Denton City Hall West Will Not be Torn Down
A Denton Record-Chronicle Newspaper article this week raised concerns about the future of City Hall West, pictured above and located on Elm Street just North of the Square. According to local historian and former City Council member Mike Cochran, “This wonderful building was built in 1927, and over the years it has housed City Hall, the Police Department, the community theater and now the Planning and other city departments.”
A bit of background – the city has been in discussions for some time now about the needs of our growing municipality and the need for more, and in some cases, consolidated space. It is rather a rare thing, but the city actually has three city halls, all housing city services and departments that are typically contained in one space in other cities: City Hall West (above), City Hall East on East Hickory right across from the DCTA station, and City Hall on E. McKinney Street between the Civic Center and the US Post Office. This question is ongoing and one thing seems clear: City Hall West is not conducive to the needs of a growing Planning department serving a city whose population is set to double in the next decade.
Concurrent with these discussions, a developer approached the city expressing interest in the property as well as the old Main Fire Station adjacent to it. And now it seems there is significant interest from others in this property as well. The city council met in executive session to discuss some of this.
With all this chatter of a possible sale, many citizens, rightfully concerned about the preservation of the city’s historic buildings, are worried this means that City Hall West would be torn down, or at least altered inappropriately.
I want to be clear – no one is interested in seeing Denton City Hall West torn down or altered in a way that takes away its historic significance. Not the city council, the city staff, or anyone expressing interest in the building.
The building already has a local historic landmark designation which provides a significant amount of protection from changes and demolition. Any plans for alterations of the exterior of the building must go through the city’s Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council will have the final say on the matter. Even if the ownership changes, these regulations still apply.
Keep in mind, out of all the city’s registered historic landmarks, the vast majority are owned by private citizens and they are doing just fine – in most cases, flourishing and adding beauty and character to our city.
My main interest is the historic preservation of City Hall West. Whether or not it remains in the hands of the city or the hands of a private entity is a separate question.
Right now that building is the place where someone goes to pull permits and find out information about building code and food establishment regulations. I’m not yet convinced that this is the best use of this remarkable building in such an important spot near the square. If we can explore the possibility of a better use – whether that be a municipal one or a private one – isn’t it worth a discussion?
10 Comments
Mr. Roden,
221 N. Elm was initially built as a fire station. I believe that the horse drawn fire engines were housed there. The DFD was moved into new quarters when the new station was built on the lot across the street. The DFD tried to secure the old bell in the bell tower for its museum, but the historical commission refused to let us have it.
Thanks,
Mark
Thank you for article. One thing is for sure about the fate of the building, if the city continues to own it- it will be maintained and used. I look at two other beautiful buildings that the city sold in the past, old fire station two on locust and old station three on ave. B. One is in total dissaray and the other is an insurance office. Once the city sells it looses control. Granted there will still be designations limiting exterior change, but the usage cannot be controlled (if I am correct) especially speaking long term over the course of multiple private owners.
Definitely worth a discussion. I would hate to see city hall west turn into another fire station blunder. Incidentally, city hall west also was the home to Denton fire station one.
It’s funny we are talking about tearing down and or removing buildings, and those buildings/momuments being protected. Yet less than five days ago you were calling on Twitter to remove the Confederate Memorial Statue in front of the Courthouse by encouraging people to start a campaign to remove it. I don’t know, but I find that on this topic, there is some flip flopping going on.
Glad to hear this Kevin! Three words in the stories and postings about this have resulted in the outcry: “developer” and “closed meeting.” I acknowledge the argument about why the council’s discussion had to be closed to the public, but considering the spate of recent tear-downs, and the probable future demolition of the unprotected old city firestation on Avenue B, suspicion about the “developer’s” motivations is justified. I’ll grant that many of the recent demolitions have not been by private developers, but again, after Fry Street, some suspicion of that job description is warranted. More openness would be a big help and save us all a trip to the torch and pitchfork store.
The Fry Street demolition was a welcomed event. It was a hotbed of illegal drug use. I do not see how anyone could have supported saving that street.
Kevin, et al,
I am glad to hear again of your commitment to preserving City Hall West. I personally have never doubted you on this, but I do question whether in private hands it will be as secure as you seem to believe. The Denton Historic Preservation Ordinance is fine as a first line of defense, but in reality all it takes is 4 votes for the council to overrule it. I don’t believe that any council you are a part of would do such a thing, but you have to look at it from the longer view of history to see that those protections are far from absolute. As one who was involved with the original Landmark Ordinance I do not believe that the restrictions are so ironclad as to prevent a determined developer in the future from doing whatever they might want to do with it. For the time being it may well be safe, but from a market view, as soon as the land becomes more valuable than the structure it will be in jeopardy. Selling it is forever, and forever is a long time for conditions and attitudes to change.
You have said that it is poorly designed for its current use. That may well be true, but it has been re-purposed many times in the past and can certainly be remodeled again. That it is not functioning well at the moment, seems like a poor reason to sell the building. This is a permanent solution for a temporary problem. Surely creative minds can figure out something a little more original to do than just sell it off because it is momentarily inconvenient.
City staff may well want a nice new office building and may find the current configuration inefficient, but I find it hard to believe that, if not now, at some point in the future there will not be a City need for more space. In the mean time there are dozens of possibilities for using the space which do not cause the City to give up forever a capital and cultural asset. The building could be in essence “mothballed” by using it for other public purposes until it is needed again by the City.
Many cities provide business incubator spaces for start-up businesses and effectively re-purpose existing public buildings. This is exactly what your “Ideas for the City” initiative for encouraging the growing creative class of entrepreneurs is all about and how it is done in other communities.
(here are some examples)
http://smallbizla.org/2014/santa-clarita-to-open-specialized-business-incubator/
http://greensburg.buildinggreen.com/overview.cfm?projectid=1151
http://www.emcity.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B0A956C62-CB17-44EA-81EC-F1101581AB0C%7D
http://www.lockportworks.com/content/business-incubator-program
Other possibilities for temporary use could be office space for non-profits currently scattered around the community or the Convention and Visitors Bureau. The City could charge market rates for space to offset the costs of maintenance and use the space to encourage organizations which have a positive benefit to Denton. At some point our various music festivals and our community market will grow to need office or meeting spaces and City Hall West is perfectly situated to provide the space they will need. What a valuable community resource to use for the encouragement of positive projects for Denton.
I know that lurking in the background in these discussions is the possibility that the City could trade these properties in return for getting a “free” office building on McKinney St. The normal way city buildings are financed is that they are put to a vote in bond elections and financed over a long period of time and this has always worked pretty well. Citizen bond committees make proposals for projects and the citizens, in effect become partners in new projects when they vote for needed infrastructure. This is a form of checks and balances in the operation of the city because typically, when a reasonable proposal is made and the citizens have faith in city management, they almost always approve the project.
I can well understand the attractions of forging a “creatively financed” deal which would allow to City to have a new building without having to put it to a vote in a bond election. But selling off capital assets for a short term need, is not a particularly good business practice and usually a sign of desperation.
And finally, should you end up selling the building and want to ensure the preservation of the historic building may I suggest a few things which could make that more likely: you might you consider supporting the current move to have City Hall West become a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark; and place deed restrictions on the sale which would contractually bind any new owners to your vision of perpetual preservation and private ownership.
So, I have seen some Th into in this article that does concern me, one, the historical cignificance of this building is something that should be considered. I also am a bit leary due to the Fry Street situation. It could have gone differently, but it didn’t, so I can see the concerns of the people in regards to this. The city of Denton has always been in my heart. So I am concerned and wish that this matter could be discussed in the open.
So, I have seen some Th into in this article that does concern me, one, the historical cignificance of this building is something that should be considered. I also am a bit leary due to the Fry Street situation. It could have gone differently, but it didn’t, so I can see the concerns of the people in regards to this. The city of Denton has always been in my heart. So I am concerned and wish that this matter could be discussed in the open.
Can you say “Bed & Breakfast” on City Hall West?? As a new business owner coming to the city early last year, I can see the growing pains you all are going through… It’s obvious there are two differing opinions about the direction to go in and a balance has to be found. The fire station has been in a trust and was privately held. The city can only do so much to keep up with what others can’t fix on their own. It’s not the fault of the city to chase land owners around all day begging them to keep up with their own property. I will say though… all city offices should be in the same business park or building. Communication is, and always will be, the key to solving issues. Out with the reaction and in with the action. And, thank God someone is fixing up the two older homes between Oak and Hickory next to the new fry street development!!!!
“I want to be clear – no one is interested in seeing Denton City Hall West torn down” Oh Kevin, don’t be so naive, if the business plan says there is big money to made by tearing it down and building high density housing with inadequate parking then it will be gone faster than the Oak trees at the old Flow Hospital site. I hope I am wrong, but in my experience no City Code is allowed to stand in the way of profit, only public outcry and action seem to be effective in preserving our heritage and beautiful structures. Thank you for your hard work and please keep us posted.