First, I guess I will limit further comments to non-illustrative points (e.g. the great depression illustration - merely used to point out the melodramatic tone with which some people attack the hotel proposal). These illustrations seem to confuse some people so I'll stop doing it.
Second, my point about the anemic performance of the hotel was that IF there were a shortfall in revenue required to repay the public debt burden it would likely be small. It's not as though the hotel would open one day, burn down without insurance the next, and the city would be stuck holding the bag for $100 Million, due and payable immediately. (Obviously I do not expect the hotel to actually burn down, this is one of those illustrations I said I'd quit using).
In regards to the investors and jobs at the worst hotel downtown: If no new convention business is created by the hotel, then the worst case is that the number of hotel jobs in town stays the same, just at a different location. The investors who run the least competitive hotel in town probably should be out of business anyway. I know, I know, that's pretty harsh and certainly not the city's job. Natural selection will get to them eventually and doesn't need to be hurried along by the city. Yada, yada, yada. If they are that bad the city would be doing them a favor by running them out before they really dig themselves into a whole. But that's still a pretty unlikely scenario.
Hopefully what happens is that there is an increase in convention business and everyone benefits. That's what the experts think will happen so I'll leave it to them.
The thing I don't get is this "us" vs. "them" attitude toward the city. They aren't "them". They're us. They're people who live and work in the city just like you and me. They aren't vultures living in Dallas coming over to Tarrant county to feed on the unsuspecting tax-paying sheep (another illustrative use of the English language, a metaphor I believe, obviously sheep don't pay taxes).
I don't like a lot of things that city government pays for (roads in southwest Ft. Worth for example), but I suck it up because enough of the population does want those things paid for. I happen to be in favor of the CC Hotel. It doesn't make me an idiot and it doesn't make me one of "them" either. But if the hotel doesn't get built, that's ok too. It's just not worth getting your tighty whities in a bind.
442 replies to this topic
#152
tmonk
tmonk
-
- Guests
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:20 PM
Turn the convention center / CVB function over to a private concern? Hmmm........
That has merit, it is a very disorganized marketing structure today. I don't know if there is a bigger fool to be located though.
That has merit, it is a very disorganized marketing structure today. I don't know if there is a bigger fool to be located though.
#153
Dismuke
Dismuke
-
- Guests
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:20 PM
Re: "Us" verses "Them"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing I don't get is this "us" vs. "them" attitude toward the city. They aren't "them". They're us. They're people who live and work in the city just like you and me. They aren't vultures living in Dallas coming over to Tarrant county to feed on the unsuspecting tax-paying sheep
I will tell you exactly where the "us vs. them" attitude comes from - and it has absolutely nothing to do with where people live. Such an attitude is the inevitable consequence of the pressure group warfare brought about by our "mixed" economic and political system - by which I mean our untenable mixture of some elements of statism/socialism combined with some elements of freedom/capitalism. Simply translated, what this means is a system where any given group of people that manages to acquire sufficient political pull is increasingly able to use the police powers of the government in order to confiscate the assets of others in order to fund their wishes and desires.
The city hotel scheme is an example of the statist/socialist side of our mixed politico-economic system. The basic premise held by city officials and others who support the scheme is that Fort Worth "needs" another hotel - so this justifies them in confiscating through taxation assets beyond what is needed to fund essential city functions from those who would otherwise chose not to invest in and/or subsidize such a hotel. These are people who regard individual rights - including the right to earn, own and keep private property - as being merely conditional and something which may be disregarded whenever a political majority deems it desirable. Of course there is going to be an "us verses them" mentality whenever such a situation exists. Of course there is going to be an "us verses them" mentality whenever you have people who openly seek and demand the unearned. Of course there is going to be an "us verses them" mentality whenever there exists some group of people who think that their wishes and desires constitute a mortgage on the productivity of others. And if you value your freedom and the right to keep the property that you earn...if you value the incalculable social and economic benefits that arise from a society where everyone else's freedom and property rights are protected, then you, too, will regard it as an "us verses them" battle and will do everything in your power to ensure that the fallacious and poisonous ideas which animate "them" are forever relegated to the ash heap of history.
Contrast the statist way of doing things with the way hotels would get built under capitalism. Under capitalism all economic and social interaction is conducted on a strictly voluntary and contractual basis - and those who attempt to seize the assets of others through force or fraud for whatever alleged justification are branded as criminals and are punished or locked up by the government. If someone thinks that a hotel is needed, he is free to built it with his own funds. If he does not have sufficient funds to build the hotel, then he is free to seek investor participation from those who do have the necessary capital. If he has a reasonable basis for concluding that such a hotel is necessary and that it will generate a sufficient return on investment, then he might have a decent chance at convincing investors to join in. But if his only basis for concluding a hotel is necessary is his mere wish that it be built, well, he is still free to seek out investors but might have a difficult time finding any - in which case, his hotel would not get built. Under capitalism, he would NOT have the right to force someone else to provide him with the needed money and government officials would not have the legal authority to do so on his behalf. If does find a way to build the hotel and it is successful, he and his investors will reap the financial benefits - and the profits they earn will be theirs and nobody else would have the right to take them away on grounds that they "needed it." If, on the other hand, the hotel is not successful, then it is the owner and the investors who will have to pay the price - and they would not have the right to confiscate the assets of others in order to bail themselves out and government officials would not have the legal authority to do so on their behalf. As to those who wanted nothing to do with the hotel in the first place and did not choose to invest in it, if the hotel fails, then they would not be required to pay for one penny of its loses. If the hotel is successful, they will not have a right to one penny of its profits - though they may indeed end up benefiting from it indirectly through the positive impact that any successful business has on the local and national economy.
Observe that, under capitalism, there is no such "us" verses "them" battle because NO group has the ability to use political pull in order to have the government impose its will on some other group. Two different groups of people may very well dislike each other - but, under capitalism, so long as they behave peacefully, they are free to go their own separate ways and to simply disregard each other. The two groups may not particularly like each other - but neither do they constitue a threat to each other. Under a mixed politico-economic system, the two groups might very well have reason to regard the other as a threat - especially if they have political pull and seek to exercise it.
Hopefully what happens is that there is an increase in convention business and everyone benefits. That's what the experts think will happen so I'll leave it to them.
Yeah - "experts" hired (at taxpayer expense, no doubt) by the same politicians who have resorted to all sorts of sneaky legal loopholes in their attempt to make the hotel a reality. Anybody can find and hire an "expert" who will take darned near any side of any issue. Give me a nice bucketful of taxpayer loot and I am quite sure I could go out and hire a whole bunch of "experts" with all sorts of valid and impressive credentials who will happily contradict everything the city's "experts" had to say. Look at the sad tales down through history of all sorts of companies and investors who went bankrupt as a result of acting on the advice of "experts."
But, to be altogether frank, whether or not the city's "experts" are right or whether or not such a hotel finds a market and generates revenue is really besides the point and is NOT the main issue. The issue is this: is owning, promoting and financing a hotel a proper function of government? The issue is: are you an advocate of some form of statism or are you an advocate of individual rights -which necessarily include property rights? Are you an advocate of some variant of socialism or are you an advocate of capitalism? Does the government exist to protect people's individual rights and property? Or does government exist as a vehicle of abrogating people's rights and property in the name of whatever "greater good" the political majority deems desirable?
I don't like a lot of things that city government pays for (roads in southwest Ft. Worth for example), but I suck it up because enough of the population does want those things paid for.
I don't think the example fits what we are talking about.
It is certainly true that, even under a system of complete capitalism, not everybody is going to agree with every single government expenditure - which is why the most practical way to decide such things is by the votes of our elected representatives and majority rule on issues put before the voters. But the example fails because, under a system of capitalism, the sort of things that the government may legitimately spend taxpayer money on would be strictly limited to the essential functions of government. One can certainly debate whether or not providing such services as roads, water and sewer systems is an appropriate function of government - but the reality is that the government has had a near monopoly on such things for a very long time. Since such a monopoly already exists and since such services are necessary, until such services are privatized, if they ever are, one of the necessary tasks of city officials is to make decisions about how they are to be provided - and yes, in such cases, the wishes of the political majority will prevail. But that's not what we are talking about with regard to the issue of a city hotel. A city hotel constitutes an expansion of the role of city government into an area which it has absolutely NO legitimate authority and which cannot be defended by anyone who properly understands and values individual rights and private property - i.e. by anyone who advocates capitalism.
It doesn't make me an idiot and it doesn't make me one of "them" either.
Please do not misunderstand me here. It is not my intention to be rude. I have never met you personally and my default assumption is you are a thoughtful person with admirable qualities and character traits. You certainly do not strike me as an "idiot" (nor did I ever say that you were). But if you truly believe that your desire to see a new hotel built downtown somehow constitutes a mortgage over one minute of my productive efforts or one single penny of my assets or over the productivity and assets of anyone else, then that does make you one of "them." Just as you have no right to personally seize my assets in order to fund something you happen to desire, neither do you have the right to muster up a large enough gang of people who happen to desire the same thing to get a bunch of politicians to seize those assets on your behalf. Just because you desire something does NOT mean that you have a right to it - and just because a political majority desires something, it does NOT mean that they have a right to it either. If you desire a new hotel downtown, then built it yourself or find someone else who is willing to do so. That's what the capital markets are for. And if you can't afford to build the hotel yourself and nobody else is willing to do so - then tough. We don't always get what we want. And if you do indeed think that your desires somehow constitutes a mortgage over the productivity of everyone else - well be don't be too surprised when those of "us" who do value individual rights fight you and the rest of "them" at every step of the way.
But if the hotel doesn't get built, that's ok too. It's just not worth getting your tighty whities in a bind.
The world will go on regardless as to whether or not one particular hotel gets built. That is not what is of primary importance here. What is important is the intellectual basis, the principle upon which the hotel is being advocated, defended and justified. What is important is: do people have individual rights - or is it ok for those rights to be abrogated whenever the political majority happens to decide it is "necessary" or in the "common good"? All you have to do is look at the history of the 20th century and count the rivers of blood, the hundreds of millions of corpses and the gulags and concentration camps which resulted from regimes that openly and very explicitly justified their existence based on some variant of that latter point of view.
If you wish to hold that the ends justifies the means, that's your prerogative - but at least be honest with yourself about the nature of the means you propose to use. If you wish to advocate some form of statism/socialism, however watered down, that's your prerogative - but at least be honest with yourself about the consequences that such policies have had and invariably do have when they become widely accepted and implemented. And, personally, I can't think of anything more worthy of getting my "tighty whities in a bind" over than defending my individual rights and private property (and, by extension, everyone else's) from those who would seek to abrogate them.
RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing I don't get is this "us" vs. "them" attitude toward the city. They aren't "them". They're us. They're people who live and work in the city just like you and me. They aren't vultures living in Dallas coming over to Tarrant county to feed on the unsuspecting tax-paying sheep
I will tell you exactly where the "us vs. them" attitude comes from - and it has absolutely nothing to do with where people live. Such an attitude is the inevitable consequence of the pressure group warfare brought about by our "mixed" economic and political system - by which I mean our untenable mixture of some elements of statism/socialism combined with some elements of freedom/capitalism. Simply translated, what this means is a system where any given group of people that manages to acquire sufficient political pull is increasingly able to use the police powers of the government in order to confiscate the assets of others in order to fund their wishes and desires.
The city hotel scheme is an example of the statist/socialist side of our mixed politico-economic system. The basic premise held by city officials and others who support the scheme is that Fort Worth "needs" another hotel - so this justifies them in confiscating through taxation assets beyond what is needed to fund essential city functions from those who would otherwise chose not to invest in and/or subsidize such a hotel. These are people who regard individual rights - including the right to earn, own and keep private property - as being merely conditional and something which may be disregarded whenever a political majority deems it desirable. Of course there is going to be an "us verses them" mentality whenever such a situation exists. Of course there is going to be an "us verses them" mentality whenever you have people who openly seek and demand the unearned. Of course there is going to be an "us verses them" mentality whenever there exists some group of people who think that their wishes and desires constitute a mortgage on the productivity of others. And if you value your freedom and the right to keep the property that you earn...if you value the incalculable social and economic benefits that arise from a society where everyone else's freedom and property rights are protected, then you, too, will regard it as an "us verses them" battle and will do everything in your power to ensure that the fallacious and poisonous ideas which animate "them" are forever relegated to the ash heap of history.
Contrast the statist way of doing things with the way hotels would get built under capitalism. Under capitalism all economic and social interaction is conducted on a strictly voluntary and contractual basis - and those who attempt to seize the assets of others through force or fraud for whatever alleged justification are branded as criminals and are punished or locked up by the government. If someone thinks that a hotel is needed, he is free to built it with his own funds. If he does not have sufficient funds to build the hotel, then he is free to seek investor participation from those who do have the necessary capital. If he has a reasonable basis for concluding that such a hotel is necessary and that it will generate a sufficient return on investment, then he might have a decent chance at convincing investors to join in. But if his only basis for concluding a hotel is necessary is his mere wish that it be built, well, he is still free to seek out investors but might have a difficult time finding any - in which case, his hotel would not get built. Under capitalism, he would NOT have the right to force someone else to provide him with the needed money and government officials would not have the legal authority to do so on his behalf. If does find a way to build the hotel and it is successful, he and his investors will reap the financial benefits - and the profits they earn will be theirs and nobody else would have the right to take them away on grounds that they "needed it." If, on the other hand, the hotel is not successful, then it is the owner and the investors who will have to pay the price - and they would not have the right to confiscate the assets of others in order to bail themselves out and government officials would not have the legal authority to do so on their behalf. As to those who wanted nothing to do with the hotel in the first place and did not choose to invest in it, if the hotel fails, then they would not be required to pay for one penny of its loses. If the hotel is successful, they will not have a right to one penny of its profits - though they may indeed end up benefiting from it indirectly through the positive impact that any successful business has on the local and national economy.
Observe that, under capitalism, there is no such "us" verses "them" battle because NO group has the ability to use political pull in order to have the government impose its will on some other group. Two different groups of people may very well dislike each other - but, under capitalism, so long as they behave peacefully, they are free to go their own separate ways and to simply disregard each other. The two groups may not particularly like each other - but neither do they constitue a threat to each other. Under a mixed politico-economic system, the two groups might very well have reason to regard the other as a threat - especially if they have political pull and seek to exercise it.
Hopefully what happens is that there is an increase in convention business and everyone benefits. That's what the experts think will happen so I'll leave it to them.
Yeah - "experts" hired (at taxpayer expense, no doubt) by the same politicians who have resorted to all sorts of sneaky legal loopholes in their attempt to make the hotel a reality. Anybody can find and hire an "expert" who will take darned near any side of any issue. Give me a nice bucketful of taxpayer loot and I am quite sure I could go out and hire a whole bunch of "experts" with all sorts of valid and impressive credentials who will happily contradict everything the city's "experts" had to say. Look at the sad tales down through history of all sorts of companies and investors who went bankrupt as a result of acting on the advice of "experts."
But, to be altogether frank, whether or not the city's "experts" are right or whether or not such a hotel finds a market and generates revenue is really besides the point and is NOT the main issue. The issue is this: is owning, promoting and financing a hotel a proper function of government? The issue is: are you an advocate of some form of statism or are you an advocate of individual rights -which necessarily include property rights? Are you an advocate of some variant of socialism or are you an advocate of capitalism? Does the government exist to protect people's individual rights and property? Or does government exist as a vehicle of abrogating people's rights and property in the name of whatever "greater good" the political majority deems desirable?
I don't like a lot of things that city government pays for (roads in southwest Ft. Worth for example), but I suck it up because enough of the population does want those things paid for.
I don't think the example fits what we are talking about.
It is certainly true that, even under a system of complete capitalism, not everybody is going to agree with every single government expenditure - which is why the most practical way to decide such things is by the votes of our elected representatives and majority rule on issues put before the voters. But the example fails because, under a system of capitalism, the sort of things that the government may legitimately spend taxpayer money on would be strictly limited to the essential functions of government. One can certainly debate whether or not providing such services as roads, water and sewer systems is an appropriate function of government - but the reality is that the government has had a near monopoly on such things for a very long time. Since such a monopoly already exists and since such services are necessary, until such services are privatized, if they ever are, one of the necessary tasks of city officials is to make decisions about how they are to be provided - and yes, in such cases, the wishes of the political majority will prevail. But that's not what we are talking about with regard to the issue of a city hotel. A city hotel constitutes an expansion of the role of city government into an area which it has absolutely NO legitimate authority and which cannot be defended by anyone who properly understands and values individual rights and private property - i.e. by anyone who advocates capitalism.
It doesn't make me an idiot and it doesn't make me one of "them" either.
Please do not misunderstand me here. It is not my intention to be rude. I have never met you personally and my default assumption is you are a thoughtful person with admirable qualities and character traits. You certainly do not strike me as an "idiot" (nor did I ever say that you were). But if you truly believe that your desire to see a new hotel built downtown somehow constitutes a mortgage over one minute of my productive efforts or one single penny of my assets or over the productivity and assets of anyone else, then that does make you one of "them." Just as you have no right to personally seize my assets in order to fund something you happen to desire, neither do you have the right to muster up a large enough gang of people who happen to desire the same thing to get a bunch of politicians to seize those assets on your behalf. Just because you desire something does NOT mean that you have a right to it - and just because a political majority desires something, it does NOT mean that they have a right to it either. If you desire a new hotel downtown, then built it yourself or find someone else who is willing to do so. That's what the capital markets are for. And if you can't afford to build the hotel yourself and nobody else is willing to do so - then tough. We don't always get what we want. And if you do indeed think that your desires somehow constitutes a mortgage over the productivity of everyone else - well be don't be too surprised when those of "us" who do value individual rights fight you and the rest of "them" at every step of the way.
But if the hotel doesn't get built, that's ok too. It's just not worth getting your tighty whities in a bind.
The world will go on regardless as to whether or not one particular hotel gets built. That is not what is of primary importance here. What is important is the intellectual basis, the principle upon which the hotel is being advocated, defended and justified. What is important is: do people have individual rights - or is it ok for those rights to be abrogated whenever the political majority happens to decide it is "necessary" or in the "common good"? All you have to do is look at the history of the 20th century and count the rivers of blood, the hundreds of millions of corpses and the gulags and concentration camps which resulted from regimes that openly and very explicitly justified their existence based on some variant of that latter point of view.
If you wish to hold that the ends justifies the means, that's your prerogative - but at least be honest with yourself about the nature of the means you propose to use. If you wish to advocate some form of statism/socialism, however watered down, that's your prerogative - but at least be honest with yourself about the consequences that such policies have had and invariably do have when they become widely accepted and implemented. And, personally, I can't think of anything more worthy of getting my "tighty whities in a bind" over than defending my individual rights and private property (and, by extension, everyone else's) from those who would seek to abrogate them.
RADIO DISMUKE
1920s & 1930s Pop and Jazz
24 Hour Internet Radio
dismuke.org/radio
#154
cberen1
cberen1
-
- Guests
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:21 PM
Dismuke,
I admire anyone who is that passionate. I fundamentally disagree with you on almost everything, but your opinions are well thought out and clearly (although exhaustively) communicated. You're kind of like the ACLU, the environmental lobby, Ralph Nader, the Ninth District Court of Appeals or (for balance) the NRA. I don't agree with your stance. I think you are way too far off center. But society needs you as a check against the other side. If you weren't here standing by your principles, who knows where we might all end up?
Keep up the fight.
I admire anyone who is that passionate. I fundamentally disagree with you on almost everything, but your opinions are well thought out and clearly (although exhaustively) communicated. You're kind of like the ACLU, the environmental lobby, Ralph Nader, the Ninth District Court of Appeals or (for balance) the NRA. I don't agree with your stance. I think you are way too far off center. But society needs you as a check against the other side. If you weren't here standing by your principles, who knows where we might all end up?
Keep up the fight.
#155
jonnyrules23
jonnyrules23
-
- Guests
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:21 PM
I like the other site better, the arena site should be used for additional convention space. My vision is that the arena is demolished and the convention space added has some special characteristic that compliments the courthouse at the other end of main. An ugly "futuristic" 60's arena isn't exactly a good compliment .
================
Paschal rules!!!
================
Paschal rules!!!
#156
Buck
Buck
-
- Guests
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:22 PM
Jonnyrules, that's the idea behind building the hotel on the arena site.
The first 2 floors would be convention space.
The upper floors would be a high-rise hotel.
The first 2 floors would be convention space.
The upper floors would be a high-rise hotel.
#157
jonnyrules23
jonnyrules23
-
- Guests
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:22 PM
Oops, I didn't think of that. That makes more sense, only the timetable for demolishing the arena is at least 3-4 more years in the future. Add to that the 2 year construction period of the hotel itself, which would probably be more since convention space would also be included, we're talking no earlier that 2010. On the other site the hotel could be open by 2006.
I also like the other site because that's one less parking lot eyesore, and it's more visible on the skyline. The arena site is pretty much overshadowed by Burnett Plaza from most angles.
================
Paschal rules!!!
I also like the other site because that's one less parking lot eyesore, and it's more visible on the skyline. The arena site is pretty much overshadowed by Burnett Plaza from most angles.
================
Paschal rules!!!
#158
Fire-Eater
-
- Members
-
- 338 posts
Senior Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
- Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:40 PM
All socialists are NOT alike! I think this is an example of National Socialism, so we should perhaps refer to the city council as NAZIS!!!!Socialists are all alike: they are an ungrateful lot who think the world owes them whatever it is that they want to see happen and they have no problem trampling over the rights of everyone else in order to get it.
WWSPFD?*
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#159
mosteijn
-
- Members
-
- 1,908 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:FW/Cincy
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:42 PM
Hey John, can you merge this thread with the other one about the hotel?
#160
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 16 July 2004 - 09:44 PM
Yes, I can.
#161
Fire-Eater
-
- Members
-
- 338 posts
Senior Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Soon-to-be-Historic Wedgwood
- Interests:Historic buildings and landscapes, local history, current events, coffee, hard liquor, and arguing!
Posted 18 July 2004 - 11:29 AM
Now that the Montgomery Ward project is a done deal, I think I'll make my next cause "Save the Arena!"My vision is that the arena is demolished and the convention space added has some special characteristic that compliments the courthouse at the other end of main. An ugly "futuristic" 60's arena isn't exactly a good compliment.
Gosh, I love that thing! I would hate to see it demolished for the hotel.
A friend of mine refers to it as the "Mother Ship."
In my History of Historic Preservation class in grad school it was mentioned that architectural tastes can be very generational. One example given was how some communities sought to stamp out Queen Anne Victorian architecture with Modern buildings. How about those two- and three-story aluminum storefronts that were placed on historic downtown storefronts in the 1950s and 1960s? They covered ornate cornices and lovely brick round-arch windows. I think those aluminum storefronts are kinda cool, but many are being removed as part of the historic preservation movement.
In ML baseball, the 1960s multi-use venues are being replaced by "traditional" ballpark designs.
The time is NOW to stand up and be counted! I say . . .
SAVE THE ARENA!
I say . . .
JUST SAY "NO" TO CITY FINANCED PRIVATE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS!!!
WWSPFD?*
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
History is but the record of the public and official acts of human beings. It is our object, therefore, to humanize our history and deal with people past and present; people who ate and possibly drank; people who were born, flourished and died; not grave tragedians, posing perpetually for their photographs. ~Bill Nye, History of the United States
For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell. ~George E. Wilson
*What Would Susan Pringle Frost Do?
#162
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 18 July 2004 - 05:18 PM
Kip, I don't think the hotel will be built on the site of the arena. From what I have heard, the hotel will be constructed on one of the blocks to the west of the Convention Center. The arena will not be demolished until a new one is constructed in the Cultural District.
#163
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 28 July 2004 - 06:29 AM
The hotel project was presented to the Council yesterday. It appears they may vote on the project during the first week of August.
Link to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Article:
http://www.dfw.com/m...cal/9261451.htm
Link to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Article:
http://www.dfw.com/m...cal/9261451.htm
#164
JimmyR
-
- Members
-
- 173 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Longview, Texas
Posted 28 July 2004 - 11:17 PM
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but I was doing a search for the Convention Center on Google Images, and found some artist rendering from the City of Fort Worth official site.
http://ci.fort-worth...centerhotel.asp
Jimmy
http://ci.fort-worth...centerhotel.asp
Jimmy
Jimmy
#165
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 29 July 2004 - 05:34 AM
That was one of the earlier designs. The latest plan was where we were discussing the height of the hotel in comparison to the rendering. The Star-Telegram has since removed the rendering from their web site.
#166
renamerusk
-
- Banned
-
- 7,662 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Fort Worth South
Posted 29 July 2004 - 10:33 AM
: Why the need for more meeting space when the hotel is an adjunct to the convention center/meeting facility? Would the additional meeting space be counterproductive to the maximum use of the CC facility? Just wondering out aloud."Keep Fort Worth Folksy"
#167
mosteijn
-
- Members
-
- 1,908 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:FW/Cincy
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish
Posted 29 July 2004 - 11:26 AM
Perhaps the hotel meeting space can be used for groups that don't need a lot of space, reserving the larger chunks for the convention center itself. Like a meeting that would only need 1 or 2 rooms, freeing up the convention center for big things like fairs and large companies' conventions.
"Keep Fort Worth Folksy"
When do we get to see renderings and more info for this thing? I'm starting to get skeptical about whether it will get built or not
#168
mosteijn
-
- Members
-
- 1,908 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:FW/Cincy
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish
Posted 29 July 2004 - 12:06 PM
Nevermind, appearantly no-one read Tuesday's S-T:
http://www.dfw.com/m...cal/9252559.htm
The article mentions "15-21 story hotel" and "possibility of condominiums on the top floor". Another article says the council is expected to approve the project next week.
Oh, and on a larger version of the rendering that was in the paper months ago, one can make out balconies on the side. I count 20 floors total on that design
:
http://www.dallasmet...tachmentid=3037
I guess this isn't going to be a dissapointment after all!
http://www.dfw.com/m...cal/9252559.htm
The article mentions "15-21 story hotel" and "possibility of condominiums on the top floor". Another article says the council is expected to approve the project next week.
Oh, and on a larger version of the rendering that was in the paper months ago, one can make out balconies on the side. I count 20 floors total on that design
:http://www.dallasmet...tachmentid=3037
I guess this isn't going to be a dissapointment after all!
#169
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 29 July 2004 - 10:07 PM
Jonny, I read Tuesday's paper. The rendering is not the final design, it is just a concept for the hotel. The city now has posted the presentation on their web site.
http://www.fortworthgov.org/omnihotel/
http://www.fortworthgov.org/omnihotel/
#170
mosteijn
-
- Members
-
- 1,908 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:FW/Cincy
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish
Posted 29 July 2004 - 10:12 PM
Oops, I totally missed your other post. Thanks for the link, though.
#171
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 30 July 2004 - 04:34 AM
I'm just trying to keep us forum members informed. 
#172
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 05 August 2004 - 08:13 PM
The City Council voted tonight to approve the hotel. I'm sure there will be more details in the S-T, FWBP, and DMN.
#173
Thurman52
-
- Members
-
- 1,181 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Edwards Ranch
Posted 17 August 2004 - 08:02 PM
I just read the proposal from the cities website. I like the concept drawings, I am currious about the proximity to Lancster is not as close to street as I envisioned.
I did like the skematics of the floors and like that the parking garage was not over bearing and had retail space on the ground floor. Plus 2 levels of sub-street parking.
I really like the city liablity is land, utility cost and the parking garage.
I did like the skematics of the floors and like that the parking garage was not over bearing and had retail space on the ground floor. Plus 2 levels of sub-street parking.
I really like the city liablity is land, utility cost and the parking garage.
#174
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 17 August 2004 - 09:34 PM
In case if anyone is wondering, the section puts the height at about 240 feet.
#175
Shocker
-
- Members
-
- 120 posts
Member
- Location:Downtown Ft. Worth
Posted 19 December 2004 - 07:56 PM
What's the latest on the Omni Hotel - Convention Center project? I haven't heard anything for awhile.
#176
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 19 December 2004 - 09:16 PM
I haven't heard a thing for a couple of months.
#177
apearson28
-
- Members
-
- 85 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Houston
Posted 29 December 2004 - 10:50 AM
ANYTHING?
#178
Thurman52
-
- Members
-
- 1,181 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Edwards Ranch
Posted 03 March 2005 - 10:05 PM
Ft Worth Business Press has article about possibly putting two more floors on the project for Condos.
#179
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 03 March 2005 - 10:23 PM
They also stated that it could be four more floors if they increased the number of condos.
#180
jefffwd
-
- Members
-
- 1,511 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Fort Worth
Posted 04 March 2005 - 12:51 PM
Ft Worth Business Press has article about possibly putting two more floors on the project for Condos.
I can't find that article. Can someone please post it. Thanks!
#181
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 10 March 2005 - 06:48 AM
Details have been worked out between Omni and the City of Fort Worth on the hotel. The final details will be presented to the City Council on March 24th.
For more information, go to the Star-Telegram Article:
http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/11099177.htm
For more information, go to the Star-Telegram Article:
http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/11099177.htm
#182
mosteijn
-
- Members
-
- 1,908 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:FW/Cincy
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish
Posted 12 March 2005 - 07:52 PM
Oh, so it is actually getting built. And with a possibility of 4 floors of upscale condos on top (assuming the "market" can support it 
)
)
#183
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 12 March 2005 - 08:35 PM
That is correct, and by the end of the month, we should know what it is going to look like.
Jonny, it is good to see you posting again. We have all been missing you.
Jonny, it is good to see you posting again. We have all been missing you.
#184
mosteijn
-
- Members
-
- 1,908 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:FW/Cincy
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish
Posted 13 March 2005 - 09:34 AM
Thanks, I've had tons of school work, and on top of that a lifeguarding class that's lasted from 3 to 8:30.
And good news about the rendering, I can hardly wait to see an official drawing for this project!
And good news about the rendering, I can hardly wait to see an official drawing for this project!
#185
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 13 March 2005 - 09:49 AM
I could also be wrong on the timing for this, but it would seem very practical for Omni to go to Council with their proposal actually showing them what the building will look like. Construction is not supposed to start until toward the end of the year. That will give the architects the time to complete the construction drawings for the hotel. The actual design of the building should be nearing completion.
#186
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 23 March 2005 - 07:04 AM
There will be presentation on the Convention Center Hotel to the City Council tomorrow, March 24th at 8:30 AM. I wonder if we will see the new renderings of how the building will look?
#187
SurplusPopulation
-
- Members
-
- 197 posts
Member
- Location:Fort Worth
Posted 25 March 2005 - 12:17 PM
Does anyone have any info about the presentation?
#188
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 25 March 2005 - 05:04 PM
Not yet. Maybe I will be able to catch it during a replay on Charter Cable Channel 7. The local news stations that covered it didn't show any renderings.
#189
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 26 March 2005 - 09:11 PM
I watched the replay on Channel 7 this evening and it looks as if they are considering 60 to 100 condominium units on top of the hotel. Construction is scheduled to start in 2006 and to be complete in 2008.
#190
JBB
-
- Members
-
- 7,443 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Dirty suburbs
Posted 26 March 2005 - 10:15 PM
That sounds like quite a few condo units. How many floors would that add to the project?
#191
SurplusPopulation
-
- Members
-
- 197 posts
Member
- Location:Fort Worth
Posted 29 March 2005 - 01:50 PM
I just heard on WBAP during the newsbreak that this has been approved by the city council and will cost $90million. Has anybody seen the renderings?
#192
AdamB
-
- Members
-
- 356 posts
Advanced Member
- Location:Upper West Side
- Interests:Living in the city
Posted 29 March 2005 - 03:25 PM
I know the 90 million figure was the figure originally proposed so I doubt that includs any condo units.
#193
AdamB
-
- Members
-
- 356 posts
Advanced Member
- Location:Upper West Side
- Interests:Living in the city
Posted 29 March 2005 - 03:30 PM
Either way... 600 rooms is HUGE for a hotel!!!! A hotel this large will definitely encourage more businesses to relocate to downtown. If only we had more class A space going up RIGHT NOW!
#194
Willy1
-
- Members
-
- 554 posts
Elite Member
- Location:Fort Worth, TX
Posted 18 April 2005 - 09:42 AM
are there any renderings of the hotel at this point? if so, could someone post them here?
#195
john3628
-
- Members
-
- 9 posts
Newcomer
Posted 18 April 2005 - 11:01 AM
How many floors is the new hotel supposed to have?
#196
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 18 April 2005 - 11:06 AM
As of this time, no renderings have been released, nor is the actual height of the building known.
#197
courtnie
-
- Members
-
- 474 posts
Advanced Member
- Gender:Female
- Location:Fort Worth Texas
- Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques
Posted 06 May 2005 - 03:25 PM
I dont know about you guys...but dont we have enough hotels in down town fort worth? Are there really that many tourist that visit each year to warrent a new hotel??
#198
WTx
-
- Members
-
- 249 posts
Senior Member
- Location:North Texas
- Interests:Buildings of the 20's - 40's.
Posted 06 May 2005 - 03:39 PM
but dont we have enough hotels in down town fort worth?
No, Fort Worth is losing convention business to other cities that have attached convention center hotels. This is why not only Fort Worth but Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas have them, want them, or have them on the drawing board. The quality of the rooms in DTFW are also lacking as several conventions have complained about the bad conditions and said that if they don't improve they won't be back. Building this hotel will keep what conventions we have and bring in tourists and money.
#199
mosteijn
-
- Members
-
- 1,908 posts
Skyscraper Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:FW/Cincy
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish
Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:49 AM
John, didn't you say somewhere that the architect of the Omni would be announced in July? Well, July ends Sunday, so time's running out...or did the date get pushed back again (I noticed the architect was originally supposed to be made public in March)?
#200
John T Roberts
-
- Admin
-
- 16,450 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:South Fort Worth
- Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation
Posted 28 July 2005 - 04:01 PM
Yes, the architect was supposed to be announced in July. I think they are running behind again. I'm sure the project will be completed in due time.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
