Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

It's actually kinda crazy to me that Residential hasn't been confirmed for this development. It seems like Dallas hasn't really had issues supporting high-rise apartments, especially north of Wooddall.

Remembering this quote from last year:
"Huge skyscraper project north of downtown Dallas gets thumbs-up from city" - https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2021/08/11/huge-skyscraper-project-north-of-downtown-dallas-gets-thumbs-up-from-city/

“We wanted to hold the entire block because we knew the day would come when the timing would be right for a site so uniquely situated with its scale and size to master-plan something bold, special and unique,” Kleinert said.

It would have at least been nice if the GS space resembled the original proposed style. That would have been something unique at least.



And looks like zero interaction with Field st, but par for the course with uptown. It has the insular feel of Legacy West and other suburban faux-urbanism--it canyons the street and tries to channel people through its own center.

CTroyMathis wrote:It would be an incredible disappointment if this whole site does not at least double the *previous residential unit number at some point.

FWIW, the original proposal, including the fantastical mythological 83-story tower, included 895 units. (Northend Apartments had 540)

Blah. I continued to have hope and defended this project, but if this development is going to have an 'insular' feel to it, then I'd say it sucks. I can handle the lack of height, but if it does nothing to connect to nearby developments that this is going to be highly disappointing.

What's worse is that the Union feels very insular too and it's right next to this, and Victory Park sorta feels insular too. If there was just a bit more effort put into connecting with these neighboring areas, it could make a big difference, but that doesn't seem like it'll be the case here. How unfortunate.

dallaz wrote:New Rendering from the DMN

How are y’all feeling about this?

4D2AEC5E-F81F-4DAE-8CAB-55622B6917D8.jpeg

Well... now it's 6 buildings instead of 5, so it removes the two low rise restaurants from the side by the Perot and replaces with an office building. I don't mind that at all. The residential/hotel component is just a mock-up of what could go there. What's pictured now is more inline with the surrounding neighborhood and I don't necessarily hate it, but I do hope they incorporate elements to connect it with Victory, etc.

R1070 wrote:

dallaz wrote:New Rendering from the DMN

How are y’all feeling about this?

4D2AEC5E-F81F-4DAE-8CAB-55622B6917D8.jpeg

Well... now it's 6 buildings instead of 5, so it removes the two low rise restaurants from the side by the Perot and replaces with an office building. I don't mind that at all. The residential/hotel component is just a mock-up of what could go there. What's pictured now is more inline with the surrounding neighborhood and I don't necessarily hate it, but I do hope they incorporate elements to connect it with Victory, etc.

Yes, the connectivity piece is huge here. Walking around North End and through the Perot parking lots from ‘South Victory’ to Uptown is incredibly annoying. Whatever the site orientation, it has to be an improvement over the current situation. ‘South Victory’ to the Union and on into Uptown should feel much more cohesive.

That new rendering doesn’t look like 80+ stories smh.

Wow! Can’t believe they did away with the original. Those shorter buildings for GS are way to big and to boxy and to close to Field St. For the original rendering taller towers would have created more green space. What a shame. I suppose in order to lure GS as soon as possible, they have to construct the shorter buildings that require less time for construction. Anyway, it’s better than nothing and hope for the best.

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:

dallaz wrote:New Rendering from the DMN

How are y’all feeling about this?

4D2AEC5E-F81F-4DAE-8CAB-55622B6917D8.jpeg

The GS buildings are only the stubby interconnected ones with dark glass right? Very suburban office park looking. The other towers are just as theoretical as the original 80st one was, so probably shouldn't hold one's breath.

But the north end apartments are coming down either way, so I wonder what sort of state those unused plots will be in in the meantime. I'm half expecting them to become surface parking lots for a while.

I’ve never thought about that until now. I wanna know as well….but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right.

Where's the distinctive architecture for the GS buildings? They look like squatty suburban office buildings with no distinctive flair at all. Just run of the mill architecture. I guess the two taller buildings replace the 80 and 50+ story towers originally featured. They look like their in the 35 to 40 story range in comparison to the GS 9 to 15 story buildings. All in all, it's a huge disappointment for Dallas' skyline, but I've given up on anything dynamic in this city. I go to Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, LA, and Miami where I see spectacular new towers with great flair being built. Heck, Austin & Houston have so much more going for them. Dallas is off-the-shelf mediocre architecture.

rono3849 wrote:Where's the distinctive architecture for the GS buildings? They look like squatty suburban office buildings with no distinctive flair at all. Just run of the mill architecture. I guess the two taller buildings replace the 80 and 50+ story towers originally featured. They look like their in the 35 to 40 story range in comparison to the GS 9 to 15 story buildings. All in all, it's a huge disappointment for Dallas' skyline, but I've given up on anything dynamic in this city. I go to Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, LA, and Miami where I see spectacular new towers with great flair being built. Heck, Austin & Houston have so much more going for them. Dallas is off-the-shelf mediocre architecture.

I can’t even argue that cuz I largely agree. I’ve tried to find something that’s architectural appealing, I could find nothing. What pisses me off the most is that they continue to call a 9 to 15 story building a “tower”. I’ve never called a building that short a tower in my life. The entire complex is ugly IMO. It sad for me to say that…because I thought this would be that project that put us back on the map. Ppl on other forums already talk crap about our skyline looking dated. The way the hyped this project up is crazy.

On the bright side... the shortest building is actually an addition and not in the original plan. The other building is larger than the timber building that was originally planned. The taller buildings are just concepts for what could go there. You know these change over time. I do hope that the GS buildings engage Field Street with retail of some sort. I'm just happy that Dallas has snagged a large relocation in the core of the city. This will lead to more development in the surrounding area for sure.

R1070 wrote:On the bright side... the shortest building is actually an addition and not in the original plan. The other building is larger than the timber building that was originally planned. The taller buildings are just concepts for what could go there. You know these change over time. I do hope that the GS buildings engage Field Street with retail of some sort. I'm just happy that Dallas has snagged a large relocation in the core of the city. This will lead to more development in the surrounding area for sure.

I do wonder whatever happened to Harwood #12, which the graffiti painters have started to deface their canvas fencing with their typical numbskull garbage. Since Harwood had such a big presence and were on the verge of announcing this tower pre-pandemic, I'd have thought they'd move forward on this one, but I guess I was wrong.

Maybe Hillwood Urban can dust off their 80-story tower again? Nah.

R1070 wrote:On the bright side... the shortest building is actually an addition and not in the original plan. The other building is larger than the timber building that was originally planned. The taller buildings are just concepts for what could go there. You know these change over time. I do hope that the GS buildings engage Field Street with retail of some sort. I'm just happy that Dallas has snagged a large relocation in the core of the city. This will lead to more development in the surrounding area for sure.

As it has been mentioned before, Goldman already has a signifcant presence downtown.

The vast majority of additional jobs that have been boasted are only projections, conditional to future economic conditions and growth (right now, Goldman is considering mass layoffs).

For sure, they will definitely be consolidating the existing suburban office jobs in the new downtown campus, but that isn't many more jobs either.

This is a sincere question— if a premier tenant like GS wants to be in mid-rise campus like buildings, what type of tenants does Hunt think will go into the high rise officer towers?

^people with above average income, disposable income, who want to live in a city rather than the suburbs. Dallas is beginning to provide that environment again.

tamtagon wrote:^people with above average income, disposable income, who want to live in a city rather than the suburbs. Dallas is beginning to provide that environment again.

The original proposed 83-story building was a hotel/condo/apartment combination building.

Just like a hotel was built on top of the new parking garage to serve the tenants (GS) of the renovated Trammell Crow tower on Ross, I'm sure the new 1,000,000 sqft office space will spur a similar hotel, probably bigger.

It's a little surprising victory park only has The W.

rono3849 wrote:

tamtagon wrote:^people with above average income, disposable income, who want to live in a city rather than the suburbs. Dallas is beginning to provide that environment again.

The original proposed 83-story building was a hotel/condo/apartment combination building.

Correct -- Hunt has never given any sign of "thinking" that the tallest towers would be to attract office tenants, willyk. It is only ever the Hillwood gateway 2012 Field Street across the freeway that was talking to office tenants about their skyline wishes.

I45Tex wrote:

rono3849 wrote:

tamtagon wrote:^people with above average income, disposable income, who want to live in a city rather than the suburbs. Dallas is beginning to provide that environment again.

The original proposed 83-story building was a hotel/condo/apartment combination building.

Correct -- Hunt has never given any sign of "thinking" that the tallest towers would be to attract office tenants, willyk. It is only ever the Hillwood gateway 2012 Field Street across the freeway that was talking to office tenants about their skyline wishes.

Question answered!

Hope it didn’t read as a brusque answer.

Thanks for the update NDoorTX. 49-50 floors and 54-55 floors rendered on the fraternal twin concept in this diagram (but who’s counting anyway…). All white spandrels on all of the buildings, if that goes ahead, is quite dull - nothing about this architecture fits with the colorful past and future of Dallas for me. Could be Singapore, Toronto or anywhere.

Speaking of which, I sure hope Dallas doesn’t have to have one of these cheezy ziggurat terrace spiral buildings now appearing everywhere (and here at stage right). They are not a good solution to anything but marketing.

I seen this on Reddit. They’re tearing down the NorthEnd Apts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comment ... ame=iossmf

Goldman Sachs Offers Glimpse of Proposed Urban Campus in Dallas From CoStar News dated 9/23/22
“The architecture of the 950,000-square-foot office campus spanning 3 acres between downtown Dallas, Uptown Dallas and Victory Park is expected to reflect the city's urban core. … The new 950,000-square-foot campus is planned for the southeast corner of the 11-acre mixed-use development adjacent to the Perot Museum of Nature and Science. The campus, which will sit on 3 acres, will also be adjacent to a 1.5-acre public park with a paseo to connect the park to Field Street for visitors.”

I haven’t seen this rendering:

If this is remarkable & dynamic architecture, I'd like to know who's voicing this opinion. Seriously, this is off the shelf US suburban office park architecture with potted trees on the roof. This is just sad.

Yep, those renderings were in the DMN as well. That’s why I feel the way I feel about it. Nothing memorable whatsoever…maybe we’ll be surprised by the ground level? It lowkey reminds me of the Plaza of the Americas office buildings — dark colored glass boxes.

dallaz wrote:Yep, those renderings were in the DMN as well. That’s why I feel the way I feel about it. Nothing memorable whatsoever…maybe we’ll be surprised by the ground level? It lowkey reminds me of the Plaza of the Americas office buildings — dark colored glass boxes.

That's exactly what it looks like. Good observation.

The only thing I'm excited about here at the point is the park connecting the Perot to the AAC.

The shape of the GS buildings cuts into portions of what was originally park space so even that's not as good as the original renders/plans! lol

dallaz wrote:Yep, those renderings were in the DMN as well. That’s why I feel the way I feel about it. Nothing memorable whatsoever…maybe we’ll be surprised by the ground level? It lowkey reminds me of the Plaza of the Americas office buildings — dark colored glass boxes.

None of these hubs have any architecture— not Liberty Mutual, JP Morgan, State Farm, Schwab/TDA, etc. The attraction to DFW is the low cost of doing business and generic office space seems to be part of the equation. Wish it weren’t so— a good design wouldn't cost much more.

willyk wrote:

dallaz wrote:Yep, those renderings were in the DMN as well. That’s why I feel the way I feel about it. Nothing memorable whatsoever…maybe we’ll be surprised by the ground level? It lowkey reminds me of the Plaza of the Americas office buildings — dark colored glass boxes.

None of these hubs have any architecture— not Liberty Mutual, JP Morgan, State Farm, Schwab/TDA, etc. The attraction to DFW is the low cost of doing business and generic office space seems to be part of the equation. Wish it weren’t so— a good design wouldn't cost much more.

True, I get that but this is a mid-rise in our core. You’d think a building this short would have a nicer design. Is the money being mostly spent on the underground garage? ‘Cause it’s defiantly not the design. This is worse than Harwood No.14 but at least they built an actual high-rise.

Come to think of it, we prolly dodged a bullet. Based on the current renderings, I’m not sure if I would want a high-rise of significant height now. At least the new Campus won’t be seen unless you’re up close lol.

eburress wrote:The shape of the GS buildings cuts into portions of what was originally park space so even that's not as good as the original renders/plans! lol

Yep, and the only way it’s connected to Field Street is through a small entryway type corridor. Previously, the timber mid-rise was much smaller allowing the park space to open up onto Field. Now, it looks more insular (like others mentioned) with the building walling off the park and Field St.

Well, and let's be honest, Hunt doesn't sound like it publicly guaranteed Goldman Sachs anything for the rest of the property. Not to say they will never build anything cause having Goldman Sachs means some further development will be attracted with a lead tenant on the site but the rest of the land is basically a blank canvas. Yes Hunt got approvals previously for other stuff but they could just as easily go for less in a future proposal. With the Turtle Creek Mandarin Oriental hotel dead now maybe Hunt could at least snag a luxury hotel for this site and they would be down the street from the Victory Park site. 3rd time a charm?

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Well, and let's be honest, Hunt doesn't sound like it publicly guaranteed Goldman Sachs anything for the rest of the property. Not to say they will never build anything cause having Goldman Sachs means some further development will be attracted with a lead tenant on the site but the rest of the land is basically a blank canvas. Yes Hunt got approvals previously for other stuff but they could just as easily go for less in a future proposal. With the Turtle Creek Mandarin Oriental hotel dead now maybe Hunt could at least snag a luxury hotel for this site and they would be down the street from the Victory Park site. 3rd time a charm?

The Mandarin would be a great fit since they have no presence in Dallas. They can certainly build apartment & condos, plus additional office space. I haven't a clue as to what Hunt will do with the remaining property, but it looks like the entire site is going to be cleared as they are tearing down all of the North End Apartment now.

Yea, there's no way they were going to keep some of the apartments up. They have to clear the whole site for this development. I hope the park gets built with the GS buildings.

Yeah, Goldman would not have wanted their offices staring into some outdated garden-style apartments, so I never thought they would partially keep units either. The ultimate question is, during construction, which will take a while will they get at least one additional tower approved on the rest of the land, or will time prove that we just get a big empty green lot with some temporary sculptures to try to spruce up the lawn? How ironic would it be for Goldmann to have their bldgs and Hunt basically have a large green lawn, not a park but a green space for a long period of time without additional development? I would bet we get at least one residential tower announcement between now and when Goldman moves in, but I doubt it will be over 14 stores, most likely 10-14 with some ground floor retail space. Something that fits in with everything else already built in Uptown and Victory Park. Nothing too groundbreaking, just some JPI/Gables/Amli partnership Luxury Living tower that could fit in anywhere in Oaklawn/Uptown or Frisco.

cowboyeagle05 wrote:The ultimate question is, during construction, which will take a while will they get at least one additional tower approved on the rest of the land, or will time prove that we just get a big empty green lot with some temporary sculptures to try to spruce up the lawn?

I think we'd be lucky to get a green lot; I'm expecting them to collect parking fees with that space while they wait to build anything else.

^^Yep, just like Victory Park — which still isn’t built out.

This apt complex is coming down a lot quicker than I thought it would.

Plus Mark Cuban wants more surface parking cause he hates structured parking for his fans.

The more I think about it, the more okay I am with no residential component coming (yet).

Demand for apartments are still high, so high rise apartments will continue to be built in the urban core.

Except according to RealPage, demand has dipped significantly, finally causing enough stir to make some real estate minds concerned we need to pause so many units.

Availability has finally increased to 5% from the previous 3%, and rent increases have finally stagnated, which is good for us but just means developers are going to be more choosey about which projects move forward. Probably suburban units will continue, but urban high rises will be less likely unless a neighborhood is underbuilt.

...this neighborhood is underbuilt.

The Link and Victory Commons are the only new office buildings nearby, and they will be leased up by the time GS takes occupancy. Proximity to GS will appeal to many financial services and investment companies. I can see this project triggering another office building or two outside of what Hunt has planned.

Wow, that was a quick raze of the apartments.

Good photo journalism. Suddenly dawned on me, curious about the concrete garages now. . .

They've already knocked down one concrete garage. The remnants are on the right side of the bottom pic.

Thanks for the info!

If I'm not mistaken, I believe I read that the garage will be underground.

It will be, indeed, according to plans - under the private grass and tree area.

I was only curious if there would be a leftover garage for interim use. Not that I want one left behind, though.