Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

The Cedars is a gateway community to the city’s South Side and in the early 20th century it was an upscale neighborhood where lawyers and businessmen working downtown would retire at the end of the workday to stately Victorian homes. In the latter half of the century, the professional class migrated north and the neighborhood became more industrial.

That all began to change after Dallas Area Rapid Transit opened Cedars Station in 1997 and local developer Jack Matthews of Matthews Southwest capitalized on its presence. He launched an urban residential revival when he renovated the nine-story former Sears complex, turning it into the 457-unit South Side on Lamar, 1409 S. Lamar St. Other Matthews Southwest projects in The Cedars include the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, 1005 S. Lamar St.

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Why do all the apartment buildings look so cheap in this neighborhood.

vman wrote:

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Why do all the apartment buildings look so cheap in this neighborhood.

It pains me to say that I agree, the apartments do look cheap in Cedars. There's a development to the east of Lamar that honestly looks like subsidized housing.

muncien wrote:I a bit skeptic on all these 'funky' designs being used in The Cedars neighborhood. I mean... I don't have anything against funky in general, but in the renderings, these all seem to miss the mark a bit. Hopefully, the reality is different. Otherwise, this area may not age very well...

muncien wrote:I a bit skeptic on all these 'funky' designs being used in The Cedars neighborhood. I mean... I don't have anything against funky in general, but in the renderings, these all seem to miss the mark a bit. Hopefully, the reality is different. Otherwise, this area may not age very well...

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Let's look at at the Gables Apartment block in the West Village. It was built more recently aka within the last 10-15 years and the developer has decided more recently that it's easier to tear down and build a denser development on the same site.

Tucy wrote:

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Let's look at at the Gables Apartment block in the West Village. It was built more recently aka within the last 10-15 years and the developer has decided more recently that it's easier to tear down and build a denser development on the same site.

23 years, but who's counting?

cowboyeagle05 wrote:The point being they didn't build that property to last and lord knows its more of the same stucco crap. At least it permits easy teardown cause we aren't in love with it. Course I too would prefer better buildings.

joshua.dodd wrote:I feel like these developers just don't give a shit about architecture anymore and all they want is some cheap and quick design so they can build as fast as possible. I doubt many of these are being built with quality material and construction as well.

tanzoak wrote:

joshua.dodd wrote:I feel like these developers just don't give a shit about architecture anymore and all they want is some cheap and quick design so they can build as fast as possible. I doubt many of these are being built with quality material and construction as well.

Fancy design costs money, so you're just not going to get that outside of premium areas. Most housing built in a particular era, even housing that we now think is beautiful, is pretty uniform in style. Brooklyn brownstones are the peak of utter uniformity--people *hated* them, thought they were cheap-looking, a blight, ruined the character, shoddily constructed etc, until they suddenly didn't and were instead classic, gorgeous, highly sought after etc. Because that's what time does.

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

tanzoak wrote:

joshua.dodd wrote:I feel like these developers just don't give a shit about architecture anymore and all they want is some cheap and quick design so they can build as fast as possible. I doubt many of these are being built with quality material and construction as well.

Fancy design costs money, so you're just not going to get that outside of premium areas. Most housing built in a particular era, even housing that we now think is beautiful, is pretty uniform in style. Brooklyn brownstones are the peak of utter uniformity--people *hated* them, thought they were cheap-looking, a blight, ruined the character, shoddily constructed etc, until they suddenly didn't and were instead classic, gorgeous, highly sought after etc. Because that's what time does.

Stucco will never be "classic". Lol ugh..

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

tanzoak wrote:

joshua.dodd wrote:I feel like these developers just don't give a shit about architecture anymore and all they want is some cheap and quick design so they can build as fast as possible. I doubt many of these are being built with quality material and construction as well.

Fancy design costs money, so you're just not going to get that outside of premium areas. Most housing built in a particular era, even housing that we now think is beautiful, is pretty uniform in style. Brooklyn brownstones are the peak of utter uniformity--people *hated* them, thought they were cheap-looking, a blight, ruined the character, shoddily constructed etc, until they suddenly didn't and were instead classic, gorgeous, highly sought after etc. Because that's what time does.

Stucco will never be "classic". Lol ugh..

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

tanzoak wrote:

joshua.dodd wrote:I feel like these developers just don't give a shit about architecture anymore and all they want is some cheap and quick design so they can build as fast as possible. I doubt many of these are being built with quality material and construction as well.

Fancy design costs money, so you're just not going to get that outside of premium areas. Most housing built in a particular era, even housing that we now think is beautiful, is pretty uniform in style. Brooklyn brownstones are the peak of utter uniformity--people *hated* them, thought they were cheap-looking, a blight, ruined the character, shoddily constructed etc, until they suddenly didn't and were instead classic, gorgeous, highly sought after etc. Because that's what time does.

Stucco will never be "classic". Lol ugh..

joshua.dodd wrote:The issue is not so much the stucco in the Cedars as it is for every new apartment building going up throughout the entire city. Stucco here and stucco there. Even in Uptown and where rent is particularly high, stucco here and there.

tamtagon wrote:Maybe they're simply planning for the future, angling at the aesthetic update of whatever is popular in 20 years.

tanzoak wrote:Honestly, I don't even know what this stucco style that you guys are talking about is, anyway. Pictures?

Jay9398 wrote:stucco.jpg

tanzoak wrote:

Jay9398 wrote:stucco.jpg

Huh. Just looks boring to me, as is all housing that wasn't built for rich people. I don't get the hate.

Tnexster wrote:

tanzoak wrote:

Jay9398 wrote:stucco.jpg

Huh. Just looks boring to me, as is all housing that wasn't built for rich people. I don't get the hate.

Going back to this question again, what does rent run in the Cedars area? I assume it is more affordable but I really don't know.

Tnexster wrote:

tanzoak wrote:

Jay9398 wrote:stucco.jpg

Huh. Just looks boring to me, as is all housing that wasn't built for rich people. I don't get the hate.

Going back to this question again, what does rent run in the Cedars area? I assume it is more affordable but I really don't know.

Cbdallas wrote:I lived over in the Sears lofts for a couple of years back when they opened. We were all pioneers over there with no amenities and downtown still had not begun to grow again and there was no uptown to speak of. We had to get on the highway and go to the Alberstons on Lemmon to get groceries. I will take a lot of so and so buildings putting people on those streets and going to the Alamo theater and the few restaurants. I always thought this area had great potential in the long run.

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Well, one man owns a large portion of it at least the Lamar stretch. He has been pretty slow paced at developing it until recently when the Alamo and that new apartment block was built. He seems to be wanting to slowly phase in more development.

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Well, one man owns a large portion of it at least the Lamar stretch. He has been pretty slow paced at developing it until recently when the Alamo and that new apartment block was built. He seems to be wanting to slowly phase in more development.

Doesn't Mark Cuban own some parcels near by?

willyk wrote:

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Well, one man owns a large portion of it at least the Lamar stretch. He has been pretty slow paced at developing it until recently when the Alamo and that new apartment block was built. He seems to be wanting to slowly phase in more development.

Doesn't Mark Cuban own some parcels near by?

Maybe they are waiting for construction of the HSR to start, expecting to do development on a much larger scale than what we have so far.

CTroyMathis wrote:I don't know the extent of damage, but, I believe there was a significant fire overnight at the Wall Street Townhomes.

Thymant wrote:David Weekly Townhomes:


By Me

mdg109 wrote:It almost looks like the fake facades off Disney's Main Street USA.