68 replies to this topic

[Stadtplan]

For those of you dialed in on this, is it fair to characterize the likely public opinion about the two teams this way:

 

Garfield proposal (and team): evolutionary change, less conceptually risky. Continuation of the existing vibe and energy level of the Cultural District (light to moderate activity specifically for museums/arts events and attractions, plus some for restaurants/cafes.  Bennett Partners. 

 

Goldenrod proposal (and team):  more ambitious change, more urban feeling, more uses, more energy, but less green space.  More execution risk (adding uses introduces more pieces that have to perform well together and success appears to rely on public space programming which people will prob understand has some execution risk).  Gensler. 

 

Wonder how much the architecture firm matters - meaning their portfolio and likely design of this.  Seems BP included some concept renderings but Gensler didn't aside from massing diagram.  Did it seem that the anyone expressing opinions was influenced by whether BP or Gensler would be the best fit for this project?

 

Did they address funding at all?  It would seem that the Goldenrod proposal is based on the opportunity to use the existing site to help subsidize the non-profit parts, however I dont see how that happens in the Garfield proposal.  Might have missed though. 

 

Here's the scope of the RFP and the scoring criteria:

 

Closed: September 14, 2023, 01:30 PM

Reference number: 23-0071

Status: Complete

Summary: The City of Fort Worth (City) invites highly qualified firms to participate in this Request for Proposal (RFP) to establish an agreement to reimagine Community Arts Center at 1300 Gendy Street, Fort Worth, Texas as a world-class cultural hub and redevelop the property accordingly.

 

Bid Package: https://supplier.for...cyLjYwLjAuMA..

 

 

[Crestline]

For those of you dialed in on this, is it fair to characterize the likely public opinion about the two teams this way:

 

Garfield proposal (and team): evolutionary change, less conceptually risky. Continuation of the existing vibe and energy level of the Cultural District (light to moderate activity specifically for museums/arts events and attractions, plus some for restaurants/cafes.  Bennett Partners. 

 

Goldenrod proposal (and team):  more ambitious change, more urban feeling, more uses, more energy, but less green space.  More execution risk (adding uses introduces more pieces that have to perform well together and success appears to rely on public space programming which people will prob understand has some execution risk).  Gensler. 

 

Generally yes, although I'm hesitant to characterize Goldenrod's proposal as more ambitious, more urban, or more energetic. Someone could make cogent arguments that Garfield's proposal actually wins each of those three categories. 

 

Did they address funding at all?  It would seem that the Goldenrod proposal is based on the opportunity to use the existing site to help subsidize the non-profit parts, however I dont see how that happens in the Garfield proposal.  Might have missed though. 

 

I think the Garfield proposal relies on "anchor tenants" to fund their proposed new art center. Such anchor tenants would be arts and culture focused, in contrast with Goldenrod's residential and hospitality for-profit uses.

[Stadtplan]

I'm a little late to the conversation, but realizing that the City clearly outlined in their RFP that they prefer this site to be a redevelopment project and for there to be a sustainable management model.  When they say sustainable, I believe they're referring to financially sustainable.  I haven't studied the City of Fort Worth Economic Development Strategic Plan, but it seems like there's a broad shift away from large / expensive facilities being either a money drain or break even, to redevelopments that will generate revenue for other city projects and "Impact upon the City’s capital and operating budgets through increased revenue collection."  I would suspect that the Arts Center in its current format does not add to the city's HOT revenue in any meaningful way but perhaps I'm overlooking something.

 

Possible Development Strategies

• Option A. Restoration: Make all necessary repairs and retain existing uses.

• Option B. Renovation: Make all necessary repairs, renovate the building incrementally, and attract complementary uses.

• Option C. Redevelopment: Reimagine 1300 Gendy as a world-class cultural hub and redevelop the property accordingly.

Note: All three options would require a new management model to be sustainable.

 

 

from the scoring criteria above:

Economic: Impact upon economic activity in the Cultural District and Fort Worth as a whole

•Plan to attract a large number of local, national and international visitors who stay in hotels and local lodging and make contributions to the local economy through sales and HOT taxes.

•Plan for the redevelopment to serve as a catalytic project that would likewise have a domino-effect of other world-class facilities being built in and around Fort Worth proper.

•Demonstrates alignment with the City of Fort Worth Economic Development Strategic Plan.

 

Financial: Impact upon the City’s capital and operating budgets through increased revenue collection caused by the development.

•Impact on sales tax, hotel occupancy tax, job creation, etc.

•Ability to fund the project without City incentives or funding.

•A pro forma showing anticipated cash flow and funding is preferred.

 

Current P&L statement from Art Center included in the RFP:

[Stadtplan]

From the Oct 11, 2023 community feedback meeting, I was under the impression the task force would take into consideration the two presentations and public input and make a decision.  So where are they with that decision?  I'm not really seeing any news on the project timeline: 

 

https://www.fortwort...rces/1300-gendy

[steave]

I see that someone already posted it on the other thread, but what if you integrated a library into the community arts center? This would replace the downtown library.

 

I think the new role that libraries have nowadays in the internet era would really combine well with an arts center. You'd have literary arts events, you'd have kids events, etc. The library could have spaces for creating artsy things. Both the library and the arts center could effectively overflow into one another for use of space like meeting rooms without much conflict, since their programmed functions would be so similar.

 

I guess the one thing a library in the arts center wouldn't be oriented towards would be computer labs for people who need to get online, which would attract homeless people who would be a nuisance in a place where you'd want people to feel safe. For that maybe you'd have a second downtown "micro library" in a leased storefront on Sundance Square or something, just a computer room that has a little reading area to the side that can lend books from other branches upon request and receive the occasional return.

[Stadtplan]

I see that someone already posted it on the other thread, but what if you integrated a library into the community arts center? This would replace the downtown library.

 

I think the new role that libraries have nowadays in the internet era would really combine well with an arts center. You'd have literary arts events, you'd have kids events, etc. The library could have spaces for creating artsy things. Both the library and the arts center could effectively overflow into one another for use of space like meeting rooms without much conflict, since their programmed functions would be so similar.

 

I originally thought moving the library here would be a grand idea, but there's two problems:

 

a) The city already spent the money from the sale of the old library to help pay for the new city hall

b ) The city is interested in it utilizing prime real estate for generating revenue.

 

Unfortunately, it feels like the city sees groups like the public library and FW Community Arts Center more as a drain on resources rather than a community asset and I get the feeling they see these groups as incapable of covering some of their own costs, especially aging infrastructure. So here we are, entertaining mixed-use high-rise hotels and multi-family developments in order to pay the bills / keep the lights on because these groups are / were sitting on highly desirable land and its too good of a deal for the city to pass up to redevelop this into something else.

[John T Roberts]

The city should be supporting the library and the arts instead of looking at these services as a drain on resources.

[roverone]

The city should be supporting the library and the arts instead of looking at these services as a drain on resources.

 

I completely agree with this; but I wonder if there is really enough grassroots citizen "pull" for these kinds of things any more, particularly when the city is tight on budget for many of the even more basic infrastructure needs.  Just another example of how we would be better off if we could energize our economy with non-residential tax base growth.

[Austin55]

Historic Fort Worth recently posted about the revised proposals from each Developer. You can view the updated proposals here: https://historicfort...ve-arts-center/

 

Goldenrod's new packet is quite in depth and included several renderings. I've posted a few here but there are many more in the link above. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garfield also has a new update, but the only visuals are new siteplans/floorplans. 

 

[Stadtplan]

If you look at the date of those revision packets, they have been out for 2.5 months (since late Oct / early Nov) and the city couldn't bother updating their task force project website?

[Austin55]

Fort Worth Report article on the latest: https://fortworthrep...-delayed-again/

 

Final proposals due in April.

[Stadtplan]

Fort Worth Report article on the latest: https://fortworthrep...-delayed-again/

 

Final proposals due in April.

 

Interesting that the revised proposals haven't addressed all of the committee's questions.  They also want more information about the developers' business plans. 

[Austin55]

I'm not sure how to feel about either option. Goldenrod's looks cool, and I'm glad to see the Scott theater preserved, but the size of it feels incompatible with the location. Garfield's is a bit better scaled, and I'm glad it preserves the trees and parts of the gallery space. 

[Stadtplan]

Goldenrod's design seems rather ambitious but those towers aren't very exciting in this current format other than I would imagine they reach around 120' tall which I'm still trying to figure out if it fits here or not....is it a good thing here? And they nestle Scott theater in such a way that it just sort of disappears from view. 

 

This kind of reminds me of Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis.  There was nothing particularly inspiring about the (original) exterior as you approached the building but the interior certainly captures your imagination.

 

A 1975 photo of the newly constructed Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis.Steve Plattner/Minnesota Historical Society

 

 

A GREENER ORCHESTRA HALL

In 2019, Orchestra Hall became the first performing arts center in the U.S. to be awarded LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) v4 O+M Silver certification, attesting that the building is greener, cleaner and more energy-efficient than before.

 

[roverone]

I don't particularly like the underlying idea of consuming what I have felt is our public space with these kinds of commercial developments -- residential and even the hotel -- restaurants seem ok, because they are available for casual public use.  I have appreciated the scale of buildings along the boulevard of Lancaster and the diagonal connection to the patio of the Amon Carter.  I would hate to see that view and scale broken, and that park-like area destroyed.

 

The Garfield proposal properly respects this idea, the Goldenrod does not.

 

I understand that there is a general economic and funding issue here.  Honestly I'd rather see the city clear the defective buildings and just build the park part of the Garfield proposal and start some kind of fundraising process rather than forever change the nature of that space in some rush to do "something".

 

As far as architecture -- I think it is important for these buildgins to look good from the outside, as well as the inside.  I want the architecture to delight and invite the people passing by.  Not a "hidden gem" like that orchestra hall might be.  Many more people pass by than attend events inside, and they deserve to smile at the building from the outside and be proud of what our city has.

[rriojas71]

I wish Goldenrod would start construction on their other projects first and actually build something instead of just giving us renderings for different projects in the area.   

[Crestline]

As far as architecture -- I think it is important for these buildgins to look good from the outside, as well as the inside.  I want the architecture to delight and invite the people passing by.  Not a "hidden gem" like that orchestra hall might be.  Many more people pass by than attend events inside, and they deserve to smile at the building from the outside and be proud of what our city has.

 

Anecdotally, last weekend I asked a staffer inside the Community Arts Center if it was experiencing an influx of visitors from the ongoing rodeo and stock show foot traffic, and received a negative response. I'm not sure whether this says more about the invitational qualities of the existing buildings, or about the average rodeo and stock show tourist.   

 

Goldenrod's design seems rather ambitious but those towers aren't very exciting in this current format other than I would imagine they reach around 120' tall which I'm still trying to figure out if it fits here or not....is it a good thing here? 

 

I think yes, in general, tall towers could actually be a good thing in the cultural district. 

[george84]

I think so too, they are about the same height as the UNT HSC building across the street.

[TLA]

Anecdotally, last weekend I asked a staffer inside the Community Arts Center if it was experiencing an influx of visitors from the ongoing rodeo and stock show foot traffic, and received a negative response. I'm not sure whether this says more about the invitational qualities of the existing buildings, or about the average rodeo and stock show tourist.   
 
I think yes, in general, tall towers could actually be a good thing in the cultural district.

I have a family member who works at the Kimbell. They told me the museum has seen a larger influx of visitors during the rodeo. I think it’s the former.