Museum Tower vs. Nasher: Let's Peel Away the Junk and Get Back to Science

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Time out. Wait a minute. Maybe it's my fault. Now we're all over the map and flying blind on the Museum Tower/Nasher Sculpture Center thing, headed for outer space. Let's see if we can't steer this ship back toward Mother Earth.

The protracted, very bitter dispute between two buildings in the downtown Dallas Arts District is about reflected sunlight. One, the sculpture center, claims glare from the other, a new glass-sheathed luxury condo building called Museum Tower, is ruining the viewing experience inside the sculpture galleries and burning up plants outside in the garden.

young_scout.jpg
Library of Congress
The young Tim Rogers returns from camp early at the request of Scout leaders.
Over the last week the glare question got lost in a spin-off debate about public relations ploys and whether it's OK for people to create fake Facebook accounts in order to post anonymously on public issues. This is mea culpa, mea culpa on my part: I liked the Facebook fight better than the glare debate because the glare debate is about science and the few science courses I ever took persuaded me to go into journalism instead.

But the fight is about science. Not Facebook. A whole lot of absolutely bat-shit crazy off-the-wall stuff has been put out there concerning the science. In May 2012, for example, D Magazine Editor Demeritus Tim Rogers signed off at the end of a very long article attacking the condo tower with a line stating as fact that the glare coming off Museum Tower is tantamount to "the glaring light and searing heat generated by the power of two and a half suns."

Think about it. Wow. If Museum Tower can multiply the power of the sun itself by a factor of 2.5, maybe we should build a bunch of them and use them to replace all our nuclear reactors. But, wait. Museum Tower is composed of flat to convex surfaces. The way you got leaves to smoke as a back-yard Cub Scout was by focusing the sun's rays with a magnifying glass whose surface was concave, not convex. The trick was to focus the sun's rays, not disperse them. And I say all of this not without a pang of sympathy for the young Rogers boy who must have spent long afternoons in the back yard trying to set leaves on fire with a Coca Cola bottle. Perhaps there were tears.

See also:
In the Nasher Fight, the Morning News Has a Double Standard

How did I get so smart about it? Actually I drew this point from a very interesting video, one I urge you to click on and watch, published by Museum Tower to explain the scientifically derived solution to the glare problem caused by their own building. In it, a scientist singles out Rogers' claim as an example of stuff that has been said during this fight that is just flat not true.

I have at least a couple reasons for urging you to watch this video. One, it's well made, reasonable in tone and presents what looks an awful lot like a clean way out of this mess and a good path back to Earth. But I could be wrong about it, and that brings me to my second reason for asking you to look at it.

In the Museum Tower/Nasher debate here on Unfair Park over the last week, you, the readers, have brought more information and more good sense to the table than I have seen in any of the monographs, including my own, written by paid journalists. Not to get back into the Facebook fight or anything, but taken as a whole, as a body of work, your comments are an excellent argument for the value of anonymous speech. (All right, wait, sorry, let's not go there.)

Here's a thing I can say about this eight-minute video that I don't believe is debatable. It's intriguing. They claim their solution is 100 percent effective and completely invisible. If you do look, watch for the moment when they pull this amazing Houdini magic trick on you: They make Museum Tower completely disappear.

I mean, c'mon. How do they do that? That's really why I want you to watch. I want you to tell me how they can make a 42-story condo tower vanish into thin air. I am open to any and all explanations and exposés, including telling me that they're using a huge trap door beneath the building. Maybe I should send this to The Amazing Randi He might be able to explain it.

So, you see, the truth is I was the one out in the back yard with the Coke bottle, crying. I am seriously science-challenged. But do look at this, please. And then tell me: true science or wacky flim-flam? In the meantime, I will be working on my next big investigation, whether oncologists should send out people's test results as tweets. Leaning toward yes at the moment, but it's a work in progress.


My Voice Nation Help
83 comments
ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

Nasher defenders wont be happy unless the MT is torn down.  we get it.  You all are ripping Shutze for defending the MT, but i like the irony in him defending a place where only the uber rich can afford to live.  let the rich folks eat each other

JeffCollins
JeffCollins

If the MT has faithfully complied with all relevant laws and regulations, and if the outcome of this MT-Nasher tiff is anything other than the Nasher acquiescing tout-de-suite and accepting the MT's offer, we have a spanking new real estate precedent to enjoy in DFW: mob-rezoning by extortion.

And why should the Nasher be the only one to enjoy this infinitely flexible civic tactic?

Don't like the house your neighbor just legally built? Just hound them mercilessly, poison their landscaping, pay the neighborhood kids to torment their children in the lunch room, run over their toys in the street. You don't need a big press organization, although that would give you the smarmy sheen of civic respectability. All you really need is a howling mob happy to abuse its target in any way it can, forever. Law, schmaw. This is about "what's right", and the mob is who defines what's right, whether it's a neighboring house painted the wrong color emitting incorrect cooking odors, or the wrong people buying and running a small neighborhood business, or a neighbor with the temerity to not cut down his beloved oak tree that's blocking your satellite line-of-sight, or an adjacent enterprise whose appreciation of art dares to stray from the mob's ineffable standards. All are anathema, and all must go. Aux barricades! And you can kiss your little pink bicycle goodbye, Suzie. Think of it as a casualty of war for the greater aesthetic good of all.

JMFitzmaurice
JMFitzmaurice

Ok Jim,

I'll take a crack at this. No personal attacks, no speaking about things I don't understand. Here goes....

As well as science, we must remember there is a large component of art here. I don't sculpt, nor is sculpture an art form I respond especially strongly too, but I do have a lot of experience with the use of light in art. I earned my living for many years as a photographer, and I have also worked a lot on stage. The light from this solution is said to be “comparable.” Let me give a couple of examples of how “comparable,” but not identical light can damage art. Most photographers have found, or will eventually find, themselves in a situation where their key light fails. When this happens you swear a bit, and then set up your backup light. Rarely is it going to be the same light. (the big good ones cost a small fortune). You will adjust it with a different reflector, or diffuser, and by changing position the best you can, but the light on your subject isn't going to be exactly as it was. It may be “comparable” but it won't be the same. You will change what is in light, what is in shadow, what details are clear, what are not, and the final look will be different. Similarly in theatre, I have been in a position where a light blew before a show. We quickly changed the light cues to illuminate that part of the stage with a different light, and got a “comparable” amount of light on the stage. Nevertheless it wasn't exact and a bit of business and a makeup effect in the shadows became all but invisible. Knowing how painstakingly the Nasher was built to collect and disperse a specific quality of light, I believe those more knowledgeable than I about sculpture, that the illumination on these statues may be “comparable” but not the same and this will hurt the display of them. Since the Nasher is well know for this lighting, and I have heard friends who was are into sculpture gush about it, this is not an insignificant consideration.

Frankly I'm frustrated by everyone in this. Legal rights aside for the moment, I cannot believe that Museum Tower was either so callous or so ignorant as to not consider this before erecting a building that would be marketed in large part on its proximity to art museums. On the other hand, I can't believe the Nasher didn't make a genuine attempt to work with them before, and while the building was constructed. To put it all in a small scale. If I built a shed that put my neighbors prize winning rose garden in constant shadow, I would be a jerk for doing so. They would be idiots for watching me begin to build a shed without knocking on my door and saying, “Hey, you might not know this, but your shed is going to wreck my roses, could we figure out a way to fix that?” before the thing went up. I might be the bigger jerk in that situation, but my neighbor isn't going to win any prizes for intelligence.

All that said, the situation is as it is now. Something is going to have to give. No one wants a world class art museum to loose much of its appeal, and no one wants a costly failure impacting a much needed pension program. I don't know if this is the best solution, but it deserves to at least be discussed and analyzed to see if it is, not rejected out of hand. If it genuinely is unworkable, and will cause too much damage to the visual display of the artwork, then we need to look for another solution, but let's at least see if we can use this as a starting point to get the sides talking.


JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

Hmm. So what we have here is a pretty convincing demonstration that the defenders of the Nasher cannot or will not address any of the technical and scientific arguments brought forward by Museum Tower but instead are going to insist on treating the whole thing as a Twitter war between assholes. I have to conclude that the Nasher defenders believe they have the advantage on that field. What they must not know is that no one wins a Twitter war between assholes, because it just goes on and on.  Its an asshole quagmire. Not a single response to the new oculi solution. Not one. Not even from Primi, who always does better than this. What is it, in fact, about the Nasher, that seems to bring out the worst in the best of us? I don't believe the technical solution put forward by Museum Tower can be ignored, but so far every single argument brought to bear by the other side not only can be ignored but needs to be. This is about to be over, folks. At a certain point when somebody's trying to get his way by holding his breath and turning purple, all you can do  is to walk away.

dougindfw
dougindfw

Who knew all you had to do is make a shiny video with effects to get a Schutze approved science designation. 

After watching the video and Back to the Future I've concluded that Museum Tower is destined to become Elysium.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

As developers and owners of the property bordering the Jim Schutze residence we want to assure Jim and his neighbors that we have observed all city zoning laws and have obtained the requisite approvals of the entire Zoning Board and City Council, and we are confident that the urban pig farm now under construction on the site will be an asset of which the entire neighborhood can be proud. (Please refer to the architects' concept drawings in the enclosed full-color brochure.) 

Although our original agreement with the neighborhood called for construction of a modest chicken coop on that property, changing economic conditions and the burgeoning pork market made it necessary to revise our original plans. We have a fiduciary obligation to our stakeholders to maximize the capital return on their investment. Our board thinks Hogtied Tower is the way to go. (Please refer to the estimated profit chart in the enclosed full-color brochure.)

Some have expressed concerns over the "odors" associated with a pig farm. Experience has shown that the average pig produces no more odor than an ordinary house pet. Moreover studies by an independent team of meteoroloists indicate that prevailing winds in the neighborhood blow away from the Schutze home. (Please refer to fully scientific map and diagram in the enclosed full-color brochure.) Finally, recent medical research has shown that pig-odor is a healthy smell, filled with the kind of aerosol-suspended organics needed by growing bodies. (Please refer to the photos of lab researchers looking into test tubes, in the enclosed full-color brochure.)

We want to be good neighbors, we really do. And so as a gesture of our good will, we have paid for an independent panel of disinterested science-type people to come up with a solution that all sides -- our pigs and your noses --can live with. Unlike the proposal that we cork our pigs, an excessively costly procedure that we are sure will make none of our pigs happy and may in the long run exacerbate the odor problem, our solution is elegant and inexpensive. The nose plugs that our science-type people have designed can be easily fitted over both nostrils to eliminate  the offending "odors" with 76 percent effectiveness. (Please refer to nose-plug instructions in the enclosed full-color brochure.)

Finally, need we remind you that pigs are extraordinarily sensitive to slights and remarks concerning untidiness, smells, slop and the like. And pigs are notoriously litigious. A word to the wise.

(Signed) 

**** *******        


marcbloch44
marcbloch44

Great, thanks a lot, Jim. I watched that thing before, and because you insisted I've gone and watched it again. Eight more minutes I'll never get back.

Still baffled by your response to it. They leave off the laugh track, and you think it's something serious?  It's drinking game material - I wish I had thought of that before. Actually that might make one more viewing semi bearable, but not quite.

Take this "100% solution" thing.  One hundred percent of what?  It's like that old scoundrel W. Lee O'Daniel, from way back when, selling his bags of Hillbilly Flour with the word "Guaranteed" in big black letters. He couldn't possibly say that if it weren't true, could he? Look at the bag. It's guaranteed!

You can tell it's a con job from the careful way they phrase these things.  (It's not rocket science, but some of us will have learned about this from reading you. On other topics.)  Look at the actual claim about the overall effect of their Rube Goldberg super-oculi.  Amazingly enough, it "produces light levels COMPARABLE to the original."

No, seriously, that's it.  Again, from the end of the shpiel:  it "restores the Nasher gallery visitor experience to conditions comparable to the environment before the construction of Museum Tower."

How about that! It's 100% comparable.  In fact ... it's guaranteed!

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

From the start of this fight, the MT crowd has brought the facts and the law, and the Nasher crowd has brought hysteria, hype and emotion.  I really don't need to dig too deeply into the facts to figure out who is less wrong in this fight (since it is rarely about someone being right, it's just who is less wrong.)  I don't need to dig too deeply because I understand human nature.  When one side is mustering facts and the other side is mustering shouters and outrace, the second side is the weaker argument.

That's the real tragedy of the sock puppeting fiasco.  The MT gave up the high ground and went with their own hysteria and hype.  Hopefully the video campaign is a return to the original plan.

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

Jim, that promotional video is not science, it is a video made by the building owners featuring "scientists" paid by the building owners. Nice production but all fluff. You are getting soft, and maybe worse. Do you remember Christina Rees? I think you two used to work at the same place.

if6were9
if6were9

This debate needs an enema....

Rudy Cruz
Rudy Cruz

The smarty professor is wrong; sure you can intensify the sun without focusing its rays. Picture yourself in a field with your back to the sun while a friend reflects the sun in your face with a mirror. Annoying? Now invite 1500 other friends with mirrors to do the same. There is a difference. That's what an array does and the tower's window panes do the same with sunlight.

duanewmurphy
duanewmurphy

Anyone that watches the video should come to understand the  people at Tower have done much more than their due diligence to correct the looming issues. It appears they have found a solution, and offered to pay for it. If the people at the Nasher refuse the offerings they then should be told to go F themselves.  

WylieH
WylieH

Jim,

One thing that I haven't seen fully explained is the lapse of the restrictive covenant that would have prevented this building from being built in the first place.  It was likely filed with Dallas County and it would be interesting to see the actual document, understand whether it contained a renewal option, and (if it did contain) a renewal option, understand why it wasn't renewed by the option holder.

Can you send one of "your people" down to get the document?

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

Jim,

In decades of writing about art and museums I watched over and over as architects, curators and restorers wrestled with the problem of excess light. 

Keep in mind the Nasher exhibits all kinds of art, not just sculpture. Photography, prints and drawings are extremely vulnerable to excess light, to the point that museums have become obsessive about the amount of direct light in galleries that show such works. I can remember following a curator through the galleries of a major New York museum as she fretfully checked light levels with a meter, like a chef checking the temperature in an oven. By now museum architects are well aware of the problem and design accordingly. When the Nasher was designed an agreement was in effect with the owners of the property across the street that whatever was built there would not exceed a certain height nor employ glass beyond a certain reflectivity. With that agreement in place, the Nasher's architect, Renzo Piano, proceeded to design a roof that would permit the proper amount of light and no more into the galleries. What eventually got built across the street from the Nasher was almost twice as tall and the mirror-glass facade that faces the museum many times te reflectivity that had been agreed upon. With results that are all too painfully evident.

Other works besides prints and drawings can also suffer from excessive light, though not to te same extent. Colors fade, materials become brittle.  What suffers most, however, is the visitor's experience of the art. Art is created to be seen, as music is composed tp be heard. The elaborate measures taken during construction of our concert hall to exclude ambient sound from the concert chamber were no different from the efforts to control light within the Nasher. The differece is that a developer did not come along and build a steel mill across the street from the concert hall.

You've entertained your readers, Jim -- some of them anyway -- by gigging the art lovers (whom you incorrectly portray as Dallas' moneyed class), the art, the museum, and those of us who have argued its case. (By the way, Jim, I'd love to sit down with you some day and review my experience covering "hard" news. Just in the interest of accuracy.)  But it's time to look at this dispute less as a source of entertainment for certain of your readers and more as a clash of values in a city where developers and big money (and the pension fund is VERY BIG money) hold all the cards.

I know that seems a sort of soft, limp-wristed, fruits-and-nuts approach to the story, especially for someone who prides himself on his "hard" news background. But it's the right way, Jim. 

        

    

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@ScottsMerkin The rich folks who live in the tower or the ordinary not-rich folks who just like to go to the Nasher and look at he art without squinting?

StopTheMadness
StopTheMadness

@ScottsMerkin Most artists can't afford to buy a place in Oak Cliff, much less Deep Ellum. Should we tear those neighborhoods down too?

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@ScottsMerkin 

Hear hear! Let them eat each other, they are entirely too lean for me - I think it's all the yoga and pilates. Barely enough meat on them anymore to sustain a humble peasant.

At least the rich folk of the earlier centuries had the decency to fatten themselves up for us.

JMFitzmaurice
JMFitzmaurice

Okay, because I just can't help myself, I would take issue with your saying you don''t believe the video is debatable. I would just point out 3 things.

1. "100% solution" by definition it isn't. If it doesn't produce what was there before, it isn't 100% solution. Now that's okay. Reasonably we aren't going to get to 100%, and we should all accept that, but it doesn't help credibility to begin with an assertion that is simply, factually untrue. If they had said, "We have come up with the absolute most effective solution possible," that might be true, it remains to be seen.

2. I don't know enough about how important direction is to the Nasher light, but they don't point out that light direction is a major factor in lighting. Anyone who has ever looked for a house with windows facing a certain direction in the living room, bedroom etc knows that. They just don't say anything about how the change from North to North West light might change the light quality. I think that is a debatable point, if light direction matters here.

3. The Garden Light issue. We need to remember that the garden is a "sculpture garden," even if the light into the garden doesn't hurt the plants (their expert says he doesn't believe it does, others have said the opposite) it is a sculpture garden, and it certainly has an impact on the viewing of the sculptures. Also we all know the experience of being out in a garden with direct reflected glaring light,is rather different than one without. These are also issues they flatly don't address. So there is also certainly a lot to debate there. 

Again, I am not saying this plan is or isn't the best solution out there, but the video certainly is debatable, especially since they don't provide any answers to some of the problems, claim it is 100% and don't show us the science. They just tell us they used it to design these things, and they work. I don't necessarily believe them, or disbelieve them. Not because, "Museum Tower is evil," just because we don't really see science here, we are just told it exists. I'd like some independent verification first, and  there is still no plan to handle the garden issues.

Oh and they made the tower disappear the same way buildings get scrubbed from skylines in movies. I have no reason to doubt that wouldn't work in reality, but let's not praise the effectiveness based on a skillfully done CGI illusion. I have friends who could remove it, and put Godzilla in its place.  :)





primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

Jim,

You are now using your questions as a sort of debating tactic. The argument runs as follows;

Gary Lawson of Strasburger hires the greatest scientists in the world to solve the Nasher problems. Teams of scientists, wearing lab coats, double time it to labs and libraries in search of the solution.

The the teams produce 22 possible solutions. Strasburger's evaluates the solutions, presumably with the aid of other science advisors. MT finds other replacement of Nasher oculi with the newly designed MT oculi. MT presents this best of 22 solutions to Nasher, who are underwhelmed for reasons unknown; people often dislike the ideas of others, especially in cases where presented idea is demonstrably better. The MT is flummoxed. Their Chritmas present was not regarded with any of the thanks and awe MT was expecting. MT still believes in the oculi solution and are terribly proud of its development. They share their newly created knowledge with the rest of Dallas by producing an extremely well produced video showing in detail why the new technology is so effective.

Jim Schutze is interested in the new technology and contacts MT to get fully briefed on the new technology. He physically examines the newly engineered oculi prototypes, confirming this not a 100% cgi video and returns to his office.

At the office Schutze writes a column, includes a connection to the video and asks his readers "is this science and why won't this work?" The responses are extreme. Most comments either accept the claims of the video at face value, proclaiming anyone who fails to accept this solution is just crazy, or commenters who reject the proposal because they do not believe it because its creators have lost credibility or its solution is less than perfect.

The truth is mundane. There is not enough explanation of the solution in the 8 minute

video to crown the offered solution as the best fair solution available. But that crown could still be worn if, the solution works better than anything else.

An intrepid reporter asks for the research files of Solution 22, as well as those of the other 21 rejects. The reporter enlists the services of someone familiar with the subject matter to help the reporter understand the proposed solutions and why 21 of them were rejected.

The reporter asks for the list of scientists who were engaged but offered no solutions. He asks for the list of horticultural experts contacted to assist in measuring the harm, if any, that may befall the plants, trees and gardens located on museum property. He asks to interview each of these horticulturists and review their research and findings. The reporter vets the horticulture items with his own expert

The reporter writes a story detailing his findings, linking the article to whatever primary materials deemed relevant.

The point being, the video was made to persuade the uninitiated the solution has been found, the solution will be paid for, the city will be restored to world class status and its resident art aficionados may begin thanking them and buying them drinks and far away luxury vacations in token of these thanks.

There are as many sides to a story as there are people telling it. Today the MT went Kurosawa on us by using multimedia to explain one story. The solution may work, maybe even perfectly, but the video is not good science, it is a publicity vehicle, a campaign commercial. It is like the Toll Road artist renderings of the proposed lake with sail boats.

Interview the 21 other scientists, the scientists who did not find a solution, and the scientists interviewed for the MT engagement, but who were not hired. Do the same with the horticulturists, which could be especially fertile ground. Get the reports. Then you will have some science. Get the facts, write the story, and then we all will get something useful: an objective article on the problems and solutions of the Nasher. That will be a science based article and it will be more determinative and persuasive than a whole Super Bowl of commercials.

marcbloch44
marcbloch44

@JimSX Perhaps I fail to appreciate the distracting power of my own snark. But I'll try one more time. You keep insisting that a solution is on the table, backed by all of this science that you want someone to address. I'm trying to point out that even though Museum Tower has labelled its proposal as a "solution," that's not what it is.

A genuine solution, for the Nasher, will require the recovery of the distinct qualities of the light that the sunscreen originally provided. That was the defining feature of the building. You could see glowing qualities and other features in the sculptures they positioned there, which you wouldn't see otherwise. It was a genuinely awesome space, something we had here that was unique in the world.

And, sorry, despite all the "100% solution" flimflam, that's not what the "reconfigured" oculi will provide. Again, the only thing Museum Tower is actually claiming is that the "experience" will be "comparable." When they have to get specific about what they're offering, then they reach for the weasel words.

Of course they're also suggesting to you that it's really the same, they make it look that way in their own slick presentations, and if you really don't care about any of this, then I guess changes in the light aren't meaningful to you anyway.  But that's what the rest of us will be stuck with.

They fashioned their own twisted oculi, they rotated them around, they hired Cy Cantrell and others to conduct detailed studies. These can show that the proposed new roof blocks Museum Tower's reflections and still transmits sunlight - not the same amount, not the same pattern, but something "comparable." That's all that the science can truthfully say.

I guess it would solve things well enough for Museum Tower. For the Nasher, it is still a case of having someone else forcibly rearrange your face, then say they've done you a favor. It's not a good faith solution, it's an act of destruction. I don't understand why it's so hard, but I hope you're still willing to recognize this.

RadarLove
RadarLove

@JimSXOf course some of us watched the video, which is why I really don't understand why they don't compromise. Thought that went without saying - guess not. If there is a decent compromise solution available, but  D and the DMN won't come clean as to why they don't recommend it and instead are in collusion with the Nasher, whether it's because of insurance claims or just plain favoritism, the asshole war won't end because we assholes, are assuming there is a buried treasure - as in dirty little secret - in here somewhere.  And I guess we haven't been satisfied it has been found

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@bmarvel 

sorry, if the nose plugs are not a "100% solution to the problem" your proposal won't be acceptable.....

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

The MT seems to be far outpacing the museum as far as public relations go. I do not think their releases equate to objective facts. If their self-proclaimed facts and legal rights are so irrefutable, why are they spending money on this video?

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@primi_timpano 

I've actually had the new oculi, oculo, oculitis in my hand and looked at how they would be retro-fitted into the Nasher's roof, out of the view of human beings and barely distinguishable from the old oculares even by passing birds. Here's your problem, Primi, and you usually do better than this. You want to talk about Snyder, about who paid the scientists, about whether Christina Rees  got a boo-boo, all of which I'm an absolute sucker for and, left to my natural inclinations, could talk about for six weeks. But I do notice you have nothing to say about the science. Not who paid for the science or who the scientists' spouses are but the science. What about the science, Primi? Do you think the solution would work?

glenn.hunter
glenn.hunter

@WylieH According to a timeline on the Museum Tower website, partners including then-DMA President Deedie Rose purchased land across the street from what's now the Nasher in 1998, and a "covenant" of some kind was drawn up. But for whatever reason this covenant never went into effect. Construction on the Nasher didn't start until 2001.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@WylieH 

Walking into bathroom now. Facing mirror. "People! Get to work! WylieH wants a document!" 

Shit. Now they're grumbling about the pay again.

RadarLove
RadarLove

@bmarvel

When transporting fragile art that can be damaged by excessive light, it's better to not take the car with the sunroof or drive with the top down.  A museum that is interested in protecting its valuable paintings and photography, should not have built a roof with light so bright, my late elderly neighbor had to wear her sunglasses in - that was before the tower was built.  


Was the Nasher originally designed to feature other works of art besides sculptures? When the Nasher opened, did it feature other works besides sculptures? 

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@bmarvel 

And my "softside" jab, referring to your newspaper days, was  stupid. City desk hard news people are cigar-butt morons. Dailies would still be thriving if the owners had turned them over the feature and sports writers.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@marcbloch44 Exacty, marcbloch. Having created a serious problem for the Nasher, the Tower now wants to impose its solution on the museum. It's almost as good as the lighting that prevailed before the tower, we're being told. Or, in Jim's words, it's not as good. But like the dent some asshole put in your new car, it's pretty good. Considering. I mean, if you look at it from certain angles you can hardly tell....

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@marcbloch44 Exactly! The tower created a serious problem for the museum and now the tower wants to impose its solution to that problem on the museum. It's not really a very good solution. It doesn't restore the museum to the lighting conditions it enjoyed before the tower was built. But it's "comparable." Sort of. In a way.

It's like you bought this beautiful new car. Special paint job. Your pride and joy. And some asshole comes along and leaves a huge dent in it. ("Well, what was it doing parked there anyway?") He knows someone who he says can fix that dent, match that paint. Make it look almost like it did before. Well, comparable anyway. I mean, if you look at it from certain angles, kind of squint, it looks pretty good, doesn't it? Considering its been in a bad accident. And you have to weigh the fact that my car costs a lot of money, too. And we did not agree that my car would not hit your car, not in so any words, did we?  

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

I do get what you're saying. Sorry if I was slow about it, thanks for running it down for me. I'm sure you are correct that the Museum Tower solution does not perfectly reproduce conditions befor construction of Museum Tower. On the other hand, we have these factors to weigh: Museum Tower was built in full compliance wth all legal requirements and restrictions, and the Nasher failed to achieve or maintain any private agreement further restricting them. So Museum Tower is a creature and a product of the real world outt there as it exists.

Years ago neighbors iin my part of town tried to kill a house construction project on an empty lot up my street because they wanted to keep using the lot as a park. People on the other side of the issue finally said to them, "If you want to use it for softball, buy it. Otherwise, it ain't yours, so shut up."How is this different? Museum Tower is not wantonly or even irresponsibly damaging the Nasher, according to the law, The law says it's not. If the Nasher didn't want a tower on that lot, it needed to buy the lot.So given the amont of shared responsibility here, is it not fair to expect the Nasher to bend just a small amount? And what is it the Nasher wants Museum Tower to do? Go away?

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@mavdog Mavdog --we at Hogtied Tower prefer to call them "Nasalculi."

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

Jim, I am all for good science, and for lots of good science in schools (another subject, another day). For the sake of argument I assume the Fund et al is trying to use science as part of a good faith effort to solve the reflection problems. This is a little bit of a reach for me, as it appears little to no thought, much less science, was applied to possible reflection issues before the Tower was originally built.

The video is a commercial that attempts to buttress its credibility with frequent references to science and scientists, much like other commercials will be set in labs, computer centers, etc. It is a good, well prepared, tv comnercial, and if I were in the market for oculi sunscreens I would be tempted to contact the vendor.

Good science usually involves a Sherlock Holmes like approach to the problem, but conducted by scientists. They identify the problem, attempt to find and understand the causes of the problem, and then identify a possible solution; this last part is often called forming a hypothesis. Scientists then test this and other hypotheses to hopefully find a science based solution. The difference between the scientific method and the video is scientists don't produce short videos to support it's solutions. In a perfect world, and one I admit is not of our earth, other scientists review the solution and weigh in with their experiences. This could be replicating the solution and its attendant engineering, or recognition or dismissal of the solution based upon their experience in the subject matter. In good science the scientists do not have an interest on the solution. This is a difficult predicate to maintain when money is affected by the solutions, not just with respect to the Tower, but in nearly all things aimed at a lucrative results, e.g. drug tests, medical devices, chemicals, etc.

The Fund's objective should be to solve the reflection problem as quickly and as inexpensively as possible. The Museum's objective should be to solve this problem in the best way possible. The Tower wants it cheap and fast; the Museum wants it done really well regardless of the cost. I am not a scientist so I take a simpler approach. The Museum caused the problem, they should fix. But even this mild partisanship becomes tilted.

I see how the Fund invests its money. It doesn't do this very intelligently so I infer the same lack of thought and process extends to their Tower development. I see the way it's lawyers deal with the matter--crazy stupid email to the mayor and attack dog tactics waged against "civilian" opponents who do not have a real stake in the affair (of which I am one, as are most of your commenters)--and I distrust the way the Museum attempts to resolve conflicts.

For these reasons I am compelled to doubt the veracity and sincerity of the Fund and certainly it's lawyers. This cynicism likewise extends to its paid consultants. This cynicism makes me wonder whether the consulting agreements contain confidentiality provisions of the sort preventing the paid scientists from expressing any opinion on this subject without Strasburger's approval; I assume Strasburger's, it being my recollection the law firm hired the scientists, not the architect, developer, or the fund. If my assumption is correct, it seems the only reason for this engagement by lawyers is to "contain" unwanted (expensive) solutions that may be better.

Until I read about the Christina Rees affair I looked at this as pretty much as you have portrayed it: dumb ass Administrators of a rich fund teamed with opportunist developers against a rich Museum. My view of the field changed dramatically when I learned of Straburger's threats against Ms. Rees, her bank account, and livelihood. These are tactics one usually ascribes to organized crime. So yes, bring on the science, hopefully good science that really works, but the video does not make it science and it doesn't necessarily represent a partial, much less complete solution, of the Museum's problems. I'll let the scientists explain science to the parties of interest. As for the parties themselves, the Fund, its attorneys, and consultants have adequately explained themselves, and I rarely side with bullies and thugs.

WylieH
WylieH

@glenn.hunter I've heard a different version... that there WAS a restrictive covenant, but that it lapsed.  If (hypothetically speaking, of course) such an agreement was operative at one time, and the Nasher folks let it lapse (either on purpose or through an oversight) that would be interesting to know.

I'm kind of tempted to try to find the document myself, but I'm STILL at lunch with Decherd.... he's in the midst of a story about killing a tiger...

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@JimSX @WylieH I'll bet Wylie is actually IN the basement, at work, just itching to 'anonymously' hand the documents over to you, Jim.....

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@RadarLove @bmarvel 

Yes, the Nasher was designed to exhibit a wide range of art, from sculptures to painting to drawings.

yes, it was designed to provide the correct amount of light, that was the innovative oculi so much discussed. worked like a charm.

your late elderly neighbor must have had an issue with their eyesight. sunglasses are not needed, or at least were not needed until you know what was built to the east.....

mm32
mm32

@JimSX @bmarvel I love the Mike Snyder voice-over.  Really lends an air of credibility.

StopTheMadness
StopTheMadness

@ScottsMerkin @StopTheMadness Depsite that, this fight needs to end. Personally, I've had enough of this saga and its cast members and more importantly, I am so disheartened by the continued lack of foresight and maturity, in how we promote Dallas. We all should be. 

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@StopTheMadness exactly, Isnt that what I did above?  Its 2 really rich pretentious groups of pricks, fighting over rich people problems.  

StopTheMadness
StopTheMadness

@ScottsMerkin @StopTheMadness One can favor and demand compromise without defending or being against, either party. Without having all of the facts, only a fool or a paid harpy would chose a side, in this fight.

StopTheMadness
StopTheMadness

@ScottsMerkin @StopTheMadness For those stragglers who are still in a fight that's not ours.  

Nothing will ever be 100% in a city where children with artistic talent, or not, are going to bed hungry, living in shelters with their parents, or that there are no art supplies in half the schools in this town.  If any of those kind of people want to see the light bounce off the sculptures, even though it might not be perfect,  their parents take them to NorthPark, because there, it's free. Do they love and appreciate the sculpture less than those of you who demand, someone else's idea of perfect light? 

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@bmarvel @marcbloch44 

I get it, I really do. It's just not the same as it was. But here's the thing, when you drive you're new sports car out into traffic, you've entered the gantlet and had better expect a few door dings at the very least, and a horrible fiery death at the worst.

If you're looking at this from Jim's perspective, that is the ideal analogy. The whole thing was an accident - by definition, nobody is 100% at fault. Shit happens. Que sera, sera. Elvis has left the building . . .

Now, time to exchange insurance cards and get these hoopties back on the road.

marcbloch44
marcbloch44

@JimSX You make fair points. I disagree with some. Your neighborhood analogy doesn't work, I think, if you acknowledge the impact of the glare on the Nasher building and the institution. Evidently Raymond Nasher anticipated this (although not 44% reflective glass, I presume) and tried to prevent it. I'm as curious as anyone to know what exactly caused the restrictive covenant to lapse.

I understand what you say about property rights. But the range of real-world factors is pretty broad - it's not limited to those legal claims and market conditions that would help secure an investor's projected rate of return on investment. If you accept, as I do, that the Nasher as we know it is fighting for its life, then political engagement seems entirely appropriate.

Having said that, I actually don't dispute what you say about shared responsibility. I have no connection to the gallery beyond occasional visits, and no way of knowing their bottom line demands. Regardless of their position, I think any acceptable resolution must actually be a fix, not a cheap-ass pretend-fix. It's an aesthetic judgment, but a serious one, and I believe it also reflects the true interest of the public (me and you too) in seeing an important cultural asset preserved and not destroyed.

If we've been able to set aside the idea of MT's "oculi solution" as an actual solution, I think we can see it more appropriately as a recognition of a degree of responsibility on MT's part - not in so many words, not as a matter of legal principle, but as an implicit acknowledgment of other "real world" circumstances. It also makes sense to me as a kind of opening bid, testing the waters, allowing MT to see whether it can actually get away with the cheap-ass pretend-fix.  If we're moving past that stage, perhaps more serious bargaining can begin. Again, for what little it's worth, I don't think the Nasher can or should be shielded fully from the costs of a solution. It would have to come out of the hides of both parties.

Would the Nasher itself have to remain untouched? I would not say so, myself, at least in principle - I can imagine some kind of retro-fit moving shield, but then I haven't been there in mid-glare and don't know the specifications of the problem.  Can Museum Tower be modified? Evidently not at a cost that they have been willing to absorb, so far at least, but their claims about the absolute unworkability of all possible ideas obviously reflects their gamesmanship up to this point. Maybe a new master plan, taking in both buildings, providing for the needs of both parties, and also providing for the sharing of costs? Perhaps Renzo Piano would be willing to take it on. That, to me, would be fair.

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

Jim, I'm sorry for my indirect answer. Yes, it makes sense to me that the new oculi work, after all, the solution was demonstrated on a computer. It obviously will have no effect outside of the Nasher building and the gardeners, horticulture experts (the video used a guy from Yale, which is impressive despite his philosophy major) are still far apart from agreeing on these effects.

Again, I am not a scientist or architect, just a guy who doesn't want to wreck a car while blinded by the light. Since this has become a war of public opinion (not the best place to argue science but here we are), the Nasher should examine the solution and accept all or part of it or explain why it is not workable for their museum.

For what it is worth, I am not a part of any of this, excepting maybe a visit to the Nasher every year or three.

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

I fear for the tiger that gets between my neighborhood raccoon and his bowl of leftover cat food.

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

It seems odd that a restrictive covenant intended to protect the museum would have a hard termination date. Hindsight may be 20-20 but it seems odd the restriction did not have sharper teeth and a longer term. So odd there must have been a reason for it.

WylieH
WylieH

@mavdog Yep, that's exactly what I want to know... and why I want to know it.  Thanks, mavdog!

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

Multiple articles reference a Restrictive Covenant of 20 years that was entered into in 1998, between the Nasher tract and the current Museum Tower tract, limiting the height of any future building on the MT tract and also specified the amount of "reflectivity" (did I make up that word?) of any future building on the MT tract.

Typically such a RC is recorded with the County Clerk in the Property Records.

a Title Company they could easily procure such a document if indeed it was recorded...

The question that Wylie is posing is why did the RC go by the wayside? for if the RC was kept in effect this whole bruhaha would not have ever occured.

Did the Nasher folks drop the ball? Did they never ask for it to be extended? was there an extension in the RC that needed to be exercised? did the Nasher ask for an extension and were given the finger by the then owner (that was Brook Partners, no?) because the sales value of an unencumbered property would be higher 'cuz a taller building could be built?

WylieH
WylieH

@JimSX@RTGolden1@WylieH 

It was at that very moment that Wylie H. revealed himself to be none other than.... Jim Schutze.

(cue camera pull back from a close-up of Schutze, driving a car to reveal Wylie H., fading to invisibility in the back seat. 

As the camera continues to pull back to a view from the near outside of the vehicle, a large smile begins to cross Schutze’s face... 

the view expands further to reveal Craig Holcomb seated in the passenger seat, laughing softly to himself... the top is down, allowing the wind to slightly caress Holcomb's long white, flowing locks...

the camera continues to pull back, to an aerial shot of the convertible car, shown to be crossing the Calatrava westbound, with downtown Dallas in the background... as the camera distance increases, so do the sounds of laughter... now  Schutze and Holcomb laughing together...

as the camera pulls back further, a tall, mysterious cylinder begins to come into view... 

slowly, yet recklessly, the camera begins to pan from Schutze and Holcomb crossing the bridge towards the tall, glassy cylinder in the distance...

... as the cylinder begins to come into view a dapper, trim gentleman sporting facial hair and a tuxedo can be seen standing, arms crossed in the penthouse, staring down... he is laughing as well, as if in sync with Holcomb and Schutze...

the camera continue to close in on the shiny tower, as if attracted by an irresistible force until...

...OMG!!! the camera operator has stupidly neglected the time (sundown) and the dangerous ability of the cylinder to concentrate the sun's rays!!!  The camera operator is blinded and the camera is destroyed as the reflected sunlight turns the screen to WHITE!!!

Roll credits.  (melancholy music plays in background as the laughter of the three gentlemen continues)


RadarLove
RadarLove

@RTGolden1

@RadarLove

 "...we could do this right and glorify every organization, institution, person, art and culture, intellectually...." is complete crap." and also "Also, please stop with the 'starving artist' bit.....

I am not, really, talking about art here.  I'm talking about the lack of appreciation and inclusion of all of our institutions and all the unique people  and their "quantitative" talent that add to the vibrancy of Dallas.  Dallas has a wealth of amazing people and organizations, but the inability to know how to include them, is transparent and their exclusion makes us seem like we, as a City, are starving.  

As long as we keep doing the same things with the same people, companies, and organizations, we'll continue to chase our tails and create stories like the Towering Inferno, which has done nothing for our world stage presence, thanks to the media and our arts district leaders, new and old, who jumped on the bandwagon  to make us look like a bunch of bumpkins.  As a 4th generation Dallasite and professional, their crassness, is more than a disappointment.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@RadarLove I'm not a huge patron of the Arts, more of a philistine really.  But your comment: "...we could do this right and glorify every organization, institution, person, art and culture, intellectually...." is complete crap.

If you glorify every piece of art, every artist or every art institution equally, where does the 'art' come into it?  Even a philistine such as myself understands that, for art to be appreciated, some of it has to be mediocre, and some of it has to suck.  Art is appreciated when it stands out against the background, be it music, paintings, sculpture or architecture.

Also, please stop with the 'starving artist' bit.  If artists wanted a life of instant gratification and financial ease, they would be.... real estate agents, perhaps.  In any case, they would get a stable job that pays the bills.  Art, throughout history, has not paid well in either fame or fortune, until after the artist's death. (with the exception of music)  I always believed that the hardship endured by artists was what helped push their talents and products beyond those of their peers.

RadarLove
RadarLove

@bmarvel @RadarLove 

One last thought.  There are a  thousand ways we could do this right and glorify every organization, institution, person, art and culture, intellectually, if leaders were willing to put their egos aside, and just ask.  

In order for that to happen, they are going to have to stop being ashamed of our diverse population and embrace it in other areas, besides politics. Then and only then, will the world respect Dallas, in the way we want them to.   

RadarLove
RadarLove

@bmarvel

@RadarLove

@RadarLove

By your comment, I take it you did not read the first page of the document.

I am truly amused by the quaint way in which you think. It's really is sweet, because I know that in your heart, you believe what you are saying and have others convinced that this is true.

The comment regarding trickling down is in regards to the incestuous relationships, that cripples the arts industry, in general  - from emerging artist to how we promote the district to how the world perceives our arts intelligence, or lack thereof. A city that only appreciate its front yard but cannot muster the courage to appreciate its own backyard or share said backyard with the world, who is traveling about the world, without anyone's approval  btw, despite that, says it all.

Here are a few of a thousand examples....The fact that our leaders don't have the ability to value every teaching institution in Dallas or North Texas, is bizarre.  When the DMA ED recently stated that he wished there were more graduate arts programs in the Dallas area - that tells me - whoever hired him,  doesn't know jack shit themselves, about arts education in North Texas.  Either that, or they want to pretend it doesn't exist.  I don't blame Mr. Anderson because he is new in town. How would he know what Dallas has to offer at the education level in regards to our arts community, if he is being guided by other myopic thinkers, such as yourself, who don't appreciate it because - pee yew - it's public schools. Most of our leaders went to public uni's. Are they so embarrassed by that that they have drank the Kool-Aid of self hatred, now that they are sitting at the tables of boardrooms? Here's another example. There is an upcoming panel discussion for DADA regarding Latin American Art. When I asked the ED why it was not being led by a Hispanic art professor or PhD candidate, I was told, no one was available. Really?  Not one single Hispanic art professor or adjunct profs out of the 22 colleges and universities in North Texas was available, on that day?  Bullshit! It's because there is agenda. That is the problem with our arts community.There is always an agenda to make the right people happy because they seem to be happiest in the dark, rather than do things properly so that we could actually gain some real intellectual notoriety, outside of Dallas.

This is what I refer to when I say there is no trickle down.  Unfortunately, pompous egos in our media, who don't have an understanding, themselves, of this basic social-geographic concept, regarding the big picture of arts, sports, education, real estate - you name it - pick a subject - it doesn't matter. There are a thousands examples in every category, of how we shoot ourselves in the foot.

What makes me sick is that it feels like our leaders actually want to stay blind and in the dark, otherwise, they would not make the choices that they do.

As for Mr. Nashers intentions, the document states pretty clearly, that the museum was designed for sculptures and the study thereof. It states that while he and his lovely wife amassed other works such as paintings, etc, his intention was to sell those off through Sotheby's, so that the proceeds could fund his mission.  Could it be that perhaps the roof was designed in a way that was never intended for anything other than sculptures and that because someone perhaps wants to change the scope of the mission of the museum, the original roof won't work and that this whole thing from allowing the ordinances to lapse to approving the Towers design, which everyone in the arts district was on board with, was a smoke and mirrors to change the roof, and get someone else to pay for it, so that the museum can now hold other works?I would like to know. 

But here is the difference between you and me.You are unwilling to turn things over and study them from every possible angle, in attempting to figure out how this could have happened and why the traditional news media seems in cahoots.

But what do I know, I attended public university! 

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@RadarLove Which part of the statement did you want to direct my attention to, Radar? You seem to imagine it contradicts something I said.

But since you claim familiarity with Ray Nasher's original intentions, pehaps you'd like to speculate on how he might have felt about the present conflict between the Tower and its developers and the museum that houses his collection and bears his name. 

Then you might explain how you are "being used as a pawn" in this dispute. Your resentment that "no wealth is trickling from the top down!" is so painfully transparent (Translation:"Nobody is buying my art!") as to be embarrassing.

Finally, I am well aware that the Nashers were keenly interested in emerging artists, as are all the emerging artist -- now emergent -- whose works found a placee in their collection. What's your point? 

RadarLove
RadarLove

@bmarvel And PS. He got quite the kick out of emerging artists. BOOOM!

RadarLove
RadarLove

@bmarvel

@RadarLove

Stop blowing smoke up my skirt old man and go back and read this link.

http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/images/documents/27.pdf

It states clearly what Mr. Nashers intention was for the Sculpture Center. He was a very nice man and I enjoyed a few conversations with him over the years, over coffee at the museum.  I don't think he would appreciate you speaking for him, when his intent was clear what he wanted for the museum.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@RadarLoveRadar -- Trammel Crow nattered on about dancing bears and artists daubing away in inexpensive garrets. Apparently you drank some of that Kool-Aid. And now you nurse resentment because the Arts District did not become what it was never really intended tp become -- a kind of a Dallas La Boheme.

The Arts District solved the two problems it was intended to solve-- it provided a home for several major arts institutions that were withering away in Fair Park. It put them on the world map.  It also gave a shot of steroids to a corner of the city that seemed to be in a permanent slump. (And made som dvlopr some money -- the Dallas way.) How you feel abot that depends, I guess, on how you feel about steroids. And developers.

So, a win and a draw.

But please don't go on with that "The Arts District" hasn't done anything or us poor artists (or for us poor real estate professionals"). It just marks you as naive. Surely you know better.

And pleas do not assume that only the rich have a stake in the Nasher. Day afer day the Nasher is visited by ordinary art lovers. Not the rich. Not the Park Cities crowed. Just folks who love art. Is that a bad thing? How so?  


RadarLove
RadarLove

@mavdog @bmarvel  Because of the deliberate development of these buildings and other reasons too numerous to mention, a disconnect persists with the arts between the district and local artists.  

Unfortunately, because the Nahers are developers, it is hard to believe that any local artist, is fooled or flattered at the attempt of Mr. Marvel or the Arts District employees likening this to a cultural vs. developer war.

Remind those of us who are artists, why the Nashers won't compromise with their neighbor and why Arts District employees feel the need to chime in, over development wars, that have nothing to do with the promotion of national or local art and culture.  

According to this link below, Mr. Nasher left the majority of his estate to the Foundation to support the Nasher Sculpture Center. That their lawyers are spending it by not recommending a compromise, at the expense of the tower, is hard for this artist to believe that this is in the long term best interest of the Foundations health or Dallas. For starving artists to see all that money wasted, it seems to me that the DMN and Nashers care a more about ego than they do artists, especially locals. 

To say that this is about anything else other than money and big development, is insulting.   If this were not about money and development of office towers, condos and museums, the powers that be in Dallas, at the time, would have respected and allowed pockets of arts districts to continue growing organically - spread between several cultural districts.  

Don't get me wrong, as a real estate professional, I love our Arts District, but as an artist, I don't appreciate being used as a pawn in a war that has nothing to do with the health of the local arts community and where no wealth is trickling from the top down! 

 http://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/images/documents/27.pdf

Leslie
Leslie

@RadarLove @bmarvel I'm going to open a park, like a dog park, where obsolescent writers who have been put out to pasture, like Marvel, can frolic and run free, filling the wind with endless words to their hearts' content.


Now, instead of annoying knowledgeable people on blogs who are intelligently trying to discuss subjects when all they really want is attention and the self-important sense that their words still matter to someone, anyone, there'll be a special place, a lovely place, green and sunny that showcases it.

Run, B! Run free! Make up interminable parables about residential hog farms for everyone to cherish. Run free and babble, B. Run free!

RadarLove
RadarLove

@bmarvel    You got nothing.  That's why you resort to name calling.  It makes us laugh every time. 

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@RTGolden1 @mm32 

"zoning" involves 2 items: the jurisdiction's allowed land use (by approval of occupancy), and the standards under which development of the land is approved (done by building permit).

Both the use of the Museum Tower tract and the project which was built met the Dallas code in place on the property. If a Restrictive Covenant was affecting the property, the City wouldn't research it or enforce it, that is a civil matter between the parties to the covenants.

If one party can show that another party's actions or failure to act damaged them, they can file suit. That isn't based on any City code, that is tort law (in my partial legal opinion...)

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mm32 Here is my question on that.  Ostensibly, the zoning ordinances are in place to protect existing structures to the extent possible, set the standard for development for a district or neighborhood, and ensure accessibility and safety.  If Museum Tower followed the Zoning, obtained the necessary permits and clearances and passed all the inspections, then how can they be held liable for damages suffered by the Nasher?  Is it the Police and Fire Funds responsibility to protect the Nasher?  Is it the City's responsibility to protect the Nasher?  I'm not asking that in a social, moral or ethical tone, but in a legal sense.  Is the developer, or the City, legally required to protect one building at the expense of others?  If the Nasher let the covenant expire without pursuing renewal, then the Nasher has nobody to blame but themselves.

mm32
mm32

@JimSX  I guess I don't give the city as much credit as you do.  Just because the city gave their go-ahead doesn't necessarily mean that the Nasher wasn't damaged.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@JimSX@mm32@bmarvel "mm32, you express exactly the party line promulgated over the last two weeks by the Nasher side: don't look at the video, don't pay attention to the science or the technology, just talk about Snyder and his fake Facebook accounts."

Exactly.  Pay attention, Myrna, THAT is ad hominem.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@mm32 

Having trouble with bank robbery metaphor. Museum Tower obeyed all laws, met all requirements and standards, gained all of the necessary go-ahead from the city and then went beyond those requirements to make the building green LEED certified. I would have a lot more respect for the Nasher and might even be on their side if they took a more JOB-like approach to their suffering and blamed God for making Texas so damn hot..  

mm32
mm32

@JimSX  That's refreshing.  I look forward to our collective future of Schutze insights without "references to persons".

But to answer your question... that does look like a viable option, and may be the best one to resolve a bad situation.  I hope this resolves soon, as I'm tired of hearing about it.

But... to me it still seems akin to  "oh, you caught me robbing the bank?  Let me just give you the money back and we'll call it squares."


JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@mm32 @JimSX @bmarvel 

mm32, you express exactly the party line promulgated over the last two weeks by the Nasher side: don't look at the video, don't pay attention to the science or the technology, just talk about Snyder and his fake Facebook accounts. So what did you think of the solution offered in the video? Can you answer this question without making references to persons?

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...