If that happens, I seriously doubt that the building will be demolished. Demolishing the building would be very expensive and, at present, I don't see that there is much that would make it worth anyone's while to do so. My guess is the building would simply sit dark for a little while longer until someone else comes along with another proposal to turn it into apartments or something else.

As much as I would love to see a Super Target (and even a Home Depot so long as it is better than that absolutely awful one in White Settlement) go in so close to downtown, so long as they continue to talk about this utterly tacky idea of forever botching up a nice historic building, my hope is that the project somehow falls through.

The developers of Montgomery Park tried to purchase our building, but the deal fell through. Dismuke, as for the roof collapse, the problems compound when the concrete roof structure itself is compromised. If that collapses, the failure can translate all the way through the building. Because of the lack of details, we don't know what the state of the structure of the building at the roof actually is, so we can't make a reasonable judgment on the issue.

Dismuke, as for the roof collapse, the problems compound when the concrete roof structure itself is compromised. If that collapses, the failure can translate all the way through the building.

By "concrete roof structure" are you meaning the walls and perhaps interiror columns that the roof is attached to? If it were indeed on the verge of collapse, would there likely be signs that would be visible from the outside either on the walls or from a flyover in an airplane?

Also - the columnist in the Star-Telegram when talking about the risk involved with the project, stated that the SuperTargets have not performed as well as has been hoped. That may well be the case - but regardless, my home delivered copy of today's Dallas Morning News was wrapped in a plastic cover announcing the grand opening today of 5 new Metroplex SuperTargets. Presumably, if they are going to invest the money needed to open 5 locations, they either expect the store's prospects to improve in the future or they believe that even if the grocery end is only marginally profitable, it is necessary to include them in their new stores in order to keep up with Wal-Mart whose supercenters are profitable. Since Wal-mart is planning on building a supercenter on the other side of downtown, I would think that might add a bit of pressure for Target to counter it accordingly - but then again, I know very little about retail so my "thoughts" on the matter might very well be off the mark. The Star-Telegram columnist does speculate that the talk about the supercenters not performing might well be Target playing "hard to get."

Of TGT's financial results for 2002 does not reveal too much regarding "SuperTarget" in that the company does not break out their results from ordinary Targets. I can state that the "street" has been impressed with TGT's performance of late - regardless of the "SuperTargets'" presume performance as reported by M Schnurman. Also, because of the nature of retailing groceries, I am skeptical of the notion that TGT expected higher performance from the "SuperTargets". Dis, I missed the speculation on the Startlegram columnist's behalf, unless we read and are opining on different articles. My read was that he (the columnist) was somewhat of a cheerleader for the developer.

I could not agree with you more.

This whole mentality of spreading outward is self-defeating the goal of creating a dynamic central city. It is why I become so livid when our city leaders choose to construct tollways and commuter trains rail links over the development of a comprehensive central city transit program. With all the available infill area of this city, why must we spend millions of dollars to placate people who for whatever reasons chose to live miles and miles away from their places of employment?