Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

undefinedprocess wrote:New Pearl tower? Maybe am stupid, please refresh my memory...

It's that new one nearby in the East Quarter and also adjacent to the future Harwood Park: https://www.300pearl.com/

CTroyMathis wrote:

undefinedprocess wrote:New Pearl tower? Maybe am stupid, please refresh my memory...

It's that new one nearby in the East Quarter and also adjacent to the future Harwood Park: https://www.300pearl.com/

Lol duh, wasn't thinking about the correct part of Pearl. Super excited to see 300 Pearl!

Any updates on this one? Did they ever start construction on these apartments?

No, it just sits there with the homeless people looking at it as a refuge from the Sun beating down on Commerce Street & S. Harwood Street. I truly think this one will flounder for years to come. The buildings on the Commerce Street side of the parcel are in terrible shape and need to be totally gutted & renovated. I don't know who the owners are, plus there's a parking lot on the corner of Commerce & S. Harwood that screams for development now that the North Texas Law School has opened up across the street. The area is prime for renovation. If the Isosceles Tower & Rohrman Towers are actually built, then we might see the area blossom.

I just don't get it.
Harwood Park being residents' literal front yard would make this super desirable housing. The only comparable housing in all of downtown that I can think of are the condos across the street from the restaurant space at Klyde Warren, and truth be told between the two I'd probably prefer this Harwood Park location.

It doesn't make sense to me that this isn't being built pronto. They added additional floors to the original plans because they were so optimistic about the appeal of the project right? Did the whole thing get snagged somewhere along the way?

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:I just don't get it.
Harwood Park being residents' literal front yard would make this super desirable housing. The only comparable housing in all of downtown that I can think of are the condos across the street from the restaurant space at Klyde Warren, and truth be told between the two I'd probably prefer this Harwood Park location.

It doesn't make sense to me that this isn't being built pronto. They added additional floors to the original plans because they were so optimistic about the appeal of the project right? Did the whole thing get snagged somewhere along the way?

Maybe once the park actually exists... Or, perhaps developing residential in downtown Dallas is not the slam dunk some imagine it to be.

-shrug- It's not like the park is a mystery box, and there's no risk of the park not happening as it's already funded and under construction. The developer knows what they're getting and it's just around the corner.

As to the second point, yeah probably. I'd be curious what the vacancy rates look like for all those nearby Farmers Market apartments.

What seems like less of a slam dunk is the Cabana Motor Hotel redo from the same developer. The quietness around that makes sense to me, this does not.

Tucy wrote:Maybe once the park actually exists... Or, perhaps developing residential in downtown Dallas is not the slam dunk some imagine it to be.

Alright, guess it's time to pack it up, boys. Tucy doesn't think residential in Downtown Dallas is viable. It'll take a little while for me and the other 13,000 or so residents to sell or break our leases for his prediction to be made correct, but I for one am looking forward to our new rural lifestyle. Once we do that, he finally won't have to worry about that big bad D2 subway causing him nightmares anymore.

I look forward to coming back to this "Rural Development" forum to get suggestions about the best Tractor Supply Company in the region to buy horse feed.

^^ hahahahaha

trueicon wrote:

Tucy wrote:Maybe once the park actually exists... Or, perhaps developing residential in downtown Dallas is not the slam dunk some imagine it to be.

Alright, guess it's time to pack it up, boys. Tucy doesn't think residential in Downtown Dallas is viable. It'll take a little while for me and the other 13,000 or so residents to sell or break our leases for his prediction to be made correct, but I for one am looking forward to our new rural lifestyle. Once we do that, he finally won't have to worry about that big bad D2 subway causing him nightmares anymore.

I look forward to coming back to this "Rural Development" forum to get suggestions about the best Tractor Supply Company in the region to buy horse feed.

Wow, if you tried to craft a dishonest post, you could hardly do better than this. Not being the slam dunk that many fantasize is well short of, and quite different than, declaring that residential in downtown Dallas is not viable. Of course it's viable.

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:-shrug- It's not like the park is a mystery box, and there's no risk of the park not happening as it's already funded and under construction. The developer knows what they're getting and it's just around the corner.

As to the second point, yeah probably. I'd be curious what the vacancy rates look like for all those nearby Farmers Market apartments.

What seems like less of a slam dunk is the Cabana Motor Hotel redo from the same developer. The quietness around that makes sense to me, this does not.

As to the park, in my experience, many (most) developers are not willing to place bets (so to speak) on the promise that other projects will be delivered, especially government projects. Governments can be unreliable.

I wish I could find occupancy stats for downtown. CBRE used to publish them but a couple years ago, they redid their maps and the only stat is now for "intown" and covers the CBD, Uptown, Cedars, Deep Ellum and I think in to Turtle Creek and Oak Lawn. In short, not very helpful.

Tucy wrote:

trueicon wrote:

Tucy wrote:Maybe once the park actually exists... Or, perhaps developing residential in downtown Dallas is not the slam dunk some imagine it to be.

Alright, guess it's time to pack it up, boys. Tucy doesn't think residential in Downtown Dallas is viable. It'll take a little while for me and the other 13,000 or so residents to sell or break our leases for his prediction to be made correct, but I for one am looking forward to our new rural lifestyle. Once we do that, he finally won't have to worry about that big bad D2 subway causing him nightmares anymore.

I look forward to coming back to this "Rural Development" forum to get suggestions about the best Tractor Supply Company in the region to buy horse feed.

Wow, if you tried to craft a dishonest post, you could hardly do better than this. Not being the slam dunk that many fantasize is well short of, and quite different than, declaring that residential in downtown Dallas is not viable. Of course it's viable.

Well Karen, maybe if you could start to word your post so you don't come off as a jealous 5th grader, 95% of the posters here might give a shit what you had to say. I would still manage to stay in that 5%, though.

Cmacemm wrote:

Tucy wrote:

trueicon wrote:Alright, guess it's time to pack it up, boys. Tucy doesn't think residential in Downtown Dallas is viable. It'll take a little while for me and the other 13,000 or so residents to sell or break our leases for his prediction to be made correct, but I for one am looking forward to our new rural lifestyle. Once we do that, he finally won't have to worry about that big bad D2 subway causing him nightmares anymore.

I look forward to coming back to this "Rural Development" forum to get suggestions about the best Tractor Supply Company in the region to buy horse feed.

Wow, if you tried to craft a dishonest post, you could hardly do better than this. Not being the slam dunk that many fantasize is well short of, and quite different than, declaring that residential in downtown Dallas is not viable. Of course it's viable.

Well Karen, maybe if you could start to word your post so you don't come off as a jealous 5th grader, 95% of the posters here might give a shit what you had to say. I would still manage to stay in that 5%, though.

In the meantime, I was digging around trying to find some information about occupancy in the Farmers Market complexes. As I mentioned above, it's hard to find anything about the CBD occupancies. Just by digging into availability shown on complex websites, it appears that the Farmers Market complexes generally have good occupancy (in the neighborhood of 95%). Obviously, downtown residential is viable and continues to grow. But that doesn't mean it's easy to get financing, and that doesn't account for pricing. A quick comparison of complexes owned and operated by Camden and of similar vintage and amenities: Farmers Market: 1 Bedrooms start at $1399. Victory Park: 1 Bedrooms start at $1779. Design District: 1 Bedrooms start at $1589.

More people would live downtown if rents were priced a bit lower. Dallas is a cool city but it's not NYC, LA or Chicago. Set aside a few units in each building for people that make less than $40K a year and more people would move to the city.

Still on their website. I wonder if the closure of Jackson for the park construction has anything to do with the delay.

https://centurionamerican.com/developer ... t-project/

Are the planned redo of some of the existing office towers into part residential (Thanksgiving Tower etc.) effecting the market for new towers?

MC_ScattCat wrote:Are the planned redo of some of the existing office towers into part residential (Thanksgiving Tower etc.) effecting the market for new towers?

They have to be considered in the calculations.

It would be smart for this building to go up after the park is done to get more profit out of it.

R1070 wrote:It would be smart for this building to go up after the park is done to get more profit out of it.

I mean... The park is already underway ... By the time they would finish this park would we wrapped up. Those parks get done quick.

Well, there it is.

"Work starts on long-stalled downtown Dallas apartment and retail project" - Dallas Morning News
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2022/05/11/work-starts-on-long-stalled-downtown-dallas-apartment-and-retail-project/

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:Well, there it is.

"Work starts on long-stalled downtown Dallas apartment and retail project" - Dallas Morning News
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2022/05/11/work-starts-on-long-stalled-downtown-dallas-apartment-and-retail-project/

“Delays in city approvals, building permit issues”. I am sorry but our city manager needs to go. His lack of leadership has cost this city millions.

How long has this site sat idle? If the city of Dallas' urban planning department has held this up, they should be fired. This is as bad as anything in LA or San Francisco. Dallas used to be known as a city with an aggressive business mentality. What an embarrassment.

Calm down, folks. There is nothing in the article to suggest the delay was entirely or even mostly because of delays in city approvals and/or building permit issues." Some seem to be overlooking this part: "and finally the pandemic put the project . . . on hold". Just to remind everyone, the pandemic started more than two years ago... Further, this is a Steve Brown article, so he's just repeating what the developer told him.

Anyone know what the plans are for Doug's Gym and the near by lots in EQ?

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Anyone know what the plans are for Doug's Gym and the near by lots in EQ?

I think it depends on their owners. If they are part of the EQ project, I hope they can be salvaged. If not, they need to be raised and something new built in their place ASAP. They are in very sad shape now. The parking lot on the corner of Commerce & Harwood screams for attention. Let's hope something good goes in that spot.

rono3849 wrote:

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Anyone know what the plans are for Doug's Gym and the near by lots in EQ?

I think it depends on their owners. If they are part of the EQ project, I hope they can be salvaged. If not, they need to be raised and something new built in their place ASAP. They are in very sad shape now. The parking lot on the corner of Commerce & Harwood screams for attention. Let's hope something good goes in that spot.

Is this the lot owned by Centurion and designated for an “iconic building.”

Work starts on long-stalled downtown Dallas apartment and retail project

Now general contractor TriArc Construction is restarting work on the 271,000-square-foot development at Harwood and Jackson streets. The construction will add 246 luxury rental units on top of the garage structure. And the ground floor will get new retail space.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/rea ... l-project/

This is exciting news. The Farmer’s Market is way under-retailed, so this should do well. And with this project, the new park and 300 Pearl, the neighborhoods in EMC and the Farmer’s Market are finally starting to connect. The Scottish Rite parking lot is the hole in the donut now. And I hope Ruibal’s stays in their current location.

Pretty sad that the project shrunk once again (after it was announced that extra floors had been added in 2020), but glad that it's finally starting, and glad that retail has been added. Do wonder how they determined they needed to reduce the residential unit count (and hence, # of floors) since there's such incredible demand for housing right now. Obviously, I know it's a numbers game, but it's somewhat surprising they reduced the residential scope of the project and added retail considering market conditions.

Great for the area though, and hope we get more projects like this (albeit at a much larger scale) in the area to further connect the EQ, Farmers Market, and the core of Downtown.

Yeah, a bit of a bummer that it went back to the original height.

The three different renders for side-by-side comparison:
Original


Revision


Current

Would much rather have a shorter building that has more retail and thus, better interaction with the street and neighborhood than the taller building with less retail. But agree, wish we could get our entire wish list every time

It looks like that rendering from the Dallas morning news that I posted as "current" is actually older than the "revision" rendering. I thought it was new but it was also used in a 2018 article. The new article describes it as 7 stories so, assuming that's accurate, I'd expect the final result to hew close to that one.

Per the Downtown Residents Council (Dallas) Facebook group, it looks like the developer wants to extend this development to include the empty corner at Commerce and Harwood.

This sounds great to me! I'd imagine this lot would have stayed the same for a long time if it didn't get included in this development

Yes, now I only wish they'd also buy that Commerce lot at the end of the alley and make it an oculus courtyard to match the new Turtle Creek Four Seasons entrance. /wishlist

Me likey a lot.

I love that! I think the extra height and added structure is well worth the delay!

They once discussed putting an “iconic building” on this corner— a tower I think. This might be an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Happy about this. But I would rather have a new tower on Commerce. And if they are going to wrap the corner, I would like to see the facade reference the looks of the Statler.

^^ I believe that was the intent of the building's midcentury elements (mostly seen towards the building's lower portion), to reference the period style of the Statler. Granted, these midcentury elements were more noticeable when the building was shorter.

undefinedprocess wrote:Pretty sad that the project shrunk once again (after it was announced that extra floors had been added in 2020), but glad that it's finally starting, and glad that retail has been added. Do wonder how they determined they needed to reduce the residential unit count (and hence, # of floors) since there's such incredible demand for housing right now.

It looks to me like this last, L-shaped digital model has more floors, at 9, than the third ("current") version of the project did, and almost as many as the second (which had a recessed tenth floor, possibly so as to provide a roof deck which the L-shaped version has dropped.
Think that they restored the floor count, for the most part. Bt perhaps for a while they have been anticipating adding the equivalent apartments on this extra wing of the building?

I45Tex wrote:Think that they cut the floor count, then, because they were anticipating adding the equivalent apartments on this extra wing of the building?

If these recent renderings are accurate then the building has the extra floors in addition to the extra wing.

Yeah I was just editing my post. Thanks for the catch.

Agree with comments by the Landmark Commission. Scale is out of place with the adjacent historic buildings on Commerce (and even the library across Harwood). In my opinion a better design would be to differentiate this building from the other (make it look like two mid-scale buildings instead of one block-long building) OR step it back from Main Street where the brick veneer changes, creating a residents' terrace overlooking the park.


https://www.dallasnews.com/business/rea ... as-corner/

The proposed building would have “eight stories with 56 apartments above one story allocated for retail use,” according to the filing with the landmark commission. “The proposed design is consistent with previously approved new construction, as well as differentiated yet compatible with existing structures in the historic district.”

Still, the Landmark Commission’s task force has given a thumbs down to the building design and has asked the developer to make changes. Criticism of the project in part focused on the new building’s location next to a two-story 1920s building that now houses a 7-Eleven store.

5G Studios partner Yen Ong told Landmark Commission members at their last meeting that changes are being made to the planned building to address the historic preservation panel’s concerns.

“We felt like the architecture we are bringing to the only remaining Main Street Garden corner that is open right now is of the appropriate scale and character,” Ong told the Landmark Commission. “We are excited to complete this project, which has been ongoing for our firm for the past five years.”

The Landmark Commission denied approval of the building plans and asked the developers to keep working with the task force on the project.

This is such a hard site to integrate two very different architectural styles. The mid-century which is very prominent in the Statler and Library and the classic architecture found right next door in City Hall and the small 7-Eleven building. Melting the two into one unified but separate-looking facades is hard. I wanna say also I am not sure the review process demanded they try to do so. The architects presented a design that attempted to connect two different styles, so the committee reviewed that presented design here. The very first design for this project also attempted to blend mid-century with the classic style into one design when it was first presented for this site, but the committee recommended they pick one style and stick to it. they came back and chose more mid-century concepts and got approval. Then the developer presented a taller version, but it still stayed with mostly mid-century style. It was also approved. Here they again try to blend and guess what they get rejected. The architects and developers don't seem to be picking up on the review process pattern here. Stop trying to blend and just pick one and go with it. That's of course, if they arent doing this on purpose to get what they really want. A careful dance of a delay to give the developer more time?

I thought a high-rise was alway planned for this corner. I would love for this to get built here. It's the urban core, and it's only 9 stories. It's not like it's the East Quarter's 300 Pearl project.

Sounds like the addition will push the project to 325-350 new units on Commerce and Jackson right where we need them, on a dead block connecting EMC, EQ and DFM— hooray! Look at all the comparable blocks in the area that are just sitting idle. Overall, Centurion should be commended and encouraged.

But the attempt to reference the mid-century style is very weak, just going through the motions. Take a look at what the new Merc tower did when it was built. That‘s the standard. The scale is smaller and the budget is lower here. That’s understood. But they can try harder. Or how about playing off Alto211 on N Ervay? That scale and budget should work fine here.

I don't see the mid century architecture here, would like to see something more indicative of the era .... I actually don't mind the scale next to the historical buildings, I like differing sizes juxtaposed...

Overall this is what Dallas needs more of Mid-rises w retail...
A neighborhood proliferated with these would be wonderful

5G are talented… if anything I’m surprised they haven’t tried going “mass timber” on chunks of this complex.

The building [in Milwaukee] broke ground just two years ago in August 2020, topped out in December 2021, and opened last month, with tenants beginning to move into the luxury development on July 15th.

The mixed-use timber tower comprises ground floor retail, parking, 259 apartment units, with a pool on the sixth floor. Korb & Associates also made a point to leave about half of the wooden elements exposed inside the building, giving the interior a warm finish.

https://www.archpaper.com/2022/08/ctbuh ... -building/

The scale seems fine to me, but I agree that the mid century style is scarcely there. If this were a hotel plopped next to a highway in the middle of a suburban office park it wouldn't look out of place.

Maybe cowboyeagle05 is right and all they'd need to do is ditch the style integration to get TLC's thumbs up, but I hope they come back with something significantly more pronounced towards one style or the other. This isn't just the corner overlooking main street garden, it's also the portal bridging it to harwood park. It deserves something that genuinely stands out, something that invites attention.

They need to go full-blown mid-century modern down to the interior décor. The commercial style is what they tore down with abandon back in the day. If this is halfway between the two, then they should just quit trying to pursue that style. The Crescent was old when it was new.

Rococo!!!

Here are the conditions the Landmark Commission will look for in a design. A new structure here does NOT need to reference the adjacent mid-century modern style of the Statler (the Statler is outside of the historic district), but it can't just be a solid block or mix too many styles/materials. The adjacent buildings on Commerce Street are compatible structures and not contributing structures to the historic district. The old library across Harwood Street and Municipal Building across Commerce Street are contributing structures and are thus more influential to the district. It's an awkward little historic district where technically emphasis should be placed on the Harwood Street facade, even though Commerce Street and the corner from Main Street Garden have higher visibility in this case. The large parking lot at Harwood/Main will face a similar challenge if ever redeveloped.

http://citysecretary2.dallascityhall.co ... 8-0468.pdf

NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES IN
TRACT A & TRACT C.

4.1 Buildings must be designed with an expressed base, shaft, and building top. The
base must be compatible with the character and design of adjacent contributing
structures. Building entrances must be emphasized.

4.2 Building height, density, and floor area ratio requirements set out in the Dallas
Development Code are not restricted by these criteria.

4.3 Building setbacks: Along Harwood Street, the building base of new construction
must extend to the property line except that new construction on the site of a
demolished or destroyed contributing structure may conform to the setback of that
former structure.

4.4 The building base must be architecturally differentiated from the building shaft.
Where feasible, the base is encouraged to provide maximum visibility into the
structure at the first and second levels through the use of storefronts and window
openings. Arcades, loggias, and canopies may be incorporated into the base design.
This is encouraged when the building fronts onto pedestrian walkways or entry
plazas.

4.5 Facade materials of the base must be compatible with existing buildings. The
following materials are prohibited: aluminum, galvanized steel, wood, and plastic.
All other materials must be reviewed for compatibility through the certificate of
appropriateness review process. With the exception of glass, no more than two
building materials may be used as the dominant exterior cladding.

4.6 The massing of the building base must be compatible with the existing grid patterns
of massing present in buildings along Harwood Street, but must not overpower the
existing contributing structures.

4.7 Window openings on the base must not be greater than 70 percent nor less than 30
percent of the base facade.

4.8 No sheer glass wall facades are permitted on the building base. Curtain glass walls
are permitted if they fall within the above percentages.

4.9 No reflective glass is permitted on the base.

4.10 Tinted glass must be reviewed for its shade coefficient and compatibility with
adjacent base facade material. Acceptable color ranges are grays, blues, greens, and
bronzes as approved through the certificate of appropriateness review process.

4.11 Stained glass is permitted on the base, Subject to the certificate of appropriateness
review process.