I wanted to collect a few bits & pieces here following up on yesterday’s awful news about the Ridglea Theater.
A lot of people have asked me how we could go about saving the building. While banging on Bank of America over this is certainly not pointless, if you want my own opinion, the biggest power to save the Ridglea rests on the Fort Worth City Council. The council has the power to designate the Ridglea as a “Historic & Cultural Landmark” (keep that term in mind when you contact them). A Historic & Cultural Landmark designation is one of the highest forms of protection the city of Fort Worth can give to a building, and helps prevent demolition (there is a lower level, “Demolition Delay,” which is really rather toothless in that it only delays demolition for 180 days and has no real protection). In fact, it’s been attempted before to designate the Ridglea.
The Designation Subcommittee of the Historic & Cultural Landmarks Commission recommended the Ridglea and its adjoining office/retail building to the City Council for Historic & Cultural Landmark designation late last year (full disclosure – I’m on the Designation Subcommittee and was involved in the efforts to designate the building at the time). A resolution to designate the Ridglea went to the City Council on November 17, 2009, with the following result:
Council Member Zimmerman made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hicks, that the Resolution be continued until the December 15, 2009, Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously nine (9) ayes to zero (0) nays.
Source (PDF Link)
Council Member Zimmerman, for the uninitiated, is the representative of District 3, the Ridglea’s district. The reasoning for continuing the vote likely happened behind closed doors before the council meeting. Jump forward to the December 15, 2009 council meeting, and the result was this:
City Manager Fisseler requested that Agenda Item XIII (1) relative to a resolution nominating the Ridglea Theatre as Historic and Cultural Landmark, be withdrawn from consideration and that Mayor and Council Communication No. G-16804 be continued until the January 26, 2010, Council meeting.
Source (PDF Link)
Again, no further information is available, and the deliberating likely happened behind closed doors. As near as I can tell, the resolution never appeared again on the City Council’s radar, and now we’ve got plans to demolish the theater, its office/retail building, and build a Bank of America branch behind the skeleton of the Ridglea’s facade.
(There’s some talk of the initial delay being due to wanting to talk to the building’s owners, but if that’s the case and the resolution was removed at the next meeting with no public discussion, that just goes to show how weak the city government is on preservation.)
As I said, perhaps the best hope of saving the Ridglea would be for the City Council to designate it a Historic & Cultural Landmark – just know that it’s an uphill battle, judging from the results above. I’m not trying to be a downer, just realistic. Even in the best of cases, preservation is difficult in Fort Worth – the city government doesn’t take it seriously, and oftentimes the results are apathetic. It’s especially tough in times of budget shortfalls.
This is the way the game is played, though, so it’s up to Ridglea supporters to write to the City Council (all the City Council, and particularly Council Member Zimmerman, since it’s his district) and ask that the council designate the Ridglea as a Historic & Cultural Landmark.
Zim Zimmerman – 817-392-8803 - District3@fortworthgov.org
Mayor – Mike Moncrief – 817-392-6118 – mike.moncrief@fortworthgov.org
Mayor Pro Tem – Danny Scarth – 817-392-6187 –District4@fortworthgov.org
Sal Espino – 817-392-8802 – District2@fortworthgov.org
Frank Moss – 817-392-8805 – District5@fortworthgov.org
Jungus Jordan – 817-392-8806 – District6@fortworthgov.org
Carter Burdette – 817-392-8807 – District7@fortworthgov.org
Kathleen Hicks – 817-392-8808 – District8@fortworthgov.org
Joel Burns – 817-392-8809 – District9@fortworthgov.org
This leads us into another question I’ve heard a lot – why can’t Bank of America use the existing two-story office & retail building that would be destroyed by the new plan?
The answer is: they probably could. This isn’t something that’s falling over – it’s also in active use. I’m instantly skeptical when a giant multinational says they “can’t” use a historic building for whatever reason. The problem is, they don’t want to. It’s an issue that is epidemic in the United States, and springs in part from the way these large companies operate (especially the way they build in the far-flung suburbs). They design a basic stock building design or two that’s stamped out with a virtual cookie cutter across the country, and any deviation from the basic design is extremely rare.
Take a look – almost every new bank branch looks exactly the same as every other new bank branch of the same brand. Sometimes, a token gesture of “fitting in” with the neighborhood will be made in the form of a different trim color or material, but it’s just simple dressing on the same shell. Drug stores are especially bad about this – the average Walgreens or CVS is exactly the same as every other example, with just a thin candy coating of “uniqueness” sprinkled on top.
James Howard Kunstler spoke about this on his Kunstlercast show way back in 2008 with a good summary of the mindset (they’re talking about drug stores in particular, but the same sort of things apply to many big corporate chains with a suburban building mindset):
JHK: Because of the sort of throwaway culture we live in, it’s more convenient for these big chains to just tear down whatever’s there and put up their own special purpose-built box with all of the things in the right place, so the building’s sort of pre-programmed. It’s a machine for dispensing goods, it’s not even a building. It just happens to come in a form that resembles a building.
…
Basically, if there’s a wonderful historic building that has, you know, 9,000 square feet of space, and the store needs 9,402 square feet of space, they’d rather knock down the historic building just to get exactly the right amount of space.
DC: Yeah, there was a case in Albany, New York, where a drug store was purchasing an old school building, and next to the school building was a vacant lot. And rather than rehab the school building and use the vacant lot as a parking lot, they wanted to knock down the school building for a parking lot, and build their building on the vacant lot.
JHK: Pathetic.
If you want my personal opinion, I’d want to see Bank of America rehab the existing two-story office/retail building for their purposes, and leave the Ridglea Theater alone. Or, go somewhere else in the Ridglea Village area and build an infill project that supports the goals of the Ridglea Urban Village designation the city has given – something that is arrayed to walkability and higher density.
So, there we are. It’s my opinion that the Ridglea more than qualifies as something to save, both for the architectural value of both the theater and office building, their importance in setting the stage for the other historic buildings around the area, the theater’s cultural historical significance as one of our few remaining single-screen theaters, and its current and ongoing cultural value as one of a few outlets of Fort Worth’s independent music scene. I hope a lot of you agree.
Recent Comments