Comments on: Fort Worth Club to Demolish Former Star-Telegram Classifieds Building for Surface Parking Lot

By: Austin55

Austin55 — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:51:09 +0000

the biggest problem is how dilapidated the building already is. If we don’t let buildings fall apart in the first place this wouldent be happining. “Fort Worth Club”, what a fail at being a good name for the city.

By: Steph

Steph — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:01:32 +0000

Brian, I am with you.

I’m not too surprised by the FW Club. They did tear down the gorgeous Worth Hotel & Theater to build an ugly pressed gravel parking garage. I guess they’re not big on preservation or good architecture these days.

By: Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:44:35 +0000

I would really miss the building. Nobody can deny it is a “One Of”

I don’t think there is any saving the building. I heard how much they paid for the place and It was a lot. A LOT. My guess is that any suggestions of saving it should have been brought to the Star Telegram people as they were selling it. Once a guy spends a billion on an old place they are sure going to think it is theirs to do as they please.

I am disappointed in the Fort Worth Club for not having a greater sense of Fort Worth’s past.

By: Steph

Steph — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:01:06 +0000

We have no use for smaller buildings in downtown? Well, I guess we better bulldoze the Bryce Building, the Sanger Buidling, the building that houses Reata, the Courthouse (it’s only 3 or 4 stories, right?), the building that houses Kinko’s, the building where Del Frisco is, the Ashton and anything else under 10 stories.

Downtown is not just for skyscrapers. Some of the best cities in the world have modest skylines (like Portland, OR). We need more buildings of all sizes with mixes uses and fewer surface lots. Like Kevin said, if the FW Club wants a ton of parking, maybe they should move to the suburbs.

By: Kevin Buchanan

Kevin Buchanan — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:58:57 +0000

So, again, you’d be OK with demolishing the Tarrant County Courthouse, since not everybody out there thinks it is attractive? If Tarrant County wanted to demolish the courthouse for a parking lot, since there’s no designation on that building as well, then you’re fine with that?

We as a society have already said that no, a man *can’t* do anything he wants with his property, through zoning and such. If one really wants to do “whatever” with their property, I’d suggest moving out to the middle of nowhere. If the Fort Worth Club wanted to build a toxic waste disposal plant on the site, would you be OK with that, too? Or if your neighbor wanted to build one next to you?

This isn’t a suburban strip mall in Burleson or Mansfield or Arlington and it’s not a ranch in the wilderness – it’s the middle of downtown Fort Worth. Parking lots are detrimental to the fabric of downtown. The “demolish, pave a parking lot, because everybody needs to drive” mentality is what helped decimate other cities. That might be progress to you, but it ain’t to everybody. Progress in Downtown is the creation of things that improve the fabric and built environment – so no, a parking lot isn’t progress. If you tear down enough buildings to build parking lots, pretty soon you’ve removed the reasons people like being in a downtown in the first place. Downtown is not the suburbs and shouldn’t try to be.

I’d suggest that if the Fort Worth Club wants a building surrounded by expanses of parking, perhaps they should reconsider being in downtown in the first place. The suburbs would be a better place for them to be in that case.

By: Johnny Bratton

Johnny Bratton — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:48:47 +0000

The building’s owners can do what they want, so it does not matter what any preservationist thinks is a smarter alternative. Not everyone considers the building attractive so the reality is it will probably become a parking lot. A parking lot is functional and serves a purpose, and will generate income whereas if the building remains as is, it will likely sit and continue to rot. Like it or not capitalism rules because this is America where a man buy a building, and yes, tear it down, and do with his property as he pleases.

Also, leaving the building to continue to rot in its current condition would be the real definition of powerfully lame. There is no market for a small, old, building but if the preservationists really want to protect it then BUY IT. Other than that, progress is indeed a parking lot and I for one and happy about that.

By: Austin55

Austin55 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:54:09 +0000

Has the building atleast been well documented in pictures?

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:32:16 +0000

The parking lot is just a place-holder. There are plans for redeveloping the site.

The building is in need of major work. Each floor is only like 2400 SF and “chopped-up”. The cost to rehab the building and bring it up to current code is astronomical – the asbestos abatement alone is crazy. It is unfortunate the building is being lost, but the economics are very real and valid consideration.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:05:34 +0000

Why don’t you lobby for a zoning change that prohibits surface parking to occupy more than 50% or 75% of a lot in areas zoned H (Central Business)? That would prohibit any further conversions of lots to surface parking.

By: Steph

Steph — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:35:10 +0000

I know the FW Club has property rights, and property rights are good, but you shouldn’t have complete disregard for the environment you’re working in. This is downtown, not the suburbs. We need density, not parking lots. Replacing buildings with parking lots (espcially buildings that are not even in disrepar. Maybe it’s ugly, maybe it’s not, but that’s not an issue), is just bad for everyone. It creates a dead space. And if you’re all about money, I think leasing the building as office/retail space will bring in a lot more money than a tiny little parking lot, because you’re not going to be able to fit many cars in the space where that building is.