FW Weekly's Best Of 2008 in Architecture
With the Weekly’s Best of 2008 issue now out and about, I must confess – this one puzzles me. Of all the new architecture in Fort Worth, Cantey Hangar Plaza is the best?
I get that the Weekly will never get David M. Schwarz, because they do tend to skew pretty modernist in their architecture critique. Which is fine – I’m more than happy to take up the slack in promoting traditional architecture. 
Though Schwarz’s new Carnegie Building in Sundance Square is turning out to be quite beautiful and is a great urban fabric building, and I’d be tempted to give the award to it. Anyway, putting aside that, I just can’t get behind Cantey Hangar as the recipient of any award.
The Weekly themselves describes the building as “confounding,” and as so confusing that “you’ll wonder where in hell the entrance is.” Both would seem to be points against the building in my point of view. Cantey Hangar’s not an especially bad building, but it’s not much of a contributor to the streetscape, either. It strikes me as dull as dishwater and completely unremarkable, though I do like the black bricks ringing its base. Its street interaction is basically the equivalent of the building going “meh.” There’s no real detail for the eye to enjoy as you pass by, and it’s not especially pleasant with its expanses of glass broken by plain concrete bands. I suppose it fits in between the just-short-of-cool 500 West 7th and the absolutely unredeemably terrible Burnett Plaza on either side of it, but I ask – why must new development around Burnett Park take the form of more concrete slabs? Inspiration ought to come instead from the gorgeous Electric Building, Neil P. Anderson Building, and U. S. Courthouse on the other side of the park. The area’s already overwhelmed with the deadening hand of modernism. Back in the ’60s, when 500 West 7th was the only modernist structure at the park and the Medical Arts Building was still standing, SOM’s office building would have been an interesting contrast. Now, Burnett Plaza smothers the place and traditional styles ought to be fighting back to retake the area from the concrete & glass boys.
But I digress. Another oddity – the Weekly remarks that Cantey Hangar has space for ground-level retail. I’m not sure that’s actually true – it was a subject of curiosity during the building’s construction and I never got a straight answer. If true, though, I find the next comment from the Weekly a little off-putting: “for what reason, we’ll never know.” I know the Weekly and I never see eye-to-eye on architecture, but I also know there are people there who know why urban buildings ought to have ground-level retail. There are plenty of reasons it should have ground-level retail from an urbanity standpoint.
So, yeah, Cantey Hangar seems an odd choice to me. Much better in my opinion is the Caceria Building, also a product of Gideon Toal (who designed Cantey Hangar), a beautiful little traditional-style structure nearly finished at 5th & Commerce. It faces the same problem as Schwarz’s buildings, though, in that the Weekly most likely wouldn’t go for its traditional design. If we’re limited to more modernist buildings, I’d have preferred to see the award go to One Museum Place at 7th & Bailey. One Museum Place is a lot more interesting to look at than Cantey Hangar, with its varied facades of glass, brick, and granite. It occupies a similarly odd-shaped lot but does so with more elegance and grace. And it’s got much better street interaction, with several friendly storefronts and a plaza out front.
Anthony? I know you’re reading this. Thoughts?
Modernist or Traditionalist, no matter how you look at it Cantey Hangar is a pretty dismal piece of architecture. As an architectural student myself the building lacks any definable character. It looks like someone spent half an hour in Revit (an architecture program) to build this beast. Sorta like a lot of proposals you see skyscraper buffs pump onto the skyscrpaperpage forum. Philip Johnson, Louis Kahn, or Tadao Ando all who have left fantastic modernist achievements in Fort Worth would rile at this abomination.
Didn’t FWweekly’s architecture critic Anthony Marianno (sp?) go on record in a controversial article several months back go on record saying that he didn’t like the Carnegie Building? I think Anthony judges Fort Worth architecture by New York or Houston or even Dallas standards and does a poor job at architectural criticism in Fort Worth. We should run him out of town for his poor sense of civic self-esteem. I would think that the new convention center hotel, Caceria or Carnegie would have been a much better choice, but maybe Anthony is Schwartzophobic.
Feel free to fess up to this mistake if it was yours, Anthony – much as Kevin should be doing for his critique of Best of 2008 awards on West & Clear. If not your pick, then I retract my comments.
AN
Andy,
As I already explained, the W&C thread’s locking was not intentional, and if I’d had Internet this evening I’d have caught it. It’s fixed now so you can go feel free to flame me if you want. Have fun.
There is no hostility or rudeness in this post. The Weekly made their pick, and I’m calmly explaining why I don’t agree. On my own blog. I think I’m pretty within my right to do so.
Kevin, as I said in my email, my sincere apologies for assuming that W&C had locked the post as opposed to an honest database error. While comments on the internet may seem malicious because of the absence of body language, I have high regard for your efforts as well as the writers of FW Weekly. Both sites are high on my read list.
Also, as a housekeeping note, I forgot to put a smiley face after the “run Anthony out of town” comment. So before I see my login name in the next issue of FW Weekly
That building could have come off old Grandbury as a dentist office from the sixties. It could have been built on University in the seventies. It could house anything off of North Loop 820, in the eighties.
It’s standard green glass and concrete office space. It should rank with tired, overdone, Tuscan-inspired kitchens. Boring, dated, expected and not worth the money. Pretty much fits most of Fort Worth design.
Try some mid-century modern, contemporary design in Fort Worth. That doesn’t include Travertine, white and black.
Burnett Plaza was given to “ugly” after the Matisse was replaced with that tacky and garish “Businessman” sculpture. Actually, the old UPR building ruined the park. The new sculpture is just an encroachment. Why not? part of the courthouse and the symphony hall are spray-on, or foam parts.
I don’t think Fort Worth has any architects who consider the surroundings and how the new building would fit with existing architecture. It shows a lack of talent, to me.
There is too much glass and concrete surrounding Burnett Park, and Cantey Hanger Plaza isn’t helping. It’s plain, ugly, unimaginative, has no street interaction, and it has that fugly, mismatched skybridge coming off the side. I would say it has no sense of context, but since it’s surrounded by two other concrete and glass monstrosities, I guess I’d be wrong.
Karen, I wouldn’t say there aren’t any architects who consider the surroundings of their buildings. I think David Schwarz’s buildings are very contextual and conscious of their surroundings, and I think the new Caceria building fits in very well with its surroundings.
Have you ever seen the FW Weekly offices? It is a window less building. So when the Architecture Critic saw a building that has so many windows that they forgot to include and entrance, of course he is going to think it’s wonderful.