Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

And finally, never get built, lol! An old Dallas tradition--bait, switch, disappoint, disappear......

rono3849 wrote:

dallaz wrote:

R1070 wrote:I'll take anything at this point. lol

Right

That parking lot is ugly as hell. Any development there is an upgrade

Field.Street.Dst.2023a.jpg

I think the newer renderings have been downscaled to accommodate the current marketplace, but if they get a commitment, perhaps they'll upgrade their plans. It is much more modest to say the least. I can't tell if it is two towers or just one tower. They appear to be 30 to 35-stories tall.

It does look downscaled….a lot. Honestly, I’m not very surprised. It seems like this will actually be able to get built. I’m not a real estate expert at all, but has Dallas reached a point ATM where very large skyscrapers are needed? I feel like developers are building shorter buildings because they’re feasible right now. Not saying that Dallas won’t ever have tall buildings again, but that just seems to be popular in Dallas for some reason. (Anyone correct me if I’m wrong).

Like you said, they could always go taller. The site is nearly 6 acres with unlimited height. I’m sure they could squeeze in something taller. What I’m worried about the most is the streetscape. Dallas can still have a killer skyline with shorter buildings, if enough of them are built. Toronto has skyscrapers under 1,000 ft and it’s HELLA impressive. Same can be said for Calgary as well. It’s under 800 ft but it has grown noticeably denser than Dallas in recent years.

citygeek wrote:And finally, never get built, lol! An old Dallas tradition--bait, switch, disappoint, disappear......

Hahaha that’s hilarious…cuz it’s true. Damn near choked on my smoothie.

citygeek wrote:And finally, never get built, lol! An old Dallas tradition--bait, switch, disappoint, disappear......

That should be trademarked...

eburress wrote:...to the point that it'll end up as a CVS!

Lol. Correct. Maybe the other proposed "iconic gateway" building in the same area can be a Walgreens.

If you look at those 2 new renderings, they're actually totally separate designs. It's not the same tower in both photos.

So phase one will just be the parking garage.

Kelley USA wrote:If you look at those 2 new renderings, they're actually totally separate designs. It's not the same tower in both photos.

Indeed, the renderings of both towers are different from each other. The second rendering looks like it may be a first phase because there is land next to the tower available to build another building. The whole development is in flux, obviously.

What could've been...Sigh

100 story Field Plaza 1980s Deco Revival

Seriously. We really missed out on some great projects on that side of downtown in the 80s. Granted, we were super overbuilt and clearly couldn't support the buildings we did get, but from an eye candy standpoint what could have been...

Dragon_Lady wrote:What could've been...Sigh

100 story Field Plaza 1980s Deco Revival

100 story-Field-Plaza-proposed for Dallas in the Eighties.jpg

As goofy as it is to think about, I'm 100% serious that adding just this one building would have completely changed Dallas's popular perception for half a century at least. No city gets the "soulless" label quite as often as Dallas, but from an aesthetic point of view it's not hard to see why.
BoA plaza is a beautiful building that I like quite a lot; its contours and green lighting have served us well as an icon, but at the end of the day it's a glass box. Easily among the best glass boxes ever designed, but, nonetheless, glass has a certain coldness and sterility to it that is made harsher when there are no other elements to balance it out. So, for BoA to be the dominant focal point of our skyline, well, that influences first impressions.
(And to its credit, BoA's thoughtful and beautiful design keeps us from looking like Generic-City, USA in the way that Houston's skyline does)

But shit, throw this art deco bad boy in the skyline? Who would come to Dallas--where this building dominates the view and is drawing one's eyes from every point in the city, where art deco seems alive and well when this and Fair Park are around--and call it soulless? Fair Park alone makes us the art deco capital of the south, but this building would have ensured that reputation preceded us before visitors ever step foot in town.

Ok, just get a design consortium together, including that firm, to propose that for the Dallas Museum of Art expansion competition.

What really sucked the wind out of Downtown Dallas was Las Colinas in the 1980's and beyond, then Plano, then Frisco.....and the beat goes on. Imagine if we could have kept the center and heart of big business in Downtown Dallas and not let the suburbs capture what they have over the last 5 decades. It is actually amazing that we have what we have in the urban core in spite of massive suburban city growth.

At least the east side is finally getting developed.

Cbdallas wrote:What really sucked the wind out of Downtown Dallas was Las Colinas in the 1980's and beyond, then Plano, then Frisco.....and the beat goes on. Imagine if we could have kept the center and heart of big business in Downtown Dallas and not let the suburbs capture what they have over the last 5 decades. It is actually amazing that we have what we have in the urban core in spite of massive suburban city growth.

A much bigger mistake Dallas did was they turned down the annexation opportunity of what is now all of Las Colinas land area, back in 1968. So then Irving took it. The reason was that Dallas claimed the land was flood prone due to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and surrounding ponds. A loss of at least 125,000 in population today.

DFW wrote:

Cbdallas wrote:What really sucked the wind out of Downtown Dallas was Las Colinas in the 1980's and beyond, then Plano, then Frisco.....and the beat goes on. Imagine if we could have kept the center and heart of big business in Downtown Dallas and not let the suburbs capture what they have over the last 5 decades. It is actually amazing that we have what we have in the urban core in spite of massive suburban city growth.

A much bigger mistake Dallas did was they turned down the annexation opportunity of what is now all of Las Colinas land area, back in 1968. So then Irving took it. The reason was that Dallas claimed the land was flood prone due to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and surrounding ponds. A loss of at least 125,000 in population today.

I couldn't read it because of the paywall, but I'm sure some of you saw the article in the DMN last week stating that Las Colinas now has more office workers than downtown Dallas.

For what it's worth, this property is moving through the City's plat approval process. Usually that means construction is about to begin, but we shall see.

rono3849 wrote:

dallaz wrote:

R1070 wrote:I'll take anything at this point. lol

Right

That parking lot is ugly as hell. Any development there is an upgrade

Field.Street.Dst.2023a.jpg

I think the newer renderings have been downscaled to accommodate the current marketplace, but if they get a commitment, perhaps they'll upgrade their plans. It is much more modest to say the least. I can't tell if it is two towers or just one tower. They appear to be 30 to 35-stories tall.

I think that building is the phase two according to this brochure https://res.cloudinary.com/marketsphere ... ulvmei.pdf

I’m not sure if it has been posted. All the buildings planned are under 30 stories.

This development is typical Dallas. Uninspired, 25 story, glass boxes

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:This development is typical Dallas. Uninspired, 25 story, glass boxes

Totally agree. I can't for the life of me see any compelling reason to even build this development. There is no office demand or Perot's tower would be half built already. Are they trying to latch onto the Goldman Sachs' development or get a little bit of momentum from Harwood's district? The architecture is boring and just dreadful. Why not put a fancy top on these blocks to make them have some character? Is it too much to ask these people to think out of the box? The first two towers are 27 stories and the Phase II tower looks to be 32 stories. How sad.

Word has it that the banks are so tight fisted right now, getting financing for any of these developments is virtually impossible. Independent investment firms are their only real source for financing now, which can get very dicey to say the least.

Yes, it’s very doubtful this development will get funded or start anytime soon - thankfully. It is the typical Dallas conservative “nice” development with smaller separate use buildings that are easier to construct and sell later. This high profile urban location begs for something taller, mixed-use and architecturally significant. Why not a 50-55 story building that combines the office and residential and if successful gives value to the remaining portion of the site?

This was posted today. They’re saying that the Field St District could start this year. I highly doubt it, but I thought I should share.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/dalla ... g/3238403/

And GS reduced size... not shocked. It will be a bank with a drive-thru by the time this gets off the ground. lol

dallaz wrote:This was posted today. They’re saying that the Field St District could start this year. I highly doubt it, but I thought I should share.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/dalla ... g/3238403/

I will eat my stetson if this breaks ground in the year twenty twenty three.

Same. I will also eat your stetson

R1070 wrote:And GS reduced size... not shocked. It will be a bank with a drive-thru by the time this gets off the ground. lol

I'd love it if they had a Taco Bell adjacent. LOL.

rono3849 wrote:

R1070 wrote:And GS reduced size... not shocked. It will be a bank with a drive-thru by the time this gets off the ground. lol

I'd love it if they had a Taco Bell adjacent. LOL.

Go ahead and throw a BK in there, that whole area could use some chain fast food. Gotta have a Long John Silver's as well , since it's really just a front for money laundering! ; )

What's sad is that this could be a dynamic development on the skyline, but this will be a mediocre in-fill.

rono3849 wrote:What's sad is that this could be a dynamic development on the skyline, but this will be a mediocre in-fill.

If we're lucky. More likely, it will just remain as is.

Proposal posted on FAA's site yesterday:

Structure Type: Building
Structure Name: FSD Building NE Point

Work Schedule: 04/01/2024 to 08/01/2027

Structure Height: 405

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/se ... 21&row=280

The incredible shrinking development.

These two photos of Downtown & Uptown Dallas from 2001 and 2021 show incredible growth of the immediate Downtown and adjacent areas the past 20 years. If the development of Hunt's Field Street area that includes two 50 story towers, Harwood's #12 45 story tower, and the towers on Downtown's East side come to fruition, the skyline will expand even further.

rono3849 wrote:These two photos of Downtown & Uptown Dallas from 2001 and 2021 show incredible growth of the immediate Downtown and adjacent areas the past 20 years. If the development of Hunt's Field Street area that includes two 50 story towers, Harwood's #12 45 story tower, and the towers on Downtown's East side come to fruition, the skyline will expand even further.

Dallas.before.after.jpg

Good picture. I think it's easy to forget where we were and where we are now in terms of downtown/uptown development. Some people may not like the pace of growth but slow and steady is often the best strategy.

Yeah, okay, lots of new buildings but nothing stands out as better than what was built in the 80s. For example, the folks that designed AMLI as Fountain Place’s little brother just made something derivative (and maybe the best of the 20 years lot). Having a true twin and following up with the original design plan, regardless of a lack of creativity on their part, would’ve been the most dramatic impact on the Dallas skyline in years (and a compliment and commitment to that vision) and I’ll wager most of you know it. My comment is limited to what is built as I lament over the modern banality of repetitious design we continue to see.

Dragon_Lady wrote:Yeah, okay, lots of new buildings but nothing stands out as better than what was built in the 80s. For example, the folks that designed AMLI as Fountain Place’s little brother just made something derivative (and maybe the best of the 20 years lot). Having a true twin and following up with the original design plan, regardless of a lack of creativity on their part, would’ve been the most dramatic impact on the Dallas skyline in years (and a compliment and commitment to that vision) and I’ll wager most of you know it. My comment is limited to what is built as I lament over the modern banality of repetitious design we continue to see.

Right.

I think everyone acknowledges and appreciates the impressive infill of mid/high--rises that we've seen in Oak Lawn.

However, frustration over the lack of new skyscrapers in downtown proper is also justified, especially when we missed quite possibly the best era (first the 90s/00s mortgage bubble then record low interest rates/inflatiom in the 2010s) for such projects and majority of other major metro areas saw skyline-transforming projects completed in their CBDs during that same period.

And the only alternative to high-stakes repetitious design to point to has been high-stakes one off Arts Flair which is equally as visionless. Maybe we need to return to the low stakes devolved decisionmaking that characterizes city neighbors not aligned by high finance?

That that seems like no cool vision for Dallas TO modern day downtown Dallas boosters would be the bigger disappointment and missed opportunity (to my mind)

Looks like there is still a big hole in the middle - if that fills in, downtown will look pretty nice. I'm not really one to care what skyscrapers look like, so I'd be fine if every building was a rectangle.

Your wish may be several developers' command, Overdog Ali Baba! They like rectangularity too.

maconahey wrote:Proposal posted on FAA's site yesterday:

Structure Type: Building
Structure Name: FSD Building NE Point

Work Schedule: 04/01/2024 to 08/01/2027

Structure Height: 405

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/se ... 21&row=280

Any idea what FSD means (in "FSD Building")?

I'm going with Field Street District.

CTroyMathis wrote:I'm going with Field Street District.

Ahhh, of course.

Although, I bet we could come up with something funnier for the acronym.

No joke; since it's on the southern frontage of Woodall Rodgers, to listen to many forum prognosticators anymore, it may as well be called Far South Dallas.

FDS

For District's Sake?

I45Tex wrote:For District's Sake?

On a lighter note about the project, if one of their buildings (assuming using a McKinney Ave. address which seems to be the case) gets up to say around 450' or better just in case - then the tallest building on McKinney Ave. won't even be in Uptown. Even if some of McKinney Ave's taller proposals ever get built. Kinda strangely humorous. . .

But, for now 405' will work for McKinney Ave. if that is how tall it really goes:



(Tentative) Work Schedule: 04/01/2024 to 08/01/2027

Well.... This is something!

https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/TABS/Search/ ... 2023024673