Downtown Dallas: Hillwood Urban's ~50 storey tower on former BoA motorcourt

[I45Tex]

That would be a billion dollar bet on an area without the same perks as other supertalls west of the Mississippi. SF's new one is at a new $4.5 billion commuter hub, for instance. LA's is on their convention center corridor street, one block away from their three-level underground transit hub. The 4th & Columbia proposal in Seattle is right in the middle of things. Make this Perot Foster trophy any taller and it's like a smokestack in fishnets.

[dollaztx]

That would be a billion dollar bet on an area without the same perks as other supertalls west of the Mississippi. SF's new one is at a new $4.5 billion commuter hub, for instance. LA's is on their convention center corridor street, one block away from their three-level underground transit hub. The 4th & Columbia proposal in Seattle is right in the middle of things. Make this Perot Foster trophy any taller and it's like a smokestack in fishnets.

Uptown is the best bet for sure but we all know a supertall can't be built there. The best place would be next to Uptown (like this proposal). That's why we are currently seeing all this development start construction in downtown across Woodall.

[R1070]

They should aim for making it the tallest building West of the Mississippi River. Dallas' tallest have traditionally held this title. We need to reclaim that title once again. And without a cheater spire!

Yes! on the spire comment. When I lived in Atlanta that Bank of America was 1/3 fluff on top. It just looked awkward and kind of unfinished. That building is only 55 floors and 1,023 feet!

[dallaz]

That would be a billion dollar bet on an area without the same perks as other supertalls west of the Mississippi. SF's new one is at a new $4.5 billion commuter hub, for instance. LA's is on their convention center corridor street, one block away from their three-level underground transit hub. The 4th & Columbia proposal in Seattle is right in the middle of things. Make this Perot Foster trophy any taller and it's like a smokestack in fishnets.

Technically, the proposed building is "in the middle of things". It's close to Victory Park, across from Uptown, down the street from the Arts Distict and Klyde Warren Park. I can't think of a better location. And let's not forget the large millennial population in the surrounding area...which is also attractive to companies. There are many projects under construction and some that have yet to break ground, which will make the area even more attractive. It may not be a mega project, but there are few reasons a company wouldn't want to move there. Let's not sell this location short...

[I45Tex]

Without the benefits of an advanced modeling engine, I did a range of quick Trimble SketchUp experiments and found that the diagrid does become more appealing if you subliminally relax the equilateral triangle into an isosceles by a few percent as the cylinder rises.

What percentage looks most proportional depends on how many times the triangle is repeated at each layer.
(I can teach you, but I have to charge)

[tamtagon]

^hardcore

[WestTexas86]

I truly hope this happens. After finally seeing Museum happen, my hopes are high.

[Waldozer]

Technically, the proposed building is "in the middle of things". It's close to Victory Park, across from Uptown, down the street from the Arts Distict and Klyde Warren Park. I can't think of a better location. And let's not forget the large millennial population in the surrounding area...which is also attractive to companies. There are many projects under construction and some that have yet to break ground, which will make the area even more attractive. It may not be a mega project, but there are few reasons a company wouldn't want to move there. Let's not sell this location short...

Not to be too harsh, because I'm a Dallas native, but can you really compare Dallas's "in the middle of things" to SF's or LA's "in the middle of things?" I wouldn't put too much hope in a supertall being built in that spot.

[Dale]

Fashionable skepticism!

[dallaz]

Technically, the proposed building is "in the middle of things". It's close to Victory Park, across from Uptown, down the street from the Arts Distict and Klyde Warren Park. I can't think of a better location. And let's not forget the large millennial population in the surrounding area...which is also attractive to companies. There are many projects under construction and some that have yet to break ground, which will make the area even more attractive. It may not be a mega project, but there are few reasons a company wouldn't want to move there. Let's not sell this location short...

Not to be too harsh, because I'm a Dallas native, but can you really compare Dallas's "in the middle of things" to SF's or LA's "in the middle of things?" I wouldn't put too much hope in a supertall being built in that spot.

"In the Middle of things" varies from city to city. It is not a great comparison to define a certain location (in another city) more important based on what they have compared to another location in a different city. If both locations in either city are the most preferred...then should it matter? In the City of Dallas, this is the hottest area. LA and SF are building high denisity development for the same reasons Dallas is. Millennials want to live, work, and play in an urban environment. Developers see the trend and they continue to invest in urban areas.

[DPatel304]

Technically, the proposed building is "in the middle of things". It's close to Victory Park, across from Uptown, down the street from the Arts Distict and Klyde Warren Park. I can't think of a better location. And let's not forget the large millennial population in the surrounding area...which is also attractive to companies. There are many projects under construction and some that have yet to break ground, which will make the area even more attractive. It may not be a mega project, but there are few reasons a company wouldn't want to move there. Let's not sell this location short...

Not to be too harsh, because I'm a Dallas native, but can you really compare Dallas's "in the middle of things" to SF's or LA's "in the middle of things?" I wouldn't put too much hope in a supertall being built in that spot.

That's how I feel as well. I'm sure there is a lot of demand to live in "the middle of things" in Dallas, currently, but I also realize that Dallas is a changing city with a lot of room to grow. A decade or two from now, "the middle of things" might be in a different part of town. I think a supertall makes more sense in a couple decades once our urban core has been built out more.

[dollaztx]

Technically, the proposed building is "in the middle of things". It's close to Victory Park, across from Uptown, down the street from the Arts Distict and Klyde Warren Park. I can't think of a better location. And let's not forget the large millennial population in the surrounding area...which is also attractive to companies. There are many projects under construction and some that have yet to break ground, which will make the area even more attractive. It may not be a mega project, but there are few reasons a company wouldn't want to move there. Let's not sell this location short...

Not to be too harsh, because I'm a Dallas native, but can you really compare Dallas's "in the middle of things" to SF's or LA's "in the middle of things?" I wouldn't put too much hope in a supertall being built in that spot.

That's how I feel as well. I'm sure there is a lot of demand to live in "the middle of things" in Dallas, currently, but I also realize that Dallas is a changing city with a lot of room to grow. A decade or two from now, "the middle of things" might be in a different part of town. I think a supertall makes more sense in a couple decades once our urban core has been built out more.

In regards to location for a supertall, I really don't think it's a bad location. Its right in between our traditional CBD and our new "CBD" (Uptown, Victory) which has skewed our skyline further north. It's certainly more in the "middle of things" than say Williams Tower and it came to be constructed. Let's just let the market decide if it will happen or not.

[Mgreen15]

That's how I feel as well. I'm sure there is a lot of demand to live in "the middle of things" in Dallas, currently, but I also realize that Dallas is a changing city with a lot of room to grow. A decade or two from now, "the middle of things" might be in a different part of town. I think a supertall makes more sense in a couple decades once our urban core has been built out more.

You think Dallas is a couple of decades away from being ready for a super tall? That seems a bit crazy given Houston built 2 supertalls over 35 years ago. By that logic, would you say Dallas' urban core is more than 50 years behind Houston's urban core?

Downtown has become ancient compared to VP, uptown and the suburbs. Even if this building never comes to fruition, it's only a matter of time one of these supertall proposals works out.

[muncien]

As much as I'd love some solid street interaction with this building, I don't really expect it. Nothing against the developer or architect, but this building sits at the corner of a fwy frontage road and one of the major arteries leading into downtown. I'd be stoked with a wide sidewalk and a good sized café at field/munger corner, directing the attention to whatever develops to the south. Anything more is just icing on the cake.

[ContriveDallasite]

As much as I'd love some solid street interaction with this building, I don't really expect it. Nothing against the developer or architect, but this building sits at the corner of a fwy frontage road and one of the major arteries leading into downtown. I'd be stoked with a wide sidewalk and a good sized café at field/munger corner, directing the attention to whatever develops to the south. Anything more is just icing on the cake.

Pipedream of mine: If the same pedestrian walkway concept that is supposed to connect the Perot were to also extend to the other side of the freeway and connect this building with the rest of the city.

[tamtagon]

Just like Museum Tower has been labeled a cul de sac in the sky, so would a modern mixed use skyscraper, with a nice lobby for greeting visitors, two mid-body atrium and a roof garden -- almost certainly all the needs of office workers will be addressed within the tower itself.

Workers venture out to the neighborhood when the weather is nice, workload allows 1.5(+/-) hour break, team building or client luncheon field trips to one of the nearby (Region's best) restaurants.... but the workers will not need to leave the building for anything 'cept to go home.

And that is just fine, especially as noted for a building on a frontage road, with up to half of the street level dedicated to moving vehicles. The public area connecting this building, the 460" apartment and Fountain Place should be sufficient for pedestrian activity for years at least.

It's only listed to be ~1 million sq ft, which is a lot, but that's one third less work space than BoA Tower which would not be as tall.

[DPatel304]

That's how I feel as well. I'm sure there is a lot of demand to live in "the middle of things" in Dallas, currently, but I also realize that Dallas is a changing city with a lot of room to grow. A decade or two from now, "the middle of things" might be in a different part of town. I think a supertall makes more sense in a couple decades once our urban core has been built out more.

You think Dallas is a couple of decades away from being ready for a super tall? That seems a bit crazy given Houston built 2 supertalls over 35 years ago. By that logic, would you say Dallas' urban core is more than 50 years behind Houston's urban core?

Downtown has become ancient compared to VP, uptown and the suburbs. Even if this building never comes to fruition, it's only a matter of time one of these supertall proposals works out.

I know Dallas COULD build a supertall, I, personally, would just rather see Dallas wait. I'm not trying to insinuate any regarding the current state of Dallas compared to Houston.

To me, a supertall would make more sense in the CBD if the majority of empty lots were already taken, there was still a lot of demand, and not much more room to build. Again, that's just me personally. I'm not as interested in making our skyline taller, I'm more interested in filling our streets with activity, so I would take 2-3 shorter towers (with good street-level presence) over a super-tall any day. Perhaps when the Cedars gets more height, the HSR station is built, and Union station is more of a desirable destination, it might make sense for a super tall to be built around there.

[dollaztx]

To me, a supertall would make more sense in the CBD if the majority of empty lots were already taken, there was still a lot of demand, and not much more room to build. Again, that's just me personally. I'm not as interested in making our skyline taller, I'm more interested in filling our streets with activity, so I would take 2-3 shorter towers (with good street-level presence) over a super-tall any day. Perhaps when the Cedars gets more height, the HSR station is built, and Union station is more of a desirable destination, it might make sense for a super tall to be built around there.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. To you it doesn't make sense to built a supertall next to Uptown (which I would consider the center of business today and in the recent past and is pretty much built-out). But it makes sense in another part of the CBD or The Cedars in the future?

[DPatel304]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. To you it doesn't make sense to built a supertall next to Uptown (which I would consider the center of business today and in the recent past and is pretty much built-out). But it makes sense in another part of the CBD or The Cedars in the future?

Just to clarify, it does make sense to build a supertall here, I was just saying it would make MORE sense to wait and build one in a few decades from now. Again, this is just a personal preference of mine. I think our skyline is great, but we've just got way too many surface parking lots that have got to go now. I'm more than okay waiting for that big supertall, and would rather see a few smaller projects spread out across multiple lots versus one supertall that only takes up one surface lot. I suggested a location on the south side because of the proximity to the HSR station, Union Station, and the Cedars (which, IMO, has a ton of potential), but who knows what Dallas will be like a few decades from now. Maybe this current location would still be the best spot 20 years from now, which would be okay, I'm just not in a hurry to build a supertall in a city that still has a lot of land to fill.

Also, being 'next to' Uptown is certainly a big bonus right now, however, this supertall will be separated by Woodall Rogers, which isn't pleasant at all. Sure you can walk underneath the highway and get to Victory Park, or go to Klyde Warren, but it's not ideal. If we are going for connectivity to Uptown, than the other proposal to build a supertall in Harwood would make more sense.

[Mgreen15]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. To you it doesn't make sense to built a supertall next to Uptown (which I would consider the center of business today and in the recent past and is pretty much built-out). But it makes sense in another part of the CBD or The Cedars in the future?

Just to clarify, it does make sense to build a supertall here, I was just saying it would make MORE sense to wait and build one in a few decades from now. Again, this is just a personal preference of mine. I think our skyline is great, but we've just got way too many surface parking lots that have got to go now. I'm more than okay waiting for that big supertall, and would rather see a few smaller projects spread out across multiple lots versus one supertall that only takes up one surface lot. I suggested a location on the south side because of the proximity to the HSR station, Union Station, and the Cedars (which, IMO, has a ton of potential), but who knows what Dallas will be like a few decades from now. Maybe this current location would still be the best spot 20 years from now, which would be okay, I'm just not in a hurry to build a supertall in a city that still has a lot of land to fill.

Also, being 'next to' Uptown is certainly a big bonus right now, however, this supertall will be separated by Woodall Rogers, which isn't pleasant at all. Sure you can walk underneath the highway and get to Victory Park, or go to Klyde Warren, but it's not ideal. If we are going for connectivity to Uptown, than the other proposal to build a supertall in Harwood would make more sense.

There won't ever be a supertall in uptown because of FAA regulations. This site is probably the closest a supertall could possibly get to uptown. Also, the city is planning to extend KWP to field street, which will actually connect uptown to this site.

[dukemeredith]

There won't ever be a supertall in uptown because of FAA regulations. This site is probably the closest a supertall could possibly get to uptown. Also, the city is planning to extend KWP to field street, which will actually connect uptown to this site.

I don't think this is accurate, since Woodall Rodgers isn't below grade at Field.

[Mgreen15]

There won't ever be a supertall in uptown because of FAA regulations. This site is probably the closest a supertall could possibly get to uptown. Also, the city is planning to extend KWP to field street, which will actually connect uptown to this site.

I don't think this is accurate, since Woodall Rodgers isn't below grade at Field.

Look at the 3rd paragraph of this DMN article posted back in December of 2015.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-c ... -the-works

[Cabrio330]

There won't ever be a supertall in uptown because of FAA regulations. This site is probably the closest a supertall could possibly get to uptown. Also, the city is planning to extend KWP to field street, which will actually connect uptown to this site.

I don't think this is accurate, since Woodall Rodgers isn't below grade at Field.

Look at the 3rd paragraph of this DMN article posted back in December of 2015.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-c ... -the-works

The article does state the park will be extended to Field but I have seen the extension plans and it will only go to Akard. So the article is not correct, unless, however, Grant was referring to the idea of extending an elevated walkway (think NYC Highline) from the park to the Perot Museum, which of course is at Field.

[dallaz]

A supertall does not need to be millions of sq ft to be over 1,000 ft. There are a number of ways to do it.
-having smaller floor plates with a great number of floors
-having higher height per floor
-spire or crown
Many of the largest commercial office buildings (by sq ft) are NOT supertall buildings. People automatically assume a building has to be massive if it's very tall.

Some say Dallas cannot handle a building with potentially one million sq ft of office space. Then I guess Park District and The Union should have never broken ground. The office buildings in both projects equals 919,000 sq ft of office. That's not including the other office buildings that were recently completed or currently under construction.

[eburress]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. To you it doesn't make sense to built a supertall next to Uptown (which I would consider the center of business today and in the recent past and is pretty much built-out). But it makes sense in another part of the CBD or The Cedars in the future?

I'm all for Dallas building supertalls but objectively speaking, Dallas doesn't need them and with the available land and occupancy levels Downtown the way they are, not to mention current office trends, no, it doesn't make sense for Dallas to build them. That's not to say somebody won't or shouldn't build a supertall as part of an ego or tribute project, but otherwise the conditions don't currently support supertalls in Dallas.

[Tucy]

Is there any reason at all to expect this building (should it come into existence) will be a supertall? I have not seen any.

[dallaz]

Is there any reason at all to expect this building (should it come into existence) will be a supertall? I have not seen any.

Well...the site has no height restrictions and the latest rendering has the building looking slightly taller than the BOA. TBH it is mostly speculation...

[I45Tex]

A supertall does not need to be millions of sq ft to be over 1,000 ft. There are a number of ways to do it.
-having smaller floor plates with a great number of floors
-having higher height per floor
-spire or crown
Many of the largest commercial office buildings (by sq ft) are NOT supertall buildings. People automatically assume a building has to be massive if it's very tall.

Some say Dallas cannot handle a building with potentially one million sq ft of office space. Then I guess Park District and The Union should have never broken ground. The office buildings in both projects equals 919,000 sq ft of office. That's not including the other office buildings that were recently completed or currently under construction.

If $450 million funds the construction of almost 2 million sq ft right across the freeway (of which 919,000 is office), then you have explained why most of the largest office buildings are short: building one slender skyrise at three to four times the price per square foot of net rentable structure means you've got a tough sell on your hands.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. To you it doesn't make sense to built a supertall next to Uptown (which I would consider the center of business today and in the recent past and is pretty much built-out). But it makes sense in another part of the CBD or The Cedars in the future?

Just to clarify, it does make sense to build a supertall here, I was just saying it would make MORE sense to wait and build one in a few decades from now. Again, this is just a personal preference of mine. I think our skyline is great, but we've just got way too many surface parking lots that have got to go now. I'm more than okay waiting for that big supertall, and would rather see a few smaller projects spread out across multiple lots versus one supertall that only takes up one surface lot. I suggested a location on the south side because of the proximity to the HSR station, Union Station, and the Cedars (which, IMO, has a ton of potential), but who knows what Dallas will be like a few decades from now. Maybe this current location would still be the best spot 20 years from now, which would be okay, I'm just not in a hurry to build a supertall in a city that still has a lot of land to fill.

Also, being 'next to' Uptown is certainly a big bonus right now, however, this supertall will be separated by Woodall Rogers, which isn't pleasant at all. Sure you can walk underneath the highway and get to Victory Park, or go to Klyde Warren, but it's not ideal. If we are going for connectivity to Uptown, than the other proposal to build a supertall in Harwood would make more sense.

There won't ever be a supertall in uptown because of FAA regulations. This site is probably the closest a supertall could possibly get to uptown. Also, the city is planning to extend KWP to field street, which will actually connect uptown to this site.

Not sure that's necessarily true. An FAA study can be done to see how tall a building can be. It's feasible that a plot of land in Uptown could be built really tall but that depends on several factors...


The primary factor is plane clearance.

An Airline has to plan for the possibility that a plane could lose the use of an engine during takeoff..this affects heights of the surrounding buildings.

However, a tall building's construction could be cleared if there are other safe flight paths available.

For what it's worth Harwood proposed a super tall and submitted an FAA study last year. The results were never made public , as I believe they pulled the request.

With that said... They're still very much promoting Harwood X...The Rolex Building site still has the signage displayed.. So who knows... Maybe they can build something there after all.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. To you it doesn't make sense to built a supertall next to Uptown (which I would consider the center of business today and in the recent past and is pretty much built-out). But it makes sense in another part of the CBD or The Cedars in the future?

I'm all for Dallas building supertalls but objectively speaking, Dallas doesn't need them and with the available land and occupancy levels Downtown the way they are, not to mention current office trends, no, it doesn't make sense for Dallas to build them. That's not to say somebody won't or shouldn't build a supertall as part of an ego or tribute project, but otherwise the conditions don't currently support supertalls in Dallas.

This might be true. But Developers often times don't own the "other" plots of land.

Sometimes they'll try to build as much office space as they think they can get leased.

Personally, I care about dense, walkable neighborhoods. I feel this adds more value to the city than a tall building.

Hopefully we get more of these neighborhoods than we do tall buildings.

[joshua.dodd]

Dallas' office demand market, as of last year, has a top ranking in the entire country. Dallas as a city can handle building a supertall. But the question is can the CBD neighborhood handle it? Absolutely. Dallas might still have a ton of parking lots, but as space is filling up in Uptown and VP, demand is inevitably going to spill over into Downtown, as it already is.
I will say it again, however, as I have stated before. This supertall needs to be mixed use. A mixed use makes more sense than one use, just as leverage in case of market slowdowns. Any supertall and any skyscraper built in this city should have a hard focus on pedestrian friendly ground levels that both connects to the public and gives homage to the city and its history. Fortunately, Dallas has been taking pedestrian oriented developments very seriously.

[dollaztx]

This supertall needs to be mixed use. A mixed use makes more sense than one use, just as leverage in case of market slowdowns. Any supertall and any skyscraper built in this city should have a hard focus on pedestrian friendly ground levels that both connects to the public and gives homage to the city and its history. Fortunately, Dallas has been taking pedestrian oriented developments very seriously.

Considering the design and the nice views of Klyde Warren & the Marge, it wouldn't be hard to sell this to residential buyers either. Those atriums would be a huge asset for condo buyers or hotel guests. They should definitely consider reserving a third of this tower for residential. Who knows, maybe that's part of the plan and that's why they're serious about going through with it.

[jrd1964]

1490381833-Foster-2012-Field-2 (1).jpg

Whether we see this project or not, it would be nice if we could keep this much or more water in the Trinity River...it would keep it from looking like the all-too-narrow version we usually get.

As for the tower, if it is to be round, and glassy, will we have any repeats of the Museum Tower controversy? Hopefully not.

[Hannibal Lecter]

For those dreaming of a Super Tall on this site, keep in mind that BoA tower was originally planned to be taller, but the FAA made them chop off the top. This site has almost exactly the same proximity to the DAL flight path and is roughly 1/4 mile closer to the airport.

[eburress]

For those dreaming of a Super Tall on this site, keep in mind that BoA tower was originally planned to be taller, but the FAA made them chop off the top. This site has almost exactly the same proximity to the DAL flight path and is roughly 1/4 mile closer to the airport.

Nice find on that photo! I wish I still had images of some of those old 80s building proposals. A number have been floating around here, but there are some I haven't seen in years.

[Tucy]

This has been fun and it's a cool-looking, intriguing design. But I suspect we'll be filing this Norman Foster building away with the Spires and Victory Tower/Mandarin Oriental Hotel, etc.

[joshua.dodd]

For those dreaming of a Super Tall on this site, keep in mind that BoA tower was originally planned to be taller, but the FAA made them chop off the top. This site has almost exactly the same proximity to the DAL flight path and is roughly 1/4 mile closer to the airport.

The FAA gave the property a "no height restrictions" approval a few years back. That was mentioned in one of the first articles published about this project. No height restrictions. So the worry about height is really a non-issue because that has already been settled.

[kingpin]

This has been fun and it's a cool-looking, intriguing design. But I suspect we'll be filing this Norman Foster building away with the Spires and Victory Tower/Mandarin Oriental Hotel, etc.

Chances are slim, in my opinion.

[joshua.dodd]

This has been fun and it's a cool-looking, intriguing design. But I suspect we'll be filing this Norman Foster building away with the Spires and Victory Tower/Mandarin Oriental Hotel, etc.

Time will tell.

[texasstar]

This has been fun and it's a cool-looking, intriguing design. But I suspect we'll be filing this Norman Foster building away with the Spires and Victory Tower/Mandarin Oriental Hotel, etc.

We'll just have to see.

[mhainli]

Lots of talk here about building a super tall vs street level attractiveness. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Seems like a tall building (mixed use hopefully) with more people gives more possibilities for something vibrant at street level.

[eburress]

Lots of talk here about building a super tall vs street level attractiveness. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Seems like a tall building (mixed use hopefully) with more people gives more possibilities for something vibrant at street level.

You're right...they're not mutually exclusive. Ideally the increased population within a taller building could help fuel whatever is happening at its base.

[tamtagon]

http://candysdirt.com/2017/03/28/archit ... th-dallas/

Architectural Magnificence: A Goal Worth Having for Dallas
by Jon Anderson

Since the days of our 1980s architectural dalliance, I’ve panned 30-plus years of lackluster Dallas building many times. I mean, of Dallas’ tallest 20 buildings, just one … one … has been built since 1988 … what world-class city’s skyline does that? (Psst … it’s Museum Tower and it’s only 15th tallest. Pretty sad, eh?) Most recently I urged Pink Wall residents to at least consider throwing some density shekels at a developer who aimed for magnificence. But what do I think is magnificent?

I think Perot will deliver "magnificence" on this spot. Harwood Dallas is almost certain to reach that level of appreciation, Mark Cuban probably has dreams of skyline magnificence in the Design District.... we'll see, sooner rather than later I hope.

[dollaztx]

This has been fun and it's a cool-looking, intriguing design. But I suspect we'll be filing this Norman Foster building away with the Spires and Victory Tower/Mandarin Oriental Hotel, etc.

We'll just have to see.

https://sway.com/L6WeXwbxQKgsvP9m

Recent U/C starts are missing like the Epic but great compilation texasstar. It's amazing to reflect to a time when we were excited that these towers were being proposed and to realize that they are all U/C now.

[Tivo_Kenevil]

Yeah so basically after reading this quote from Ross Perot Jr. I've determined the rendering is just free marketing...Meh.

You guys can proceed to file this one under the never built file.



https://www.dmagazine.com/business-econ ... ofa-plaza/

[dallaz]

Yeah so basically after reading this quote from Ross Perot Jr. I've determined the rendering is just free marketing...Meh.

You guys can proceed to file this one under the never built file.



https://www.dmagazine.com/business-econ ... ofa-plaza/

Interesting...

I wouldn't go that far and say it's never going to happen. I agree, he's basically trying to market his project. I'm not mad at him...

Perot is just casting his rod, trying to see who's going to bite. Fairly common...like what most developers do.

[Mgreen15]

Yeah so basically after reading this quote from Ross Perot Jr. I've determined the rendering is just free marketing...Meh.

You guys can proceed to file this one under the never built file.



https://www.dmagazine.com/business-econ ... ofa-plaza/

As much as I would like to see this happen, it's going to take something completely out of left field for this tower to be built. It seems like there is no real plan in place and it's going to be about "whatever the client wants."

Perot also said that the true skyline hasn't changed since the '80s and that it may never really change again... Hopefully he's wrong, but it's hard to argue with what we've seen take place over the past 30 years.

[joshua.dodd]

I think Perot is playing people when he says, of the skyline, that "it may never really change again".

[muncien]

Perot also said that the true skyline hasn't changed since the '80s and that it may never really change again... Hopefully he's wrong, but it's hard to argue with what we've seen take place over the past 30 years.

It really depends on how far your observing from... 10 miles away? Sure, not much has changed. 1 mile away? A world of change, for the better.

I can't express how impressed I am with how the city has evolved. The addition of so many midrise buildings has given birth to a city much more in touch with it's surroundings.

I think it would be nice to get a signature high-rise built in the next ten years simply to bring external attention to the city, but for folks who are already here, or close by... we are very much on the right track.

[Tnexster]

New high-rise would round out Dallas' skyline

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/real ... as-skyline

Potential plans for a new downtown Dallas skyscraper never fail to catch folks' attention.

But what really turned heads about the latest design was that the building is round.

Award-winning British architect Sir Norman Foster designed the new tower for a site on the north side of downtown that's owned by developer Ross Perot Jr.

The curved shape of the high-rise would be an eye-popping addition to Dallas' growing skyline.