Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

DPatel304 wrote:
I hope Uptown can still attract enough people so that it is not a complete dead zone though.

R1070 wrote:LoMac has so many semi-urban towers with fancy steakhouses with valet drive thrus out front. The city should have not allowed it start developing that way. It's not going to generate much walking unfortunately. I still cringe at the horrible suburban Truluck's plopped right down on that street. Who on Earth thought that would fit in with the neighborhood. The sections with very narrow sidewalks doesn't help either.

mcrdal15 wrote:but then again, this is Dallas. Dallasites really struggle with embracing the urban lifestyle.

R1070 wrote:LoMac has so many semi-urban towers with fancy steakhouses with valet drive thrus out front. The city should have not allowed it start developing that way. It's not going to generate much walking unfortunately. I still cringe at the horrible suburban Truluck's plopped right down on that street. Who on Earth thought that would fit in with the neighborhood. The sections with very narrow sidewalks doesn't help either.

tanzoak wrote:Uptown isn't really dense enough to guarantee a lot of activity. It's still going to be reliant on drawing people from outside the neighborhood to create a decent level of street activity, regardless of how auto-oriented it is or isn't.

Uptown is decently dense in terms of buildings and height, but not in terms of people. So much of the building space is dedicated to parking, and the buildings themselves typically take up a smaller fraction of the lot due to setbacks. The result is that the absolute densest high-rises in Dallas have the same density as a six- or seven-story midrise in Oakland (and most Dallas high-rises are quite a bit less dense than that). Similarly, a six-story midrise in Dallas may only be 1/4 as dense as its Oakland equivalent.

tamtagon wrote:The party scene is simply growing up. It's like graduating college or something.

tanzoak wrote:Uptown is decently dense in terms of buildings and height, but not in terms of people. So much of the building space is dedicated to parking, and the buildings themselves typically take up a smaller fraction of the lot due to setbacks.

mcrdal15 wrote:NIMBY's in Uptown are trying to destroy the neighborhood's vibrancy. I completely understand the issues regarding the party scene; however, chasing away visitors and traffic isn't good for ANY business, including the good establishments. There's simply not enough people living in the neighborhood to sustain that vibrancy. Also, do you know if the city has relaxed or eliminated minimum parking requirements in Uptown? If they have, then that would certainly help to increase the neighborhood's population density.

tanzoak wrote:I was curious about parking demand in these places, so I checked out some census data on the number of vehicles kept at home.

Uptown currently averages 1.42 cars per household. So the code requires providing more parking (1.5/unit) than Uptown residents actually use. Wasteful.

To the extent that parking minimums have some validity, it's to ensure that the development provides as much parking as the residents would require if there was no parking provided, so that there's no spillover onto streets/garages. Requiring more than the average that is actually used is super dur.

Tucy wrote:

tanzoak wrote:I was curious about parking demand in these places, so I checked out some census data on the number of vehicles kept at home.

Uptown currently averages 1.42 cars per household. So the code requires providing more parking (1.5/unit) than Uptown residents actually use. Wasteful.

To the extent that parking minimums have some validity, it's to ensure that the development provides as much parking as the residents would require if there was no parking provided, so that there's no spillover onto streets/garages. Requiring more than the average that is actually used is super dur.

Looks like they are right on target with the Uptown requirement. It's probably a good idea to have a few spaces available for visitors.

mcrdal15 wrote:

Tucy wrote:

tanzoak wrote:I was curious about parking demand in these places, so I checked out some census data on the number of vehicles kept at home.

Uptown currently averages 1.42 cars per household. So the code requires providing more parking (1.5/unit) than Uptown residents actually use. Wasteful.

To the extent that parking minimums have some validity, it's to ensure that the development provides as much parking as the residents would require if there was no parking provided, so that there's no spillover onto streets/garages. Requiring more than the average that is actually used is super dur.

Looks like they are right on target with the Uptown requirement. It's probably a good idea to have a few spaces available for visitors.

They are definitely not on target. What people fail to understand is that by making parking abundant and easy, it discourages other alternatives -- taking public transit or walking. If we want to make serious strides at reducing vehicular pollution, making our streets more vibrant, reducing traffic, reducing pedestrian fatalities, and increasing the attractiveness of public transit and other alternatives, we have to make driving/parking less convenient and more difficult.

Places like Uptown & Downtown should first and foremost be designed for sustainability and cater to the residents that live, work, AND play in those areas. That means pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users should be catered to FIRST over drivers, with the exception of the physically handicapped. It's better for businesses in urban areas, because potential customers tend to notice things more while walking vs. driving. They can smell the food from the street. Not so much when they're in a car.

There's also the additional cost burden to everyone's rent when your parking minimum is too high. For those units with 1 person/1 car, they're having to pay for an additional space. Likewise, those who don't have a car, are having the unnecessary cost added to their rent. What should be done instead, like in many other cities, is to charge residents for parking. That would be true freedom of choice. Right now, public transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists are treated like 2nd class citizens in Dallas.

Tucy wrote:All very interesting, but it has little to do with your original inquiry of how closely the parking requirements align with demand. Using your numbers (which only counts the number of vehicles kept at home by the residents, does not count parking spaces used by visitors, etc. and therefore falls short of total demand), the demand is 95% of the supply required. That's pretty spot on.

Tucy wrote:1. This is probably why the city of Dallas does not require a flat 1.5 parking spaces per unit. I believe the Code requires one space per bedroom, with a one space per apartment minimum.

My only point has been that according to your stats, the regulations look to be very much on target and do not indicate any wastefulness. The question of whether there should be parking requirements at all is quite a different question.

tanzoak wrote:

Tucy wrote:1. This is probably why the city of Dallas does not require a flat 1.5 parking spaces per unit. I believe the Code requires one space per bedroom, with a one space per apartment minimum.

My only point has been that according to your stats, the regulations look to be very much on target and do not indicate any wastefulness. The question of whether there should be parking requirements at all is quite a different question.

Setting a minimum at the observed average does cause wastefulness because buildings are different. Re-read the example I gave. If you have one building with demand (given unlimited supply) for 2 and one with demand for 1, that'll show up as an average of 1.5. If you set the minimum at 1.5, though, future buildings of the latter type will be forced to build 0.5 more parking than residents will use. That's wasteful.

For PD 193 (Uptown and Oaklawn), it really is 1.5 per unit. Technically, it's 1 per 500 square feet + 0.25 per unit, up to 1.5 per unit for 4+ story buildings or up to 2.0 per unit for less than 4 stories. So unless you have less than a 625 average apartment size (hint: that wouldn't happen unless you have an all-studio building, which don't get built, smallest avgs in Dallas are still 775+), your minimum is 1.5 per unit.

Here is the link (pg 10): http://www.dallascityattorney.com/51P/A ... rt%20I.pdf

Elsewhere, I had been looking at an old version of the code, and you're right that it now is 1 per bedroom + 0.25 per unit. That's still a lot! For every 2BR unit you build, you have to build 2.25 spaces.

Ultimately, the real question isn't so much whether every space built is filled (because those spaces are "free" at the margin), but why we should force people to pay to build more parking than they actually value.

The half block at Boll Street and McKinney is occupied by several small buildings.

Kelley USA wrote:I wouldn't really mind seeing the building where the Den was torn down. That thing is a dump!

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Any of those sites it's going to be difficult to develop since State Thomas will fight anything they don't like. They will offer their blessing as long as the developer agrees to valet driven restaurant concepts on the ground floor.

mcrdal15 wrote:

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Any of those sites it's going to be difficult to develop since State Thomas will fight anything they don't like. They will offer their blessing as long as the developer agrees to valet driven restaurant concepts on the ground floor.

Why would residents in State Thomas need to have valet parking when they live within a block or two of this development?

R1070 wrote:Ground level looks great. Definitely an improvement over the buildings currently there. I wish the other tower hadn’t fallen through where One Sette is located.

eburress wrote:

R1070 wrote:Ground level looks great. Definitely an improvement over the buildings currently there. I wish the other tower hadn’t fallen through where One Sette is located.

Yeah, that is a bummer. I really liked the look of that tower and its impact on McKinney Ave.

2702 McKinney Avenue: McKinney and Boll
Last seen in September, this reworking of the HKS-designed McKinney and Boll building was worth it. There’s one big change that vastly helps this project. If you look above, you’ll see a car turning right into the building. In the first iteration, that driver would be ramming the building. Now, they’re entering the valet and parking garage area.



The reason is simple. In the original plan, all traffic was shuffled to the back alley (“1” above) and/or around the building due to McKinney’s traffic flow. The new plan (“2”) where cars pull through the building is a much better solution.

Good job.

Matt777 wrote:Is adding that vehicular entrance right on McKinney avenue really a "good job" which is what Jon Anderson of CandysDirt is trying to sell us? It seems like having cars careening over the McKinney Avenue sidewalks all day and night would be a huge detriment to the pedestrian friendliness we are trying to achieve. Can someone clue me in how it's better than having the vehicular entrance at the rear off of Boll? Am I missing something?

Is adding that vehicular entrance right on McKinney avenue really a "good job" which is what Jon Anderson of CandysDirt is trying to sell us?

jetnd87 wrote:While I agree that this is not some big improvement worthy of an "atta boy," I don't think it'll do too much to hinder the pedestrian experience here. There shouldn't be a constant flow of car traffic in/out of this driveway. Even if there was decent traffic, you experience plenty of this from urban parking garages (above or below grade). When I was in Philly this was fairly common and not really a headache. As long as the markings are clear to minimize potential for accidents, it shouldn't be a big deal. I'd be much more concerned about widening the sidewalks, especially on this particular block.

Matt777 wrote:I love the Karen story, couldn't be more true

jetnd87 wrote:While I agree that this is not some big improvement worthy of an "atta boy," I don't think it'll do too much to hinder the pedestrian experience here. There shouldn't be a constant flow of car traffic in/out of this driveway. Even if there was decent traffic, you experience plenty of this from urban parking garages (above or below grade). When I was in Philly this was fairly common and not really a headache. As long as the markings are clear to minimize potential for accidents, it shouldn't be a big deal. I'd be much more concerned about widening the sidewalks, especially on this particular block.

In most large, older US cities I would agree that it's not a big deal but Dallas area drivers, especially those who come from our suburban areas know zilch about how to drive in pedestrian friendly areas. If you polled them, 99% would say that cars have the right of way. I lived Downtown for years until recently and I'm surprised I'm not dead after crossing the crosswalks, owning the right of way with the cross signal, and cars turning and honking at ME for crossing the street. Throw in a Starbucks latte in one hand (from the new Oak Lawn drive thru) and a fake diamond studded cell phone in the other hand, Gucci sunglasses on, and a 2.5 ton GMC Yukon Denali that rarely leaves its Frisco bubble, and it doesn't look too safe for the pedestrians walking on that sidewalk when Karen needs to get to her girl's night at the new Uptown hot spot.

Someone with some influence needs to fight against the McKinney entrance and have the developer put it on the side. The Gables McKinney/Whole Foods is a prime example of layout done right. Their stretch of McKinney has wide sidewalks, no auto entry, and is fairly lively usually.