Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Just look at the NorthEnd website it's residents only now. (https://northenddallas.com) They also are refusing to report occupancy percentage. I am not sure if they even have leasing agents anymore. Leasing staff get paid based on closing on new leases and small bonuses for renewing leases. They have to keep maintenance staff obviously but I am sure the office staff is basically a property manager and maybe an office admin depending on how many residents are still there.

I'll pour one out for that place when it's gone. It may be a sad relic now, but when they first opened the AAC, some friends lived there and it was wildly urban compared to my complex in Richardson. I think it was $1750 for a 2 bedroom in 2005ish?

Site plan from https://hoerrschaudt.com/project/north-end-park-rg/ (not sure if this was ever posted)

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Just look at the NorthEnd website it's residents only now. (https://northenddallas.com) They also are refusing to report occupancy percentage. I am not sure if they even have leasing agents anymore. Leasing staff get paid based on closing on new leases and small bonuses for renewing leases. They have to keep maintenance staff obviously but I am sure the office staff is basically a property manager and maybe an office admin depending on how many residents are still there.

The website shows those splashy renderings with the tall buildings. Interesting to see what actually gets built in the next 15 years.

I think the office building in the SE corner along River Street will be the one that will house the main GS offices. I hope the greenspace goes in with the first phase to give it time to mature. The fact that the site is a mix of uses give me a little optimism, but we shall see...Dallas development is always watered down.

I'm disappointed the science museum wasn't given expansion space here.

tamtagon wrote:I'm disappointed the science museum wasn't given expansion space here.

They already have expansion space to their west.

^its not enough

They can barely take care of their existing exhibits I am not looking forward to an expansion anytime soon to the Perot. Last I visited the Museum 3 months ago, the place was pretty beat up by kids' use. Anything interactive was very obviously barely working or not at all. I am sure that's normal for a science museum that targets kids, but it is certainly not worth returning for adult-oriented events since the place constantly needs major repair and feels almost as bad as their home in Fair Park used to feel. At least in Fair Park, you assumed it was because the city mismanaged Fair Park the museum was in constant breaking down mode. Now they have the Perot name on it, and it feels like a return to the same old exhibits that won't get rehabbed for another 50 yrs when the building/location is blamed and a new funding campaign begins to build in Arlington. I have been to a few craft beer nights with other adults without kids, and it's just not the place for a single person without a kid. I realized I like a museum of art more cause at least there the kid's cant touch things, and I wonder if there is even a market for a science museum that can appeal to adults.

Don't hold me to it in the event that I am incorrect, but I'm pretty sure they are looking into an expansion/planning to make their grand announcement about in the next 6-24 months.

cowboyeagle05 wrote:I realized I like a museum of art more cause at least there the kid's cant touch things, and I wonder if there is even a market for a science museum that can appeal to adults.

I've been to two adults-only private events there, and both were very successful/popular.

The special exhibits they do are cool. A lot of the ones they do aren't targeted for Children ...no interactive kid stuff... More targeted older audiences....

The bioluminescent exhibit was super cool.

Hannibal Lecter wrote:

cowboyeagle05 wrote:I realized I like a museum of art more cause at least there the kid's cant touch things, and I wonder if there is even a market for a science museum that can appeal to adults.

I've been to two adults-only private events there, and both were very successful/popular.

I do not doubt it. My experience was one that was not worth returning to. I'll drink craft beer at a brewery instead of the museum.

Any update on this project, especially the GS portion of it?

Does anyone have any updates on the status of the North End apartments? Have leases started expiring and people moving out?

Tucy wrote:Does anyone have any updates on the status of the North End apartments? Have leases started expiring and people moving out?

For some reason I thought they were letting them expire slowly and not making any new leases. This was some time ago tho.

Tnexster wrote:

Tucy wrote:Does anyone have any updates on the status of the North End apartments? Have leases started expiring and people moving out?

For some reason I thought they were letting them expire slowly and not making any new leases. This was some time ago tho.

For sure. I think it's clear they haven't been signing any new leases for a while. But I was curious if they've started taking the next step -- giving notices to vacate to people whose leases have expired.

What’s this about the development being a campus like setting which will only be 15 to 20 stories? Is this for real?
Or is this a heard it through the grapevine thing or what?

DFW wrote:What’s this about the development being a campus like setting which will only be 15 to 20 stories? Is this for real?
Or is this a heard it through the grapevine thing or what?

It is absolutely real and was explicitly stated by the City of Dallas Economic Development Officer to the City Council when they were voting on the subsidies for this proposed project.

Tucy wrote:

DFW wrote:What’s this about the development being a campus like setting which will only be 15 to 20 stories? Is this for real?
Or is this a heard it through the grapevine thing or what?

It is absolutely real and was explicitly stated by the City of Dallas Economic Development Officer to the City Council when they were voting on the subsidies for this proposed project.

I wonder how much Hunt Development will lose on this campus setting versus the multi-high rise tower setting originally proposed? Talk about going from feast to famine. LOL.

rono3849 wrote:

Tucy wrote:

DFW wrote:What’s this about the development being a campus like setting which will only be 15 to 20 stories? Is this for real?
Or is this a heard it through the grapevine thing or what?

It is absolutely real and was explicitly stated by the City of Dallas Economic Development Officer to the City Council when they were voting on the subsidies for this proposed project.

I wonder how much Hunt Development will lose on this campus setting versus the multi-high rise tower setting originally proposed? Talk about going from feast to famine. LOL.

It was confirmed that suburban campus would replace the multi towers?

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

rono3849 wrote:

Tucy wrote:
It is absolutely real and was explicitly stated by the City of Dallas Economic Development Officer to the City Council when they were voting on the subsidies for this proposed project.

I wonder how much Hunt Development will lose on this campus setting versus the multi-high rise tower setting originally proposed? Talk about going from feast to famine. LOL.

It was confirmed that suburban campus would replace the multi towers?

No.

The "suburban" style campus was a statement regarding Goldman Sachs' building only, and leads me to believe it could be a variation of the mass-timber office building that we saw in original plans. That's definitely a more "suburban" style structure and the square footage on that mass-timber building roughly aligns with what the GS structure may encompass. Someone in the Discord brought up a good point months ago regarding the "suburban" campus news (when we were all originally freaking out with our pitchforks). Some other financial institution's massive office building in Houston's burbs is shorter but very large and has "trading" floors, so if that's the case here too, very interesting.

The rest of the Northend redevelopment is still a go, albeit on a very long (and vague) timeline. At this point, we're all waiting for any demo/dirt to move, and after that, I believe the 83-story hotel + condo tower is what our attention will return to (and for me, remain on ).

So rono called it! We'll have a famine because all the DFW farmers' or forumers' pitchforks got pressed into mass timber construction and the haystacks rotted in the fields [street].

undefinedprocess wrote:

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

rono3849 wrote:
I wonder how much Hunt Development will lose on this campus setting versus the multi-high rise tower setting originally proposed? Talk about going from feast to famine. LOL.

It was confirmed that suburban campus would replace the multi towers?

No.

The "suburban" style campus was a statement regarding Goldman Sachs' building only, and leads me to believe it could be a variation of the mass-timber office building that we saw in original plans. That's definitely a more "suburban" style structure and the square footage on that mass-timber building roughly aligns with what the GS structure may encompass. Someone in the Discord brought up a good point months ago regarding the "suburban" campus news (when we were all originally freaking out with our pitchforks).

Correct, the specific reference was to the Goldman Sachs development. The exact quote was "This will not look like the typical Dallas high-rise. It'll look more like a suburban campus". But take a look at the original conceptual plans put out by Hunt. The layout kinda resembles a suburban office park...

It will be interesting to learn where on the site they are putting the G-S building.

They could mean like JP Morgan at Legacy West. It’s a suburban layout but still pretty densely developed.

I'm not too worried about it. At it's worst, it would probably look like stuff in the Harwood District.

Whatever they build will bring more people (both new residents and commuters) which is very positive for the area. We've already seen it in the suburbs (numerous times - Las Colinas, Westlake, Legacy West, The Star, ....), where a little development leads to more development, leads to more development, .... As much as I would like to see true "skyscrapers" being built, I think it's more important to focus on density, regardless of height.

This is just a big bust in terms of impact on the skyline. There isn't going to be an 80-story tower in this development, just more squatty ho-hum Hunt buildings.

Typical Dallas developer bait and switch it seems. Very disappointing but not altogether too surprising.

Buildings will get taller as land becomes more scarce, like we are seeing happen DT Austin. There's a ton of open land to build on around the core of Dallas.

rono3849 wrote:This is just a big bust in terms of impact on the skyline. There isn't going to be an 80-story tower in this development, just more squatty ho-hum Hunt buildings.

You've beat that same horse several times already. Source? No source has said that. It's clear to everyone else that the lead tenant / anchor tenant didn't want a target but it's clear to everyone else that the other buildings are still in play. What you think is determined about them simply isn't.

But I agree with rickbansal. Impact on city living > impact on skyline

I45Tex wrote:

rono3849 wrote:This is just a big bust in terms of impact on the skyline. There isn't going to be an 80-story tower in this development, just more squatty ho-hum Hunt buildings.

You've beat that same horse several times already. Source? No source has said that. It's clear to everyone else that the lead tenant / anchor tenant didn't want a target but it's clear to everyone else that the other buildings are still in play. What you think is determined about them simply isn't.

The city planning department confirmed this. It's been quoted in this thread previously, but perhaps reality just isn't easy for some to deal with.

rono3849 wrote:

I45Tex wrote:

rono3849 wrote:This is just a big bust in terms of impact on the skyline. There isn't going to be an 80-story tower in this development, just more squatty ho-hum Hunt buildings.

You've beat that same horse several times already. Source? No source has said that. It's clear to everyone else that the lead tenant / anchor tenant didn't want a target but it's clear to everyone else that the other buildings are still in play. What you think is determined about them simply isn't.

The city planning department confirmed this. It's been quoted in this thread previously, but perhaps reality just isn't easy for some to deal with.

They were only talking about Goldman’s Tower. They’ve never said that they were going to be in an 80 story tower. That’s what I think most ppl on here are still confused about. I’ve watched that city council clip again and again. They stated that other buildings in the development could be up to 80 stories high.

What was the last major project Hunt developed in Dallas?

The 80 story tower appears to be a hotel/residential mixed-use project. GS would go into one of the smaller towers with designated office space.
I could see the timber building going up first and then another office tower.

Such a disappointment. There was a press release here in Houston and in papers I read in Europe and California about the 80 story tower. After living in Dallas, Kessler Park, for 25 years and hoping, waiting for something to happen with the Trinity I shouldn't be surprised. Classic bait and switch or just an overly enthusiastic press agent. Forget the timber building, just build something. Norway's, 100 yr old timber bridge just collapsed after only 10 years and the Scandinavians are expert timber building builders.

DalnHou wrote:Such a disappointment. There was a press release here in Houston and in papers I read in Europe and California about the 80 story tower. After living in Dallas, Kessler Park, for 25 years and hoping, waiting for something to happen with the Trinity I shouldn't be surprised. Classic bait and switch or just an overly enthusiastic press agent. Forget the timber building, just build something. Norway's, 100 yr old timber bridge just collapsed after only 10 years and the Scandinavians are expert timber building builders.

That timber building collapse in Norway is actually worse than the famous Swedish warship Vasa, which sank upon its initial voyage in the Stockholm harbor in 1628.

Tucy wrote:

undefinedprocess wrote:

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:
It was confirmed that suburban campus would replace the multi towers?

No.

The "suburban" style campus was a statement regarding Goldman Sachs' building only, and leads me to believe it could be a variation of the mass-timber office building that we saw in original plans. That's definitely a more "suburban" style structure and the square footage on that mass-timber building roughly aligns with what the GS structure may encompass. Someone in the Discord brought up a good point months ago regarding the "suburban" campus news (when we were all originally freaking out with our pitchforks).

Correct, the specific reference was to the Goldman Sachs development. The exact quote was "This will not look like the typical Dallas high-rise. It'll look more like a suburban campus". But take a look at the original conceptual plans put out by Hunt. The layout kinda resembles a suburban office park...

Further on this suburban campus look; it's not unique to this site. The 2500 Cedar Springs development, the Portman development, The Central development on the former ACS/Xerox site. . .

It's the placemaking iteration of the windswept Modernist and postmodernist concrete plaza with water feature or sculpture that used to front the office tower.

After department stores began to decline and indoor malls turned back into big box anchored outdoor town centers, the city block developers began offering mixed-use POPS or privately owned public spaces, mainly as a way to keep ahead of those retail "lifestyle centers" interspersed with lower density office parks.

The only catch is the unavailability of low-priced residences nearby; as many forumers keep saying, DTD could largely overcome the population growth deterrent of poor schools if it would only offer a range of affordable lifestyle alternatives to the "drive [farther out] to qualify" mortgage housing market that draws financial investment disproportionately to the next exurb and its office parks.

I45Tex wrote:It's the placemaking iteration of the windswept Modernist and postmodernist concrete plaza with water feature or sculpture that used to front the office tower.

After department stores began to decline and indoor malls turned back into big box anchored outdoor town centers, the city block developers began offering mixed-use POPS or privately owned public spaces, mainly as a way to keep ahead of those retail "lifestyle centers" interspersed with lower density office parks.

The only catch is the unavailability of low-priced residences nearby; as many forumers keep saying, DTD could largely overcome the population growth deterrent of poor schools if it would only offer a range of affordable lifestyle alternatives to the "drive [farther out] to qualify" mortgage housing market that draws financial investment disproportionately to the next exurb and its office parks.

I'd say the growth deterrent is the freeway loop limiting available land. No one's taking their baby stroller across I-30, or under I-345. All the dense housing and housing types available in Bryan Place could feed into downtown foot traffic and commerce, but is severed by the highway. If you want a condo, townhouse, single-family home Bryan Place has that at prices competitive with the suburbs though you might have to take a discount on square footage and yard space which should be a given living near an urban center. I think there are future plans to ramp up new schools and grades downtown up to the high school level.

I see these privately owned outdoor retail centers as panaceas to the narrow sidewalk issues and high speed roadway issues which will not be solved easily or quickly. The difference between these suburban-style centers in the urban core and out in the suburbs is that they're not surrounded by parking lots and mostly transition nicely into the rest of the neighborhood. They're not faux-urbanism plopped down out of context so that surburbanites can experience a twisted version of the European shopping street.

As someone who lives in the downtown are and walks/bikes around here frequently (with my family of 4), I have to disagree with the highways being the problem. There are tons of cities that have highways that run between their urban areas and don't stop foot traffic. In fact, I'm in Milwaukee right now and there are prominent highways that run between the 3rd Ward (popular shopping district) and the adjacent neighborhoods and it doesn't stop walking traffic at all. The biggest difference between here and downtown Dallas? There aren't MASSIVE parking canyons on either side of the highway. Why don't people walk from the neighborhoods off of Ross Ave, East of 75 towards the Arts District? The parking lots. Where is the ONE spot under the highways that people in Dallas don't mind walking nowadays? Down Elm/Main Street between Deep Ellum and Main Street District/Farmers Market. Because there's activity on either side! It's the same here in Milwaukee. It's not weird to walk under a freeway for a few minutes if you can see buildings/retail/trees/parks on either side.

I just really hope we can get rid of more of these parking craters while I still live in Dallas.

JDumont146 wrote:As someone who lives in the downtown are and walks/bikes around here frequently (with my family of 4), I have to disagree with the highways being the problem. There are tons of cities that have highways that run between their urban areas and don't stop foot traffic. In fact, I'm in Milwaukee right now and there are prominent highways that run between the 3rd Ward (popular shopping district) and the adjacent neighborhoods and it doesn't stop walking traffic at all. The biggest difference between here and downtown Dallas? There aren't MASSIVE parking canyons on either side of the highway. Why don't people walk from the neighborhoods off of Ross Ave, East of 75 towards the Arts District? The parking lots. Where is the ONE spot under the highways that people in Dallas don't mind walking nowadays? Down Elm/Main Street between Deep Ellum and Main Street District/Farmers Market. Because there's activity on either side! It's the same here in Milwaukee. It's not weird to walk under a freeway for a few minutes if you can see buildings/retail/trees/parks on either side.

I just really hope we can get rid of more of these parking craters while I still live in Dallas.

The highways can definitely be overcome and I've also seen it in other cities. Lighting, amount of space you have to traverse, speed of cars, presence of other people, slip lanes, unfriendly crosswalks, driver behavior, interesting things to see, lots of variables. The highways did severe the neighborhoods that eventually led to the building of the parking lots. I'd say that the way the freeway loop interacts at street level, the width of the highways, the service roads, might make it a little more difficult than in these other cities and examples, but still getting rid of the parking lots and other improvements can be made to try to encourage more people to walk.

I've wondered why Dallas doesn't put colored lights under the elevated highway portions. Seems like a very Dallas thing to do and in my opinion it makes it more inviting. TXDOT could do this in the area of this new development. Now we just need the Field Street development on the other side. Downtown Dallas in general has so much potential. I just wish our leaders would make it more walkable and connect all the little pockets of activity.

They have tried many times. TXDOT is not very open to the maintenance requirements of adding stuff under or around their highways. The city has tried to fund a few beautification projects, but TXDOT always waters it down. Most conversations about those projects die in City Hall when TXDOT swings in and says we are a highway building body, not a make cities pretty or walkable body. TXDOT will always start every solution to transportation in Texas with how many exit ramps we should build, not what kind of mode of transportation will work best here. Its named the Texas Department of Transportation, but they are the Texas Department of Highways.

The apartments appear to be empty/garage is empty and lights are not on anymore. The parking lot and entrance along Field St are barricaded off, and some materials are stacked along Houston St.

^^^ Thanks for the info! It may be a sign of something starting soon!

Thanks for the update! That sounds very exciting, really can't wait to see this one kick off.

Also…on Google, the North End Apts are “permanently closed”.

Demolition permit for 540 units was approved back in June.