68 replies to this topic

[John T Roberts]

The City of Fort Worth is having a Public Hearing at 6:00 PM on March 30 to determine the future of the Fort Worth Community Arts Center.  The link to more information on the City's website is located here:

 

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

[JBB]

Hey, the city bought a facility and let it deteriorate to the point that they can't afford to maintain it.  I'm shocked!

[Stadtplan]

Renovate it into a library.  Why do we really need one downtown anyways / what's the difference?

[John T Roberts]

More on the Community Arts Center from KERA:

 

https://www.keranews...ity-arts-center

[Dismuke]

From the KERA article:

 

"According to a 2022 assessment from the architecture firm Bennett Partners, the cost of necessary repairs is about $26 million."

 

I am guessing that there are a few people here who might be able to answer the question I have on this: does that $26 million figure sound right to you?   That strikes me as being unusually large. 

 

A few years ago when they started the complete restoration of the Baker Hotel in Mineral Wells, the cost for that was $73 million.  And that is a 14 story skyscraper that had significantly deteriorated after sitting empty for almost 50 years and requiried completely new infrastructure such as plumbing, electrical, HVAC, elevators, etc. 

 

Now I do know that, since then, we have experienced a definite uptick in inflation exacerbated by supply chain issues.  But even with that - $26 million for art center repairs verses $73 million for a building as large as and as badly deteriorated as the Baker doesn't strike me as making sense.   

 

Perhaps there is something I am not taking into consideration. 

[Urbndwlr]

Good question.  Yes, it sounds heavy but I havent dug into the scope included in that number.  Saw KERA article mentioned flooding, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and accessibility. 

If they have to replace all HVAC, electrical equipment (apparently super expensive today) and move a bunch of things around to make it accessible, that could really add up. 

I think of what they had to do to TCU's basketball arena to make it ADA accessible it must have been a major mess b/c the old RRs were down some stairs from the main concourse if memory serves.

Again, I haven't looked into it but I do know that sometimes making pre-ADA buildings comply with current ADA code can becomes expensive quickly.

 

I hope that budget is loaded up with lots of fluff so can be brought down a bit.

 

I also dont yet have an opinion on its best use.  It is a great looking building in an excellent location for a museum.  Worth noting that you never know when a building like that could really be valuable for a future use in 10+ years, if they decide not to use for the African American (name?) museum in the short run.

[Stadtplan]

Here's a presentation made by the 1300 Gendy Task Force discussing historic tax credits.

 

https://www.fortwort...ts-02-23-23.pdf

[Volare]

Here is the presentation of everything that went into that $26 million figure:
 https://www.fortwort...y-pages-1-3.pdf

[Stadtplan]

Here is the presentation of everything that went into that $26 million figure:
 https://www.fortwort...y-pages-1-3.pdf

I was looking for that the other night, how did you find it? If $26M was based on last years figures, shall we assume that it is $30M+ now?

[Austin55]

I am very concerned with what I have heard has been discussed in the meetings. I hope that a solution can be found/fundraised and that we don't lose this great piece of modernist architecture. 

[Austin55]

A nice update from Fort Worth Report: https://fortworthrep...siders-options/

 

It sounds like at least a portion of the building would be saved, most likely the theater from what I've heard. 

[Austin55]

A fantastic video by a group looking to save the building (and it's functions)

 

https://www.facebook...40792975678827/

 

Their website: https://www.supportfortworthart.org/

 

Incredible to see the grassroots support that has been gathered up by this building. 

[John T Roberts]

That's a nice video.  I hope that it will persuade some people that the building is worth saving.

[Stadtplan]

S-T (Harrison Mantas) wrote a piece on this:

Cultural District landmark too old to save: What will be Fort Worth arts centers fate?

https://www.star-tel...e276186686.html

[John T Roberts]

It appears that placing the Community Arts Center on Historic Fort Worth's Most Endangered List was a smart move.  From the task force's recommendation, the demolition may be more eminent than anyone thought.

[Stadtplan]

S-T Opinion piece:

"Water Gardens, Botanic Gardens and now Community Arts Center: Fort Worth’s a failure | Opinion"

https://www.star-tel...l#storylink=cpy

[txbornviking]

 

S-T Opinion piece:

"Water Gardens, Botanic Gardens and now Community Arts Center: Fort Worth’s a failure | Opinion"

https://www.star-tel...l#storylink=cpy

 

 

privatization through neglect... 

[JBB]

Hey, the city bought a facility and let it deteriorate to the point that they can't afford to maintain it.  I'm shocked!

 

I've said it before and I'll say again.  There is few worse property owners in Fort Worth than the city itself.  Remember that the next time someone suggests that the best answer for the T&P Warehouse is government seizure.

[Jeriat]

 

Hey, the city bought a facility and let it deteriorate to the point that they can't afford to maintain it.  I'm shocked!

 

I've said it before and I'll say again.  There is few worse property owners in Fort Worth than the city itself.  Remember that the next time someone suggests that the best answer for the T&P Warehouse is government seizure.

 

 

Not drifting from your point, but I will continue to beat the "T&P - W Hotel" drum until I can't anymore... 

[Crestline]

I've said it before and I'll say again.  There is few worse property owners in Fort Worth than the city itself.  Remember that the next time someone suggests that the best answer for the T&P Warehouse is government seizure.

 

I get your point, but I think in the case of the T&P Warehouse after a hypothetical eminent domain seizure the city would immediately hand it off to qualified private developers. 

[JBB]

I don't trust the city to do that without screwing it up.

[RD Milhollin]

 

I've said it before and I'll say again.  There is few worse property owners in Fort Worth than the city itself.  Remember that the next time someone suggests that the best answer for the T&P Warehouse is government seizure.

 

I get your point, but I think in the case of the T&P Warehouse after a hypothetical eminent domain seizure the city would immediately hand it off to qualified private developers. 

 

I know there is precedent in Rhode Island for seizing property via eminent domain for private sector use but that sort of thing in Fort Worth would probably not go down without a lot of new noise. If the property could be condemned as a public nuisance, health or safety hazard, "effective abandonment", etc the seizure could be better justified, IMO. The owner must be paid FMV in any case, I suppose "net fair market value" would apply, tax roll value minus costs to bring it back to a habitable/inspectable state?

[Big Frog II]

We have got to do a better job of keeping our public places up to date.  Look at the Heritage Park, Water Gardens, Botanic Gardens, and now this.  Our track record stinks.

[JBB]

That's why I cringe at the idea of what's happening with the Forest Park pool.  Aquatic centers are very expensive to operate and maintain and the city's track record is abysmal.

[txbornviking]

That's why I cringe at the idea of what's happening with the Forest Park pool.  Aquatic centers are very expensive to operate and maintain and the city's track record is abysmal.

 

with the Forest Park Pool it almost seems like we got "lucky" the city didn't try to privatize it like the Botanic Gardens or FWCAC...

[Stadtplan]

 

That's why I cringe at the idea of what's happening with the Forest Park pool.  Aquatic centers are very expensive to operate and maintain and the city's track record is abysmal.

 

with the Forest Park Pool it almost seems like we got "lucky" the city didn't try to privatize it like the Botanic Gardens or FWCAC...

 

 

Is privatization good or bad?  Didn't the city turn over the zoo to be run by a 501( c )3?  That seems to be working out.

[JBB]

The Botanic Gardens was privatized after the city let it spiral into terrible condition.  I doubt it would have completely failed and it's a little early to call it a success, but I would say privatization has been good.  Even going private doesn't appear to be enough to save FWCAC.  I would feel more comfortable about the pool's future if it had gone private.  Without some private fundraising, the most recent iteration of the pool would have been gone years ago.  Those funds temporarily saved it from demolition.

[Crestline]

The City of Fort Worth is having a Public Hearing at 6:00 PM on March 30 to determine the future of the Fort Worth Community Arts Center.  The link to more information on the City's website is located here:

 

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

 

The October meeting announced in the above March notice is imminent:

 

https://www.fortwort...ndy-meeting-oct

 

Four developers will present their proposals!

[Stadtplan]

The City of Fort Worth is having a Public Hearing at 6:00 PM on March 30 to determine the future of the Fort Worth Community Arts Center.  The link to more information on the City's website is located here:
 
https://www.fortwort...pics/1300-gendy

 
The October meeting announced in the above March announcement is imminent:
 
https://www.fortwort...ndy-meeting-oct
 
Four developers will present their proposals!

Interesting list:
Garfield Public/Private LLC
Goldenrod Services LLC
M2G Ventures LLC
The Projects Group.

[Austin55]

Anyone going to meeting tonight?

[Stadtplan]

Anyone going to meeting tonight?

Only two presentations:

[rriojas71]

Thanks for sharing Nitixope.

 

Guess that means there is no saving the building.  Was there anything of interest in the presentation?

[Stadtplan]

Thanks for sharing Nitixope.
 
Guess that means there is no saving the building.  Was there anything of interest in the presentation?

Goldenrod is proposing a third development here with PPP tax incentives of course, they were recommending scraping the site, building a 250 space garage, another 10-story 175-key autograph hotel, a public access arts center space and i forget how many resi units like 225 perhaps in 10-stories or less. Currie (sp?) would company managing the hospitality venues (same as Sinclair downtown), sorry I just barely caught him mention that part. People could rent indoor outdoor spaces for events, weddings etc.

I missed the first presentation. People seemed very annoyed only two firms were short-listed, where were the other two?

[Stadtplan]

So the question I asked Goldenrod essentially was...with The Van Zandt and the One University "The Mullet" projects already pending tax incentives by the city council, is it really necessary to add a third development to this equation including another 175-key AC Autograph hotel two blocks away and does the Van Zandt or Mullet projects get short-changed if this new deal is more appealing to Goldenrod?  The guy from Goldenrod said the ROI to the city / taxpayer is greater than the incentives being offered over the project lifecycle, but that he would propose a fourth development in this area right now if they had the property for it and that he felt like this area has been starved for this kind of development for a long time.  He also cited the Bowie house hotel and new Museum Place projects as good examples of meeting this demand, of course both of which are still in their infancy to really gauge their success, but I didn't argue that point.

 

I think if the city chooses Goldenrod, it feels to me like they might be biting off a bit more than they can chew, specifically the point I raised about supply and demand. The other two projects have very long construction schedules, and a lot can change between now and the end of 2026 and 2027.  It also feels like this type of development at the Arts Center is right smack dab in the middle of the cultural district and it takes away from the feel of the other museums around it.  Sure, would it be nice to walk out your door from a hotel or apartment and head over to a museum or event at Dickies, yes, but it seems out-of-balance for this specific location, that's just my gut feeling.  I'm really not that interested in vertical development here in this spot as I would be creating a more respectful arts center, that could be used for any number of events and exhibits, I just wasn't expecting such a heavy private development element in this whole deal. 

 

The arts community raised a lot of important concerns too, some of which addressed accessibility (not handicap) but accessibility by the public to a largely private development. Some artists questioned if there would be censorship involved in art selections and placements due to the type of commercial use property, the developer did mention some portion of the residential would be designated affordable for artist which I thought was kind of insulting to even suggest that.  Lots of questions about public and arts community input during this process but Goldenrod reiterated that all they've done so far is respond in writing to the city's RFP and Gensler's team of 10+ people put together an idea sharing presentation they gave tonight.  He did also mention that Gensler has an entire team that does nothing but community engagement. 

 

It appears like Gensler / Goldenrod wants to create a multi-use, multi-function art-themed amenities and event venue space that could be rented out like a conference center but I missed part of the presentation.  It really felt like the existing art center has a lot of special meaning to the community and to replace it like this bacon-wrapped in a commercial development just feels kind of slimy, at least that was the vibe I was getting.  I think from the City's point of view, they are really struggling with the $26M renovation cost, and trying to think creatively how to bring in a developer and make a better use of this space than what is currently being used.  To put such a heavy emphasis on the private profitable part of a PPP in order to justify the existing of the public part of the equation, it seems like this is being packaged very similar to the library deal.  In the name of cutting costs and tightening budgets for the greater good, eventually the original inhabitants of the space get the boot and by the time it is all said and done, it's just another commercial development, with bits and pieces of public use...maybe. 

 

At the end of the day, this all feels like a really creative way to get the arts folks out of that building so they (the city) can tear it down and start over.  It's more about the land than the building.  I need to see the other presentation before I solidify those comments, so don't take me to task on it, these are just my raw feelings after briefly sitting in on this tonight.  Would be curious to know if anyone agrees or disagrees on any of this?

[txbornviking]

yet another parking garage... 

[Crestline]

I attended this meeting and am featured in Nitixope's photos. I'm famous now! 

 

I missed the first presentation. People seemed very annoyed only two firms were short-listed, where were the other two?

 

The city representative explained that only Garfield and Goldenrod submitted adequate proposals. So, although M2G Ventures and The Projects Group were still in the running earlier this month, they had fallen out of consideration by last night's meeting.

 

Goldenrod is proposing a third development here with PPP tax incentives of course, they were recommending scraping the site, 

 

I understood Goldenrod to mean that they had a first proposal that fully scraped the site, but at the last minute they replaced it with a second proposal that preserved the existing theater building (in which we were all sitting last night), scraped everything around it, and then built the hotel, apartments, and new arts structures to surround the existing theater building.

 

My general takeaways:

 

Garfield's concept involves partially scraping the site and rebuilding a pure arts center, with no new parking, with anchor arts tenants including a Cliburn music institution and an African American history institution. Additional anchor arts tenants would be brought in to support additional arts functions. Garfield sent a half-dozen representatives to explain their approach, and seemed sympathetic to the needs of the local arts community who expressed many concerns and asked many questions. From my point of view the most important concerns and questions involved cost to artists and governance structures.

 

Goldenrod's concept involves partially scraping the site and rebuilding a mixed hospitality, residential, restaurant, and arts center without anchor arts tenants and with new underground parking. Goldenrod sent two representatives who seemed less in-tune with the local arts community's concerns and questions. I thought the arts community seemed much more skeptical of Goldenrod than Garfield, and were deeply concerned that the commercial hospitality and residential uses would impair their artistic freedoms. I was left with the sensation that Goldenrod may be an excellent commercial developer as will hopefully be evidenced by their nearby Van Zandt and One University projects in a few years, yet is out of step with the particular sensitivities of a public arts center—in other words, I fear Goldenrod just wants to build more hotels and apartments and put a bid in here because, well, why not?

[Austin55]

Thank you for the summary, Crestline! The Garfield solution seems significantly more appropriate for the location. 

[Stadtplan]

I attended this meeting and am featured in Nitixope's photos. I'm famous now! 

 

I missed the first presentation. People seemed very annoyed only two firms were short-listed, where were the other two?

 

The city representative explained that only Garfield and Goldenrod submitted adequate proposals. So, although M2G Ventures and The Projects Group were still in the running earlier this month, they had fallen out of consideration by last night's meeting.

 

I fear Goldenrod just wants to build more hotels and apartments and put a bid in here because, well, why not?

 

The annoyance was that the other two other firms that were not short-listed before anyone even had a chance to see what they were offering or proposing which was sort of the whole point of that meeting last night just to see and hear ideas not to pick a developer.  TPG has been involved in many of the city's most notable projects, although I've considered them more an owners rep on some of those and less of a developer, perhaps they would have been more in-tune with this project from a less heavy-handed approach.  M2G, I sort of suprised they got an invite but would have liked to see what they offered.

 

Goldenrod seemed slightly cavalier in their approach toward development in the cultural district only limited by available property and perhaps almost celebrating their subordinate role with the City as their "boss."  I believe the word the Goldenrod gentleman used was "starved" when referring to this type of development in the cultural district.

[Crestline]

Here's the full deck presented last night. 

[rriojas71]

So the question I asked Goldenrod essentially was...with The Van Zandt and the One University "The Mullet" projects already pending tax incentives by the city council, is it really necessary to add a third development to this equation including another 175-key AC Autograph hotel two blocks away and does the Van Zandt or Mullet projects get short-changed if this new deal is more appealing to Goldenrod?  The guy from Goldenrod said the ROI to the city / taxpayer is greater than the incentives being offered over the project lifecycle, but that he would propose a fourth development in this area right now if they had the property for it and that he felt like this area has been starved for this kind of development for a long time.  He also cited the Bowie house hotel and new Museum Place projects as good examples of meeting this demand, of course both of which are still in their infancy to really gauge their success, but I didn't argue that point.

 

I think if the city chooses Goldenrod, it feels to me like they might be biting off a bit more than they can chew, specifically the point I raised about supply and demand. The other two projects have very long construction schedules, and a lot can change between now and the end of 2026 and 2027.  It also feels like this type of development at the Arts Center is right smack dab in the middle of the cultural district and it takes away from the feel of the other museums around it.  Sure, would it be nice to walk out your door from a hotel or apartment and head over to a museum or event at Dickies, yes, but it seems out-of-balance for this specific location, that's just my gut feeling.  I'm really not that interested in vertical development here in this spot as I would be creating a more respectful arts center, that could be used for any number of events and exhibits, I just wasn't expecting such a heavy private development element in this whole deal. 

 

The arts community raised a lot of important concerns too, some of which addressed accessibility (not handicap) but accessibility by the public to a largely private development. Some artists questioned if there would be censorship involved in art selections and placements due to the type of commercial use property, the developer did mention some portion of the residential would be designated affordable for artist which I thought was kind of insulting to even suggest that.  Lots of questions about public and arts community input during this process but Goldenrod reiterated that all they've done so far is respond in writing to the city's RFP and Gensler's team of 10+ people put together an idea sharing presentation they gave tonight.  He did also mention that Gensler has an entire team that does nothing but community engagement. 

 

It appears like Gensler / Goldenrod wants to create a multi-use, multi-function art-themed amenities and event venue space that could be rented out like a conference center but I missed part of the presentation.  It really felt like the existing art center has a lot of special meaning to the community and to replace it like this bacon-wrapped in a commercial development just feels kind of slimy, at least that was the vibe I was getting.  I think from the City's point of view, they are really struggling with the $26M renovation cost, and trying to think creatively how to bring in a developer and make a better use of this space than what is currently being used.  To put such a heavy emphasis on the private profitable part of a PPP in order to justify the existing of the public part of the equation, it seems like this is being packaged very similar to the library deal.  In the name of cutting costs and tightening budgets for the greater good, eventually the original inhabitants of the space get the boot and by the time it is all said and done, it's just another commercial development, with bits and pieces of public use...maybe. 

 

At the end of the day, this all feels like a really creative way to get the arts folks out of that building so they (the city) can tear it down and start over.  It's more about the land than the building.  I need to see the other presentation before I solidify those comments, so don't take me to task on it, these are just my raw feelings after briefly sitting in on this tonight.  Would be curious to know if anyone agrees or disagrees on any of this?

I agree with you Nitixope that it really seems like the developers are trying their best to act like they are inclusive of the art community by adding what seems to be a temporary fix for an Arts Center.  I do believe that in the end there will be neither and this is just going to go into the hands of a private developer who has been given tax incentives out the wazoo to entice developers who will eventually build something that caters to a select few... and that won't be the arts community.

 

How many artists or arts driven communities will truly have the funds to rent out event space in what I am assuming, from the rendering, is going to be a luxury development?  I wish they would just be honest with their intentions and stop trying to string folks along.  The city is viewing this as a future tax generating development only because they know that a future Community Arts Center would not be.

[Austin55]

Here's the full deck presented last night. 

 

Thanks for sharing! 

So this

 

 

 

 

 

Or this

 

[rriojas71]

I would love the second option if there are real options to keep the community part of the arts alive.  Meaning actual affordability for artists and the arts community and to ensure that it remains public.

[txbornviking]

I have two thoughts so far:

1) *** insert Michael Scott from The Office shouting "No, No, No" meme

2) Thumper from Bambi: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

[Stadtplan]

Heres the full video of the meeting:

[Crestline]

For those of you expressing concern in this thread: I'm not worried yet and I actually think this project will work out well for the arts community, for two reasons.

 

1) Garfield's proposal of a pure arts center has the potential to be exactly what the arts community wants, and I think Garfield put on a better showing at this meeting than Goldenrod, and

 

2) Assuming Goldenrod has an opportunity to amend their proposal before the city chooses a developer, Goldenrod can make major course-corrections to align better with the arts community—and I have a feeling the city will back the arts community and demand this, should Goldenrod try to move forward.

[Stadtplan]

For those of you expressing concern in this thread: I'm not worried yet and I actually think this project will work out well for the arts community, for two reasons.
 
1) Garfield's proposal of a pure arts center has the potential to be exactly what the arts community wants, and I think Garfield put on a better showing at this meeting than Goldenrod, and
 
2) Assuming Goldenrod has an opportunity to amend their proposal before the city chooses a developer, Goldenrod can make major course-corrections to align better with the arts communityand I have a feeling the city will back the arts community and demand this, should Goldenrod try to move forward.

Also worth noting from the slide deck you posted, is one of the local FW architects of choice, Bennett Partners, is on the Garfield team. I think that is worth some points. Gensler does great things too. Garfield seems more independently aligned to redeveloping as an arts center versus creating a commercial development project out of the arts center in order for the private portion profitability to sustain/justify the public portion. I bet the city would want more of a sustainable business model, especially if the current arts center business model is not able to keep up with the current facility.

One thing I have always liked about that area of the cultural district is during non-Dickies non-Will Rogers major events, is that theres a quiet calmness about it. Making it into a highly commercialized development on that corner could take away from that vibe. I will be curious what the NIMBYs think about it.

[Stadtplan]

Harrison Mantas with S-T article discusses the meeting last night:

https://www.star-tel...e280405979.html

[Stadtplan]

Marcheta Fornoff with Fort Worth Report covers the story: https://fortworthrep...-days-to-react/

[Austin55]

Community feedback deadline is tomorrow (Monday Oct 16) at 4:00pm: https://www.fortwort...pics/1300-gendy

[Urbndwlr]

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.