Oak Lawn

[muncien]

Wasn't there a determination on a SkyHouse alternate location around here? Wasn't that one limited in height?

[cowboyeagle05]

That was on Cedar Springs Rd. where the much shorter apartments were built kitty-corner to the Centrum.

[Matt777]

I love how some of the activists think new housing being built = housing prices go up. They have no understanding of supply and demand. This development doesn't destroy any housing, it's 100% net add.

[TNWE]

I love how some of the activists think new housing being built = housing prices go up. They have no understanding of supply and demand. This development doesn't destroy any housing, it's 100% net add.

Apartment rents aren't that closely coupled to supply and demand, though. Sure, if there are thousands of net new units coming on the market every month with little absorption, overall rents will drop. But 250-ish new "luxury" units is not enough to make a meaningful dent in occupancy rates - it's more likely to push the whole neighborhood upmarket and set a new "price to beat," turning a formerly $800/month apartment into a $1000/month apartment because there's a luxury highrise around the corner leasing for at least double that. And that's before rising land values/tax assessments push landlords of non-luxury units to sell or redevelop their property as "luxury" mid/high rises.

[cowboyeagle05]

Honestly what I have wanted is another hotel in the area. Something less historical relic and more modern finish outs. The access to the nearby parks and gay entertainment district make something like that a great opportunity along with the airport not too far away either.

[eburress]

"Pennsylvania-based homebuilder Toll Brothers has started construction on the 22-story residential high-rise on Congress Avenue between Turtle Creek and Oak Lawn Avenue.

The 270-unit apartment tower replaces a block of older townhouses on the block, which is behind the Mansion on Turtle Creek Hotel."

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/rea ... n-district

[R1070]

Is that the Congress/Welborn site?

[NdoorTX]

Is that the Congress/Welborn site?

[Matt777]

I love how some of the activists think new housing being built = housing prices go up. They have no understanding of supply and demand. This development doesn't destroy any housing, it's 100% net add.

Apartment rents aren't that closely coupled to supply and demand, though. Sure, if there are thousands of net new units coming on the market every month with little absorption, overall rents will drop. But 250-ish new "luxury" units is not enough to make a meaningful dent in occupancy rates - it's more likely to push the whole neighborhood upmarket and set a new "price to beat," turning a formerly $800/month apartment into a $1000/month apartment because there's a luxury highrise around the corner leasing for at least double that. And that's before rising land values/tax assessments push landlords of non-luxury units to sell or redevelop their property as "luxury" mid/high rises.

This tower is not going to raise the rent of the older stock in Oak Lawn.... there's just no way. Some people will move out of their older Oak Lawn apartments into this one and the other new ones going up, and as older units sit on the market longer they will lower rents to get them leased instead of letting them sit empty. With real estate/apartment software these days, prices are VERY dynamic and are more tied to supply and demand in the area than ever. If all these new apartment buildings around Uptown/Oak Lawn hadn't gone up, and all these jobs still moved into the area, then the apartments that existed would have gone up in price even more dramatically. New apartments themselves don't create the demand, jobs do, and with more supply the market is able to respond to the increased demand better and upward price pressure is decreased. Yes, prices in the area have increased in recent years but that is due to more demand, not more supply, nor the quality of the new supply.

If/when the economy slows down and new jobs in the area decrease, all this new apartment stock will have an even bigger downward price pressure effect.

Will this building have a huge dent individually on rents in the area, no, but the theory from NIMBYS that new housing units in their area = their rents will be jacked up is absurd.

[cowboyeagle05]

I will say everything behind the gay bars has changed dramatically. Places that were long in the tooth were sold, remodeled and are being rented for just under new property prices nearby with none of the amenities. Townhomes are also picking up steam as well.

[lakewoodhobo]

I know Kroger opted for a standard remodel rather than the rebuild plans they had before, which included the library, but I wonder if they're actively planning for the inevitable.

Tom Thumb, Whole Foods, Target, Trader Joe's and now Central Market will have mixed-use or urban stores. When will Kroger realize that this is their best chance in Dallas for their take on the format?

Even Walgreen's could jump on the bandwagon and build a new store facing Cedar Springs with a parking garage where the current store is. Parking revenue alone, with Snooze next door and of course the bars, would be the mother of all windfalls.

[TNWE]

I love how some of the activists think new housing being built = housing prices go up. They have no understanding of supply and demand. This development doesn't destroy any housing, it's 100% net add.

Apartment rents aren't that closely coupled to supply and demand, though. Sure, if there are thousands of net new units coming on the market every month with little absorption, overall rents will drop. But 250-ish new "luxury" units is not enough to make a meaningful dent in occupancy rates - it's more likely to push the whole neighborhood upmarket and set a new "price to beat," turning a formerly $800/month apartment into a $1000/month apartment because there's a luxury highrise around the corner leasing for at least double that. And that's before rising land values/tax assessments push landlords of non-luxury units to sell or redevelop their property as "luxury" mid/high rises.

This tower is not going to raise the rent of the older stock in Oak Lawn.... there's just no way. Some people will move out of their older Oak Lawn apartments into this one and the other new ones going up, and as older units sit on the market longer they will lower rents to get them leased instead of letting them sit empty. With real estate/apartment software these days, prices are VERY dynamic and are more tied to supply and demand in the area than ever. If all these new apartment buildings around Uptown/Oak Lawn hadn't gone up, and all these jobs still moved into the area, then the apartments that existed would have gone up in price even more dramatically. New apartments themselves don't create the demand, jobs do, and with more supply the market is able to respond to the increased demand better and upward price pressure is decreased. Yes, prices in the area have increased in recent years but that is due to more demand, not more supply, nor the quality of the new supply.

If/when the economy slows down and new jobs in the area decrease, all this new apartment stock will have an even bigger downward price pressure effect.

Will this building have a huge dent individually on rents in the area, no, but the theory from NIMBYS that new housing units in their area = their rents will be jacked up is absurd.

You've clearly never lived in a nice, but older and "non-luxury" apartment for years with small, if any annual increases in rent, only to have a new "luxury" complex go up around the corner and find out at your next lease renewal that your rent is suddenly going up by $2-300 a month. I asked the leasing office if they were high and said I could move to a much nicer unit around the corner for not much more, they basically said "go for it." All they wanted to do was turn over their current residents so they could get into each unit and renovate it up to a "luxury" standard and charge accordingly, and if someone didn't want to move out, they were stuck paying luxury rents for a decidedly non-luxury apartment.

I didn't need stainless steel appliances or granite counters- I was much more concerned with living downtown and not paying much more than $1000/month, but Dallas' version of "Urban Development" means everything that isn't Public housing must be faux "luxury" and historic building apartment conversions are Ultra luxury. Maybe if there were still modest, comfortable, safe apartments or low-amenity condo buildings downtown, your average middle-class office worker would consider living in the urban core. As it is, it's a choice between living out in the burbs where rent is within 30% of income, or living way beyond one's means downtown because the "luxury" rental units there will eat up half their paycheck at minimum.


New developments may look pretty and nominally add housing stock to the market, but they send a signal to every other landlord in the neighborhood that the "market rent" has shifted higher (not lower). Rents at existing units either go up a little to price in the newfound "appeal" of the area, or go WAY higher to all but force the current renters out so they can remodel or sell to a developer who will build another tower with far higher average rents.

[The_Overdog]

You've clearly never lived in a nice, but older and "non-luxury" apartment for years with small, if any annual increases in rent, only to have a new "luxury" complex go up around the corner and find out at your next lease renewal that your rent is suddenly going up by $2-300 a month.

I have, in far North Dallas and there was no tower construction (or really any construction of any kind) and they did the same. I'm saying your view of what happened is most likely circumstantial and the rental floor simply changed on you like it did on me.

[Matt777]

Apartment rents aren't that closely coupled to supply and demand, though. Sure, if there are thousands of net new units coming on the market every month with little absorption, overall rents will drop. But 250-ish new "luxury" units is not enough to make a meaningful dent in occupancy rates - it's more likely to push the whole neighborhood upmarket and set a new "price to beat," turning a formerly $800/month apartment into a $1000/month apartment because there's a luxury highrise around the corner leasing for at least double that. And that's before rising land values/tax assessments push landlords of non-luxury units to sell or redevelop their property as "luxury" mid/high rises.

This tower is not going to raise the rent of the older stock in Oak Lawn.... there's just no way. Some people will move out of their older Oak Lawn apartments into this one and the other new ones going up, and as older units sit on the market longer they will lower rents to get them leased instead of letting them sit empty. With real estate/apartment software these days, prices are VERY dynamic and are more tied to supply and demand in the area than ever. If all these new apartment buildings around Uptown/Oak Lawn hadn't gone up, and all these jobs still moved into the area, then the apartments that existed would have gone up in price even more dramatically. New apartments themselves don't create the demand, jobs do, and with more supply the market is able to respond to the increased demand better and upward price pressure is decreased. Yes, prices in the area have increased in recent years but that is due to more demand, not more supply, nor the quality of the new supply.

If/when the economy slows down and new jobs in the area decrease, all this new apartment stock will have an even bigger downward price pressure effect.

Will this building have a huge dent individually on rents in the area, no, but the theory from NIMBYS that new housing units in their area = their rents will be jacked up is absurd.

You've clearly never lived in a nice, but older and "non-luxury" apartment for years with small, if any annual increases in rent, only to have a new "luxury" complex go up around the corner and find out at your next lease renewal that your rent is suddenly going up by $2-300 a month. I asked the leasing office if they were high and said I could move to a much nicer unit around the corner for not much more, they basically said "go for it." All they wanted to do was turn over their current residents so they could get into each unit and renovate it up to a "luxury" standard and charge accordingly, and if someone didn't want to move out, they were stuck paying luxury rents for a decidedly non-luxury apartment.

I didn't need stainless steel appliances or granite counters- I was much more concerned with living downtown and not paying much more than $1000/month, but Dallas' version of "Urban Development" means everything that isn't Public housing must be faux "luxury" and historic building apartment conversions are Ultra luxury. Maybe if there were still modest, comfortable, safe apartments or low-amenity condo buildings downtown, your average middle-class office worker would consider living in the urban core. As it is, it's a choice between living out in the burbs where rent is within 30% of income, or living way beyond one's means downtown because the "luxury" rental units there will eat up half their paycheck at minimum.


New developments may look pretty and nominally add housing stock to the market, but they send a signal to every other landlord in the neighborhood that the "market rent" has shifted higher (not lower). Rents at existing units either go up a little to price in the newfound "appeal" of the area, or go WAY higher to all but force the current renters out so they can remodel or sell to a developer who will build another tower with far higher average rents.

I recently moved into a 1970s townhouse in Oak Lawn behind the gay bars, so actually I have a very applicable experience to share. I had my eye on this unit due to its attached garage and renovations. It was listed, sat on the market, dropped in price, dropped in price again, and I got it for around $200/mo less than the original list price with very attractive move-in terms. There's an identical unit sitting on the market now at the same price I paid and will likely drop even more. When there's so many newer buildings to compete with, the older buildings have to renovate and price attractively. My price per square foot is an insanely good deal for the area and seems to be steady to dropping.

And again, the whole point is that supply does not create demand. It's the other way around. Circumstantially, prices of Oak Lawn apartments have gone up in the past 10 years but that is driven by DEMAND not SUPPLY. If this new tower was taking out 500 affordable older units to add in 300 new luxury units, that would be a different story, but it's 100% net add. The "rent is too damn high" warriors on the various Dallas facebook groups need to cool it on this one.

[Matt777]

In other news.... the Starbucks seems to be moving along. Small foundation is poured. This looks exactly the size of the drive-thru only Starbucks on Maple and at Hall & 75...... where the Oak Lawn Committee and Starbucks promised "significant architecture" and "one of a kind coffee shop" or something like that to get this horror passed through. Looks like it will just be another mess of cars with no indoor shop and no social interaction... just Tahoes and Range Rovers pulling in to get their venti mocha java chino latte without having to get off their butts.

We lost good mixed use retail/residential space for this..... I'd like to be proven wrong but the small rectangular foundation makes it look like it will be drive-thru only and a massive parking lot for the window service.

Oak Lawn Committee needs a re-org.

[cowboyeagle05]

Two examples right here Starbucks at Congress focused primarily on Drive-Thru customers fly's through approvals and this new tower near Eatzi's will get fought tooth and nail as the bringer of all evil to Oak Lawn.

[TNWE]

I recently moved into a 1970s townhouse in Oak Lawn behind the gay bars, so actually I have a very applicable experience to share. I had my eye on this unit due to its attached garage and renovations. It was listed, sat on the market, dropped in price, dropped in price again, and I got it for around $200/mo less than the original list price with very attractive move-in terms. There's an identical unit sitting on the market now at the same price I paid and will likely drop even more. When there's so many newer buildings to compete with, the older buildings have to renovate and price attractively. My price per square foot is an insanely good deal for the area and seems to be steady to dropping.

And again, the whole point is that supply does not create demand. It's the other way around. Circumstantially, prices of Oak Lawn apartments have gone up in the past 10 years but that is driven by DEMAND not SUPPLY. If this new tower was taking out 500 affordable older units to add in 300 new luxury units, that would be a different story, but it's 100% net add. The "rent is too damn high" warriors on the various Dallas facebook groups need to cool it on this one.

Supply will absolutely create demand- Farmers Market, Deep Ellum, West End, and Oak Lawn all had phases where they were undesireable, and someone took a chance building a donut complex or two and they puttered along for a few years with ok but not great occupancy rates. Once the rental market started really heating up in 2014/2015 and Uptown/CBD rents started rising, people suddenly gave those areas a second look, and people looking at an $1800 -> $2000 rent hike in Uptown could save money moving into a DE/West End/Farmers Market unit abandoned by someone who couldn't afford a $900 -> $1200 rent hike. All of a sudden those areas are "cool" and "safe" and new stock is built, but only at that higher price level.

Sure, average rents would be higher if there was no new construction period, but you can't seriously claim that Demand is the ONLY factor pushing rents upward. I know lots of people who liked living in oak lawn but were forced out by landlords who wanted to renovate their properties to meet the new level of finish dictated by "luxury" developments in the area. They don't particularly care that someone else with more income considers the place they lived for years to be a "deal."

Plus, at some point, rents in the core will get so high that people will just take the money and use it to buy a house waaaaaay out in the burbs and commute in (or even more likely, just get a job out in the burbs). If you claim to care about reducing sprawl and "strengthening the core", yet cheer for every new development that prices the middle class out of core neighborhoods, you need to sit down and think about why you've rebranded common classism and gentrification as progressive "Urbanism."

[Cbdallas]

Dallas and DFW are vastly different than they were 10 years ago. Increases have gone up across the board in ALL areas due to the ongoing boom and in migration that has occurred. I would love to see even more towers and more luxury going into the entire core of Dallas as that would mean that it is a hot and exciting place desirable for people who want to live in an urban city and as a counter point to the burbs and surrounding cities. I would love to see towers from the balcony of my townhome in Oak Lawn.

[TNWE]

Dallas and DFW are vastly different than they were 10 years ago. Increases have gone up across the board in ALL areas due to the ongoing boom and in migration that has occurred. I would love to see even more towers and more luxury going into the entire core of Dallas as that would mean that it is a hot and exciting place desirable for people who want to live in an urban city and as a counter point to the burbs and surrounding cities. I would love to see towers from the balcony of my townhome in Oak Lawn.

I can think of nothing worse for Dallas than actively cheering for more expensive housing and higher costs of living when all the job growth and migration to the area has been driven by Californians seeking a lower cost of living, many of whom decided to live in Dallas even if their employer set up shop in Plano/Frisco. These people left milder weather and the pacific ocean behind to come to Texas- what do you think they'll do when the cost advantage disappears and all they're left with is long commutes and weeks of 100 degree days? They. Will. Move. On.

The only thing that *might* save Dallas from itself is the fact that so many major employers are outside the jurisdiction of the would-be golden goose execution squad at Marilla street (and there's still hope that voters will throw out the garbage in the runoff election).

[Matt777]

Nobody here is advocating for prices to go higher. If we do not build the new housing, keep supply at the same level, prices will increase IE San Francisco. Prices do not increase much because of granite counters or fancy pools. They increase because the market can bear those prices due to high demand..... this is basic real estate you guys..... supply does not create demand (Farmer's Market is a bad example because that was an area with zero housing until a decade ago, opposite of Oak Lawn that has had lots of multifamily stock for many many decades).

If you want higher prices, keep protesting new development. San Francisco NIMBYS are very, very good at this. I heard it's cheap to live there just like Oak Lawn in 2002. NOT.

[Matt777]

Two examples right here Starbucks at Congress focused primarily on Drive-Thru customers fly's through approvals and this new tower near Eatzi's will get fought tooth and nail as the bringer of all evil to Oak Lawn.

Exactly.... it's nuts. Oak Lawn Committee needs change.

[The_Overdog]

I'm so tired of 'the Californians' thing - many of the newcomers are from there because it has a huge population. But plenty of people are coming from the midwest (that's where the population is decreasing - Califonia's population is growing) and they could go back (or never leave) if they wanted low housing prices. But they did leave and as housing prices close in on 2X median income, people still aren't moving back. Low housing prices are not a driver of migration.

[R1070]

Two examples right here Starbucks at Congress focused primarily on Drive-Thru customers fly's through approvals and this new tower near Eatzi's will get fought tooth and nail as the bringer of all evil to Oak Lawn.

Yep...just like we saw with the apt building proposed along the Katy trail. Where was OLC when CVS threw up their awful stores as well? They are stuck in the 90s or something. I just don’t understand their suburban logic and distaste for anything with density.

[emmasensei]

Count me in as another person getting really tired of the *hand waves* ~Californians~ ruining everything.

It's a statement that conveniently excuses the swarms of people from places like Tulsa, Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, AND the zillions of tiny towns EVERWHERE--including rural Texas, which is notably depopulating. Seems like everybody in my gym and on my street, in the urban core, has lived here under 2 years, and I'm the only one I know from a coastal city. Everybody else is a Midwesterner. Or, oddly, Australian (but they can stay; they make great coffee)

We keep trying to make this a coasts vs. Sunbelt battle when it's just as much about urbanization in general. Saying ~The Californians~ just exacerbates in group/out group thinking when we're all Americans, largely just trying to do the best we can, work a job, and pay our bills.

Back on topic...

[Cbdallas]

I lived here in Dallas in the 1980's and 90's when you could rent a decent apartment south of Highland Park all the way to downtown for about $500 a month and I also remember when there was no one downtown or anywhere in Oak Lawn during the day and no one dare walk on the sidewalks. Uptown was empty scary land and Knox had a blinking yellow traffic light at night that looked like a little town off the interstate. Markets decide how much property and rents are and they go as high as people will pay and buy. I almost left Dallas at the end of the 1990's due to the dead small town feel Dallas had taken on so I am thrilled we are discussing even the possibility of towers west of Oak Lawn. Rents could double and still be cheap to people coming from the coast so take a breath and lets enjoy our just rewards.

[TNWE]

Nobody here is advocating for prices to go higher. If we do not build the new housing, keep supply at the same level, prices will increase IE San Francisco. Prices do not increase much because of granite counters or fancy pools. They increase because the market can bear those prices due to high demand..... this is basic real estate you guys..... supply does not create demand (Farmer's Market is a bad example because that was an area with zero housing until a decade ago, opposite of Oak Lawn that has had lots of multifamily stock for many many decades).

If you want higher prices, keep protesting new development. San Francisco NIMBYS are very, very good at this. I heard it's cheap to live there just like Oak Lawn in 2002. NOT.

The most basic tenet of economics is 'ceteris paribus' - all other things being equal. If the market is made up of 10 identical houses, and you build 10 more identical houses while keeping demand the same, yes, prices will go down. But that is not the case here- all of the new houses are being built with features and amenities that make them more desirable and therefore fetch higher rents. Real estate has so many irrational and confounding factors at play that it's foolish to try to explain it with a freshman econ supply and demand curve. People have emotional attachments to certain neighborhoods, or an irrational hatred of white appliances, or any of a thousand other opinions & preferences that make real estate far from a perfect, ideal market.

"Prices do not increase much because of granite counters or fancy pools." Then why are developers only building apartments with granite counters and fancy pools? If prices are what they are primarily because of demand, why are all these developers spending extra on finishes? All the people griping about the cookie-cutter stick-frame donut apartments claim that developers build them as cheaply as possible to maximize their profit, but if that were the case, why do they all have these luxury finishes? Are we now to believe that developers are installing stainless steel appliances and poolside cabanas out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they made a deliberate choice to target a wealthier segment of the market that values those amenities?

I never said that there shouldn't be new development, just that it it's laughable to claim that more supply equals lower rents when all of the new supply is being targeted at a higher price point, and almost always spurs a wave of gentrification that drives out existing renters with higher prices (See: Bishop Arts).

[jetnd87]

the downside of living in a thriving city...

[Tucy]

"Pennsylvania-based homebuilder Toll Brothers has started construction on the 22-story residential high-rise on Congress Avenue between Turtle Creek and Oak Lawn Avenue.

The 270-unit apartment tower replaces a block of older townhouses on the block, which is behind the Mansion on Turtle Creek Hotel."

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/rea ... n-district

I'm a little concerned about Steve Brown. He doesn't use the words "huge" or "booming" in this entire article.

[Matt777]

Nobody here is advocating for prices to go higher. If we do not build the new housing, keep supply at the same level, prices will increase IE San Francisco. Prices do not increase much because of granite counters or fancy pools. They increase because the market can bear those prices due to high demand..... this is basic real estate you guys..... supply does not create demand (Farmer's Market is a bad example because that was an area with zero housing until a decade ago, opposite of Oak Lawn that has had lots of multifamily stock for many many decades).

If you want higher prices, keep protesting new development. San Francisco NIMBYS are very, very good at this. I heard it's cheap to live there just like Oak Lawn in 2002. NOT.

The most basic tenet of economics is 'ceteris paribus' - all other things being equal. If the market is made up of 10 identical houses, and you build 10 more identical houses while keeping demand the same, yes, prices will go down. But that is not the case here- all of the new houses are being built with features and amenities that make them more desirable and therefore fetch higher rents. Real estate has so many irrational and confounding factors at play that it's foolish to try to explain it with a freshman econ supply and demand curve. People have emotional attachments to certain neighborhoods, or an irrational hatred of white appliances, or any of a thousand other opinions & preferences that make real estate far from a perfect, ideal market.

"Prices do not increase much because of granite counters or fancy pools." Then why are developers only building apartments with granite counters and fancy pools? If prices are what they are primarily because of demand, why are all these developers spending extra on finishes? All the people griping about the cookie-cutter stick-frame donut apartments claim that developers build them as cheaply as possible to maximize their profit, but if that were the case, why do they all have these luxury finishes? Are we now to believe that developers are installing stainless steel appliances and poolside cabanas out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they made a deliberate choice to target a wealthier segment of the market that values those amenities?

I never said that there shouldn't be new development, just that it it's laughable to claim that more supply equals lower rents when all of the new supply is being targeted at a higher price point, and almost always spurs a wave of gentrification that drives out existing renters with higher prices (See: Bishop Arts).

I didn't see this post until now, but you obviously are missing the point.... still. New supply in itself does not raise prices! I know you refuse to believe that but whatever.... your San Fran model of don't build anything new because it will raise prices is not working.

The new, fairly cheap granite and stainless finishes of the cookie cutter apartments are to attract new renters but do not themselves raise the market. You can find very affordable new apartments in far flung suburbs and smaller TX markets like San Marcos that have the same finishes and they're much cheaper than the apartments in Dallas. Why? Because of supply and demand, gasp! Those smaller cities have tons of cheap easy land and can meet demand much easier with supply, keeping prices down. As land in urban Dallas has gotten pricier and in higher demand, the demand for apartments takes longer and is harder to meet, therefore prices go up.

Gosh I don't even know why I'm debating with someone who seriously thinks the answer to more affordable apartments is to not build any more of them.....

[eburress]

I didn't see this post until now, but you obviously are missing the point.... still. New supply in itself does not raise prices! I know you refuse to believe that but whatever.... your San Fran model of don't build anything new because it will raise prices is not working.

TNWE is letting the short term price effect of introducing higher-end supply cause him to forget or ignore basic laws of economics governing supply and demand.

For what it's worth, not building adequate housing in California while demand increased has caused prices to rise, leading to the state's housing crisis. Alternatively, heavy residential building in lower Manhattan, increasing supply (despite this new supply being higher end, with 'lux' features like granite countertops) while demand remained constant, has caused prices to drop.

[DPatel304]

Here's a lengthy video saying that Union Coffee in Oak Lawn is still 'Coming Soon'. I had not heard anything about this for a while, so I assumed it was dead, but seems like it's still on:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=428587667721749

Also, I have seen work being done on the outdoor patio section, so, I assume once that part is done, we'll be a lot closer to opening.

After watching this video, I'm more excited about this place coming to Oak Lawn. I live very close to here, and it seems like there is a huge emphasis on the local community.

[TNWE]

The most basic tenet of economics is 'ceteris paribus' - all other things being equal. If the market is made up of 10 identical houses, and you build 10 more identical houses while keeping demand the same, yes, prices will go down. But that is not the case here- all of the new houses are being built with features and amenities that make them more desirable and therefore fetch higher rents. Real estate has so many irrational and confounding factors at play that it's foolish to try to explain it with a freshman econ supply and demand curve. People have emotional attachments to certain neighborhoods, or an irrational hatred of white appliances, or any of a thousand other opinions & preferences that make real estate far from a perfect, ideal market.

"Prices do not increase much because of granite counters or fancy pools." Then why are developers only building apartments with granite counters and fancy pools? If prices are what they are primarily because of demand, why are all these developers spending extra on finishes? All the people griping about the cookie-cutter stick-frame donut apartments claim that developers build them as cheaply as possible to maximize their profit, but if that were the case, why do they all have these luxury finishes? Are we now to believe that developers are installing stainless steel appliances and poolside cabanas out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they made a deliberate choice to target a wealthier segment of the market that values those amenities?

I never said that there shouldn't be new development, just that it it's laughable to claim that more supply equals lower rents when all of the new supply is being targeted at a higher price point, and almost always spurs a wave of gentrification that drives out existing renters with higher prices (See: Bishop Arts).

I didn't see this post until now, but you obviously are missing the point.... still. New supply in itself does not raise prices! I know you refuse to believe that but whatever.... your San Fran model of don't build anything new because it will raise prices is not working.

The new, fairly cheap granite and stainless finishes of the cookie cutter apartments are to attract new renters but do not themselves raise the market. You can find very affordable new apartments in far flung suburbs and smaller TX markets like San Marcos that have the same finishes and they're much cheaper than the apartments in Dallas. Why? Because of supply and demand, gasp! Those smaller cities have tons of cheap easy land and can meet demand much easier with supply, keeping prices down. As land in urban Dallas has gotten pricier and in higher demand, the demand for apartments takes longer and is harder to meet, therefore prices go up.

Gosh I don't even know why I'm debating with someone who seriously thinks the answer to more affordable apartments is to not build any more of them.....

I never said "don't build any more apartments" but you apparently can't read or comprehend basic English. I'm trying to get you to recognize the gentrifying effect of high-rise development, and the fact that this tower will all but completely price out current oak lawn residents. Sure, average rents for the larger Metroplex may go down because of the additional supply, but the median rents won't be in the Urban Core- they'll be in far-flung parts of Dallas County at best (more likely in Collin/Denton Counties). If you don't think that's something to discuss or engage with, then just be honest and say "I, Matt777 hate people poorer than me, because they get in the way of my playing pretend that I live in a Real City with lots of tall buildings and a subway" instead of being deliberately obtuse and regurgitating banal Urbanist talking points.

You and eburress claim that any increase in rents is a short-term, localized effect and what Really Matters is the aggregate supply in the Dallas rental market, but something tells me you two wouldn't want to be told it's For the Greater Good when new development prices you out of your current housing and you suddenly have to move out to Pleasant Grove in search of housing you can afford. The only reason there's so much new development in San Marcos is because it's become a de facto exurb of Austin for all of the service and retail industry employees that have been priced out by the same sort of high socio-economic status people who would lease in this proposed Eatzi's tower. Why are you glad that the people least able to afford a long commute in heavy traffic are being priced out of the central city? Shouldn't addressing that impact be more important than satisfying a few anonymous forum posters who just shout "BUILD MORE HOUSING" like a broken record? Do you have a solution besides overbuilding high-end apartment towers to the point that any minor economic blip (say, tariffs leading to layoffs in certain key industries) turns into a full-fledged recession as residential developers go into default when they can no longer lease their new buildings at anywhere near what they'd need to cover their financing cost?

I joined this forum because I was interested in keeping abreast of what's going on development-wise in the DFW area and found a lot of helpful posters with expertise and knowledge to share (muncien, dfwcre8ive, and northsouth come to mind). Unfortunately, I also found it populated with a bunch of aggressively self-interested megalomaniacs who think their personal friendships with a handful of like-minded local politicians (elected or otherwise) gives them the credibility or authority to dictate what Should and Should Not be built in Dallas. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but claiming your opinion as a factual truth because DMag or some other garbage publication agrees with you is arrogance of the highest order. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Matt777]

The most basic tenet of economics is 'ceteris paribus' - all other things being equal. If the market is made up of 10 identical houses, and you build 10 more identical houses while keeping demand the same, yes, prices will go down. But that is not the case here- all of the new houses are being built with features and amenities that make them more desirable and therefore fetch higher rents. Real estate has so many irrational and confounding factors at play that it's foolish to try to explain it with a freshman econ supply and demand curve. People have emotional attachments to certain neighborhoods, or an irrational hatred of white appliances, or any of a thousand other opinions & preferences that make real estate far from a perfect, ideal market.

"Prices do not increase much because of granite counters or fancy pools." Then why are developers only building apartments with granite counters and fancy pools? If prices are what they are primarily because of demand, why are all these developers spending extra on finishes? All the people griping about the cookie-cutter stick-frame donut apartments claim that developers build them as cheaply as possible to maximize their profit, but if that were the case, why do they all have these luxury finishes? Are we now to believe that developers are installing stainless steel appliances and poolside cabanas out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they made a deliberate choice to target a wealthier segment of the market that values those amenities?

I never said that there shouldn't be new development, just that it it's laughable to claim that more supply equals lower rents when all of the new supply is being targeted at a higher price point, and almost always spurs a wave of gentrification that drives out existing renters with higher prices (See: Bishop Arts).

I didn't see this post until now, but you obviously are missing the point.... still. New supply in itself does not raise prices! I know you refuse to believe that but whatever.... your San Fran model of don't build anything new because it will raise prices is not working.

The new, fairly cheap granite and stainless finishes of the cookie cutter apartments are to attract new renters but do not themselves raise the market. You can find very affordable new apartments in far flung suburbs and smaller TX markets like San Marcos that have the same finishes and they're much cheaper than the apartments in Dallas. Why? Because of supply and demand, gasp! Those smaller cities have tons of cheap easy land and can meet demand much easier with supply, keeping prices down. As land in urban Dallas has gotten pricier and in higher demand, the demand for apartments takes longer and is harder to meet, therefore prices go up.

Gosh I don't even know why I'm debating with someone who seriously thinks the answer to more affordable apartments is to not build any more of them.....

I never said "don't build any more apartments" but you apparently can't read or comprehend basic English. I'm trying to get you to recognize the gentrifying effect of high-rise development, and the fact that this tower will all but completely price out current oak lawn residents. Sure, average rents for the larger Metroplex may go down because of the additional supply, but the median rents won't be in the Urban Core- they'll be in far-flung parts of Dallas County at best (more likely in Collin/Denton Counties). If you don't think that's something to discuss or engage with, then just be honest and say "I, Matt777 hate people poorer than me, because they get in the way of my playing pretend that I live in a Real City with lots of tall buildings and a subway" instead of being deliberately obtuse and regurgitating banal Urbanist talking points.

You and eburress claim that any increase in rents is a short-term, localized effect and what Really Matters is the aggregate supply in the Dallas rental market, but something tells me you two wouldn't want to be told it's For the Greater Good when new development prices you out of your current housing and you suddenly have to move out to Pleasant Grove in search of housing you can afford. The only reason there's so much new development in San Marcos is because it's become a de facto exurb of Austin for all of the service and retail industry employees that have been priced out by the same sort of high socio-economic status people who would lease in this proposed Eatzi's tower. Why are you glad that the people least able to afford a long commute in heavy traffic are being priced out of the central city? Shouldn't addressing that impact be more important than satisfying a few anonymous forum posters who just shout "BUILD MORE HOUSING" like a broken record? Do you have a solution besides overbuilding high-end apartment towers to the point that any minor economic blip (say, tariffs leading to layoffs in certain key industries) turns into a full-fledged recession as residential developers go into default when they can no longer lease their new buildings at anywhere near what they'd need to cover their financing cost?

I joined this forum because I was interested in keeping abreast of what's going on development-wise in the DFW area and found a lot of helpful posters with expertise and knowledge to share (muncien, dfwcre8ive, and northsouth come to mind). Unfortunately, I also found it populated with a bunch of aggressively self-interested megalomaniacs who think their personal friendships with a handful of like-minded local politicians (elected or otherwise) gives them the credibility or authority to dictate what Should and Should Not be built in Dallas. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but claiming your opinion as a factual truth because DMag or some other garbage publication agrees with you is arrogance of the highest order. Welcome to my ignore list.

Excuse me? No need for personal attacks and conjecture about who I am and where I live. Like I said above, I live in a 1970's townhouse in Oak Lawn behind the gay bars that was a great deal. I don't currently live in one of the fancy new towers, although I have before. The reason I'm in support of new supply at any price point is because I have a good grasp of how real estate works, having done it on the side including personal investments. I have seen first hand how the new supply has helped control or even drop prices in some cases, the unit I live in now being a prime example.

I'm very liberal, and I think bringing up the lower income class and rebuilding the middle class is imperative if our capitalist world is to survive. Many of my friends feel the exact same way. But many of them also share the viewpoint of TNWE that all of the new buildings going up are why their rents are get more expensive. That just is not the case. You could build new luxury towers up and down every street but prices in that area are not going to rise unless there is demand to support it and the market will bear it.

One aspect of Dallas' recent success in attracting thousands of new residents is affordable prices. We cannot keep prices affordable if we don't constantly add new units, and increasingly the only way to do that profitably is to build up.

Build, baby build.*

*In an urban and pedestrian friendly manner.

[Cbdallas]

Build up not out.

[The_Overdog]

Unfortunately, I also found it populated with a bunch of aggressively self-interested megalomaniacs who think their personal friendships with a handful of like-minded local politicians (elected or otherwise) gives them the credibility or authority to dictate what Should and Should Not be built in Dallas. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but claiming your opinion as a factual truth because DMag or some other garbage publication agrees with you is arrogance of the highest order. Welcome to my ignore list.

Man and I thought lots of your old posts were pompus and dipshitty. You do an amazing job continually raising that bar!

[Alpaca_Obsessor]

I never said that there shouldn't be new development, just that it it's laughable to claim that more supply equals lower rents when all of the new supply is being targeted at a higher price point, and almost always spurs a wave of gentrification that drives out existing renters with higher prices (See: Bishop Arts).

I think a more accurate statement is that new supply alleviates the pressure of new demand on the existing housing stock.

I'm trying to get you to recognize the gentrifying effect of high-rise development, and the fact that this tower will all but completely price out current oak lawn residents. Sure, average rents for the larger Metroplex may go down because of the additional supply, but the median rents won't be in the Urban Core- they'll be in far-flung parts of Dallas County at best (more likely in Collin/Denton Counties).

Which is exactly why we need to make it easier for dense projects like this to go through. There's a constant stream of residents pouring into this city from other places, and a certain portion of them make a lot of money. The best solution is to just allow these neighborhoods to naturally build up, such that it can adequately absorb the new high-income population, and keep them from outbidding existing residents who live in other parts of the city. Letting the neighborhood build up will ensure that the displaced residents still have reasonable options within commuting distance to live; because, the alternative option of restricting development, while it may help existing residents in the short run, won't keep that constant trickle of new residents out of Dallas, they'll just outbid residents out of the now artificially restricted stock of housing until those poorer residents have no other options to live but the far-flung parts of Dallas County.

The only reason there's so much new development in San Marcos is because it's become a de facto exurb of Austin for all of the service and retail industry employees that have been priced out by the same sort of high socio-economic status people who would lease in this proposed Eatzi's tower. Why are you glad that the people least able to afford a long commute in heavy traffic are being priced out of the central city? Shouldn't addressing that impact be more important than satisfying a few anonymous forum posters who just shout "BUILD MORE HOUSING" like a broken record? Do you have a solution besides overbuilding high-end apartment towers to the point that any minor economic blip (say, tariffs leading to layoffs in certain key industries) turns into a full-fledged recession as residential developers go into default when they can no longer lease their new buildings at anywhere near what they'd need to cover their financing cost?

The reason we're saying 'build more housing' like a broken record is because it really is the only solution. I moved to Chicago a while back and my experience with the housing market here is that the city's made it really easy for developers to build massive amounts of high-density housing downtown which has been being built at a furious pace the past several years. To put it simply the towers act as sort of a warehouse to house the massive amounts of yuppies moving to the city (I know that the city has a reputation for losing population lately which you might bring up, but if you take a look at the census data at all you'll see the city is still a pretty popular destination for high-income earners and college grads, while most of the loss has been in south side neighborhoods which have seen their lower-income populations leave because of violence), and keeps them from out pricing residents from other portions of the city. I mean why bother developing properties in neighborhoods 20-30 min from downtown, and charge obscene rents when people have the option for a place downtown within walking distance of their work for the same price.

On top of that, by reducing the costs behind constructing new housing from the municipality's side you no longer limit developers to only building for high-income earners to recoup their costs. Sure they're definitely going to go after that market first, but once its overbuilt they'll start looking at other ways to make money, namely by building for middle-income earners.

Outside of just building more housing, I do think the U.S. needs to be investing a lot more in public transit to ensure that those farther out communities are still within a reasonable commute to job centers.

I joined this forum because I was interested in keeping abreast of what's going on development-wise in the DFW area and found a lot of helpful posters with expertise and knowledge to share (muncien, dfwcre8ive, and northsouth come to mind). Unfortunately, I also found it populated with a bunch of aggressively self-interested megalomaniacs who think their personal friendships with a handful of like-minded local politicians (elected or otherwise) gives them the credibility or authority to dictate what Should and Should Not be built in Dallas. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but claiming your opinion as a factual truth because DMag or some other garbage publication agrees with you is arrogance of the highest order. Welcome to my ignore list.

You criticize us for arrogance, and yet your the one using the most aggressive language on here

I never said "don't build any more apartments" but you apparently can't read or comprehend basic English.

"I, Matt777 hate people poorer than me, because they get in the way of my playing pretend that I live in a Real City with lots of tall buildings and a subway" instead of being deliberately obtuse and regurgitating banal Urbanist talking points.

If your argument is strong enough, you shouldn't have to resort to the sorts of statements above. It's just childish

[TNWE]

You criticize us for arrogance, and yet your the one using the most aggressive language on here

I never said "don't build any more apartments" but you apparently can't read or comprehend basic English.

"I, Matt777 hate people poorer than me, because they get in the way of my playing pretend that I live in a Real City with lots of tall buildings and a subway" instead of being deliberately obtuse and regurgitating banal Urbanist talking points.

If your argument is strong enough, you shouldn't have to resort to the sorts of statements above. It's just childish

If people are going to misrepresent what I'm saying, I'm going to call them out. My point was never that building new housing is wrong or bad, but the echo chamber on here keeps attacking me for an argument I never made. Matt777 talked about getting a great deal on a renovated place in Oak Lawn (without mentioning actual numbers, as is his right), and then ridiculed people who were (rightly) concerned about getting priced out of that same neighborhood as NIMBYs. I don't expect anyone on here to disclose what they pay in rent, but more often than not, saying a neighborhood is a "deal" means it's on the rise in terms of desirability, and the rents are lagging that desirability improvement rather than leading it. No one says they're getting a deal when they save $100/month by moving to a declining neighborhood.

Saying that adding more housing stock of any kind lowers all rents (or restrains rent increases) in the aggregate may be true from a macroeconomic perspective, but when all of the new stock prices out the lower-income service workers who staff the shops that yuppies patronize, you're making them much worse off as they now have longer commutes into the core. Chicago may be fine with that development trend because they have a much more comprehensive transit system that can bring lots of people into the city core to sustain the services that high-rise dwelling yuppies need. Dallas does not have that sort of transit system, and the expense to build the sort of system (ROW acquisition, tunneling, staff, etc) is easily in the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Even if we started tomorrow, it would take decades to build things out.

So, we're saying its unequivocally good to turn the city core into a yuppie playground right now when the transit improvements to sustain it are a decade behind at best, so all of the people who operate the stores, restaurants, and other services that yuppies need to make an area "vibrant" and desirable are consigned to driving or inneffective transit to get to their jobs every day.

I can only assume that the crowd claiming there's zero downside to building exclusively high-end housing in the core has completely internalized the popular caricature of all single-occupant car commuters as overpaid, Trump-voting, corporate executive suburbanites who bash gays for fun on the weekends. If those people every actually sat in rush hour traffic on 635/75/DNT and looked at the drivers of the cars on either side of them, they'd see a very different picture. Even the people who blame Dallas' ineffective transit on DART for having to serve "the suburbs" ignore the fact that Dallas is itself a sprawling mess, with most of the land area taken up by detached single-family residential.

So yeah, I get a little bristly when I see post after post claiming that Dallas could be Chicago or New York if only they'd "Build Housing" or "Tear down 345" or "Build a subway" when there are historical and structural differences that make those formulaic Urbanist one-liner "solutions" not applicable to Dallas. Things are a little more complicated than that.

[clubtokyo]

Can anyone explain why Dallas pride won’t be in oak lawn this year?? I always thought that was the best thing about Dallas pride. Fair park seems weird.

[Matt777]

You criticize us for arrogance, and yet your the one using the most aggressive language on here

I never said "don't build any more apartments" but you apparently can't read or comprehend basic English.

"I, Matt777 hate people poorer than me, because they get in the way of my playing pretend that I live in a Real City with lots of tall buildings and a subway" instead of being deliberately obtuse and regurgitating banal Urbanist talking points.

If your argument is strong enough, you shouldn't have to resort to the sorts of statements above. It's just childish

If people are going to misrepresent what I'm saying, I'm going to call them out. My point was never that building new housing is wrong or bad, but the echo chamber on here keeps attacking me for an argument I never made. Matt777 talked about getting a great deal on a renovated place in Oak Lawn (without mentioning actual numbers, as is his right), and then ridiculed people who were (rightly) concerned about getting priced out of that same neighborhood as NIMBYs. I don't expect anyone on here to disclose what they pay in rent, but more often than not, saying a neighborhood is a "deal" means it's on the rise in terms of desirability, and the rents are lagging that desirability improvement rather than leading it. No one says they're getting a deal when they save $100/month by moving to a declining neighborhood.

Saying that adding more housing stock of any kind lowers all rents (or restrains rent increases) in the aggregate may be true from a macroeconomic perspective, but when all of the new stock prices out the lower-income service workers who staff the shops that yuppies patronize, you're making them much worse off as they now have longer commutes into the core. Chicago may be fine with that development trend because they have a much more comprehensive transit system that can bring lots of people into the city core to sustain the services that high-rise dwelling yuppies need. Dallas does not have that sort of transit system, and the expense to build the sort of system (ROW acquisition, tunneling, staff, etc) is easily in the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Even if we started tomorrow, it would take decades to build things out.

So, we're saying its unequivocally good to turn the city core into a yuppie playground right now when the transit improvements to sustain it are a decade behind at best, so all of the people who operate the stores, restaurants, and other services that yuppies need to make an area "vibrant" and desirable are consigned to driving or inneffective transit to get to their jobs every day.

I can only assume that the crowd claiming there's zero downside to building exclusively high-end housing in the core has completely internalized the popular caricature of all single-occupant car commuters as overpaid, Trump-voting, corporate executive suburbanites who bash gays for fun on the weekends. If those people every actually sat in rush hour traffic on 635/75/DNT and looked at the drivers of the cars on either side of them, they'd see a very different picture. Even the people who blame Dallas' ineffective transit on DART for having to serve "the suburbs" ignore the fact that Dallas is itself a sprawling mess, with most of the land area taken up by detached single-family residential.

So yeah, I get a little bristly when I see post after post claiming that Dallas could be Chicago or New York if only they'd "Build Housing" or "Tear down 345" or "Build a subway" when there are historical and structural differences that make those formulaic Urbanist one-liner "solutions" not applicable to Dallas. Things are a little more complicated than that.

Just.... no. To all of this. You obviously have some bone to pick with the urbanization and change Dallas has been going through over the past 10-20 years, but this is not the place to vent your frustration with urbanization.... in an urban development forum. The suburban sprawlification was a blip in history, even in our fairly young city. Dallas was originally designed to be urban and pedestrian friendly, continued to develop a strong grid and urban fabric with an extensive streetcar system, and was a pioneer in highrise construction west of the Mississippi, including many buildings that were the tallest in the western US at completion. The suburban crap and highways that tore up our city from 1950 through the 90s was a blip in history. Those 30-40 years do not represent our past and god willing will not represent our future.

Back to your original argument: So these thousands of employees that might be moving here if Uber opens a tech center in Dallas.... where should they go if you think new high density development is bad for Dallas and will raise your prices? Guess what.... if those new towers don't get built, they're coming for your residence and the increased demand will raise your prices. So you better lay off this don't build new residential units crap and finally just accept that you're wrong. This conversation has gone way too long.

Oak Lawn will continue to densify. Let's make sure it makes our great neighborhood better than ever.

[itsjrd1964]

Can anyone explain why Dallas pride won’t be in oak lawn this year?? I always thought that was the best thing about Dallas pride. Fair park seems weird.

Not sure where you'll find it posted or otherwise online, but the negotiations and planning for the event(s) have had a bit of hand-wringing regarding what you bring up, but it looks as though the event may have gotten too big for the street/area, and some place bigger and more accomodating was apparently needed. A lot of logistical planning has to go into an event like that, and while continuing to have it along Cedar Springs would sound more logical and even iconic, apparently an alternative needed to be considered and eventually implemented. There's not really any larger venues close to the Oak Lawn area to have something like Pride-type festivities.

It's almost like what the Addison area festivals (Kaboom Town, Oktoberfest, Taste Addison) have become. Thousands attend all 3 each year, and due to development, most close-in parking has been eliminated. Those that do make it in close to be able to park, find themselves treated like a cattle drive when the events are over. Addison PD has had to do a contra-flow setup in that regard, meaning no one wanting to come toward the area will be allowed through/in for several hours. That makes it tough on folks not in the area for one of the festivals, but just wanting to get to a restaurant or their hotel (or in my case in years past, just trying to get to work). Not sure how much longer Addison can continue to host festivals of that size or bigger without feeling crippled with the sheer weight of visitors that attend.

[Cbdallas]

I thought the move was because of road construction that would still be occurring along the parade route on Cedar Springs in September of this year so they had to come up with an alternative and decided to move it to Pride Month in June to Fair Park. The worst part is that the DART rail is closed along the downtown path on Weekends due to rail replacement and work so you have to get off and get on a bus to take you to the other end of downtown rail station. It would have been so easy to get there and back but oh well.

[itsjrd1964]

Oh that's right, forgot about the construction angle--and the DART rail mess. Should make for an interesting, if not colorful, Pride time this year.

[cowboyeagle05]

Keep in mind the Mayor was a silent push on moving Pride to Fair Park. The privatized Fair Park needs multple annual events to make its numbers improve so sweetening the deal by moving Pride to Fair Park makes things easier for the new profit-driven Fair Park management.

A couple of things are accurate they are about to do some construction on Cedar Springs but the Pride committee wants to move the Pride parade to Main Street Downtown either way. They have always wanted to do so if you've talked to people involved with the planning for Pride. A few of the committee members actually live Downtown and ride transit regularly to the gaybourhood when the go to the gay bars so they have envisioned putting it front and center for a while now.

The sheer massive number of people who attend Dallas pride has become too big and the parade route is too short for all the groups that now want to participate. This year I think the parade took 4 hours for every float and group to pass by. By the end of that time, most parade people were either too drunk to pay any attention or had already walked away tired from standing in the sun that long.

[vman]

I tagged along with my cousin and his partner Sunday to the Pride Parade at Fair Park. Although I haven't been to the parade on Cedarsprings in years, I thought Fair Park was a much better venue. Tons of spaces to escape the heat, you could definitely see the parade better and people were spread out everywhere and it gave the parade more of a festival vibe. Plus, much easier to get in and out. If it's at Fair Park again, I will definitely go. I really enjoyed it.

OOOps. Reposted on the Fair Park thread.

[Cord1936]

Quote from article:

StreetLights went back to the movie theater’s archive (housed in the Dallas Public Library) for inspiration from the original 1931 theater. Now the Oak Lawn Avenue façade looks like an update on that original theater – complete with sign and marquee. It creates a visual connection to the Melrose Hotel. It also begins to heal the wound this parcel has represented to the neighborhood since the theater was torn down in 1985.

Article: https://candysdirt.com/2019/06/05/oak-lawn-committee-sees-improvement-from-streetlights-eatzis-adjacent-proposal/?utm_source=Candy+Evans+-+All+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b7d8bc9638-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bd2a6dc536-b7d8bc9638-16460437

[The_Overdog]

Good thing all those convertibles have fast retracting roofs. A terrible storm is coming!

[eburress]

Quote from article:

StreetLights went back to the movie theater’s archive (housed in the Dallas Public Library) for inspiration from the original 1931 theater. Now the Oak Lawn Avenue façade looks like an update on that original theater – complete with sign and marquee. It creates a visual connection to the Melrose Hotel. It also begins to heal the wound this parcel has represented to the neighborhood since the theater was torn down in 1985.

Article: https://candysdirt.com/2019/06/05/oak-lawn-committee-sees-improvement-from-streetlights-eatzis-adjacent-proposal/?utm_source=Candy+Evans+-+All+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b7d8bc9638-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bd2a6dc536-b7d8bc9638-16460437

Wow, I love that change! It seemed like much of the concern about the project's aesthetic was to do with its rear (the view from the northwest) but this reimagined front is pretty awesome, not to mention thoughtful for including the theater-eque details.

[Tucy]

So, are floors 2-6 now parking, instead of apartments?

[dukemeredith]

So, are floors 2-6 now parking, instead of apartments?

It seems so, according to the article on Candy's Dirt:

As you can see, the first seven floors have given way to that new/old façade. It replaces the original plan’s rather plain-Jane streetscape and creates a destination. What also happened was that the Oak Lawn Avenue-facing units on those redesigned floors went away. The enabled them to rejigger the parking, resulting in a 25-foot (or two-story) drop in the height of the parking podium. It’s a great start, but at seven stories, it’s still too tall of a visual brick when not looking straight-on at the building.

But it’s only been a month and not everything has been addressed – yet. In my book, there are four things that still need working out. First, the already-mentioned 7-story garage. Second, the skin of the building above the new façade still needs help. Third, the orientation of the parking lot entry from Eatzi’s needs to be aligned with the road. And fourth, a bit more explanation on traffic flow for deliveries, moving vans, etc.

[cowboyeagle05]

So what is their problem with the facade above the "OLD THEATER" lower level? Is it a complaint about the materials? Stucco vs brick for example. Visually I think the detailing and design look fine.

The question is will the OLC allow the parking truly above ground. In some areas of town, they have been militant about parking being below ground. This is a large site even without the Eatzi's section so it could easily have been developed with undergorund garage office and a residential tower for example.