Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

jetnd87 wrote:Hillwood is always so underwhelming.

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again - why can't Dallas support 50 stories plus projects? I mean the area is adding 1.5M residents per decade. I acknowledge that we're spread out and the corporate / residential high-rise growth is distributed throughout DFW, particularly CBD, Frisco, Plano, Las Colinas, but still, LA is spread out and they've added a skyline changer in the last few years. Chicago is too (e.g., 101 story Vista Tower) and they're basically flat population-wise. Is land still that cheap here to where it doesn't warrant the height? All these new office buildings in the CBD have pretty much leased up within a year of opening. Anyone knowledgeable out there that can alleviate my confusion?

jetnd87 wrote:Ah. I was under the impression that they have been based on recent articles. That being said, 1900 Pearl sold for a pretty penny, so from the developer's POV probably a success.

Re: the uber conservative local developer mentality - is it as simple as the fallout from the 1980s over-building / crash was so scarring to the Dallas RE community that they operate super (overly?) cautiously now? I'm sure the Museum Tower debacle didn't help things. It still doesn't explain why we don't have more bolder development from non-Dallas developers, but still.

Let me be clear - our city has made gigantic strides. Samantha Brown said it best in her show, "Dallas has changed more in 5 years than most cities do in 20." We have thriving food, arts, and music scenes and multiple, truly interesting neighborhoods with development ongoing in each of them. Population trends are skyward and GDP growth is robust on top of an already sizable base.

There's just a cognitive dissonance that persists in that we've experienced all of this and are, at least projected, to experience more, but have yet to add any bold, signature buildings (outside of AMLI Fountain Place) while the rest of our peer (above and below) cities are.

muncien wrote:I wouldn't be disappointed one bit if every vacant block of the CBD were filled with midrise residential. Residential lease rates in the CBD are higher than the regional average and occupancy is lower than the average. Building more residential is a no-brainer, but it seems local developers are primarily geared toward lower demand/higher reward office market. Here's to hoping more regional/national deveopers fill the residential midrise void we currently have.

I45Tex wrote:That isn't stopping much taller buildings in Houston and Austin, even though they have much lower barriers to entry, and much smaller pools of institutional capital ready to compete for a property being sold at any given date, compared to the coastal markets.

eburress wrote:^ It's a very nice looking tower but now they just need to double or triple its height.

rono3849 wrote:Hillwood's plan included hotel, office, & residential components. Most new supertall's have multiple aspects now. The new buildings in Downtown Los Angeles are made up of multiple kinds of tenants. I don't know if Dallas can support this kind of development.

mhainli wrote:At the right location in the CBD, like near KWP, I think it would work. The new office building on Pearl on the CBD side that sold for a record amount per sq ft could have been mixed use and taller. Might have been a challenging site for it but that’s what we’re talking about.

Another example is the Hall development in the Arts District. Nice hotel, nice office building, very nice condos, large underground parking garage already in place - but all separate conservatively sized buildings. The office building has done well too. Could have combined 2 or more of these into something taller with more room left for future development, but Hall decided on the conservative approach.

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

rono3849 wrote:Hillwood's plan included hotel, office, & residential components. Most new supertall's have multiple aspects now. The new buildings in Downtown Los Angeles are made up of multiple kinds of tenants. I don't know if Dallas can support this kind of development.

This is already a thing here tho. We're seeing that multi faceted approach with 1401 ElM and even the Union. I think one of the reasons you don't see this here is height restrictions. If Uptown didn't have the height restrictions, I'm sure we'd have one by now. However, these types of developments are not happening in downtown. I think that's more a reflection of downtown than anything else. The CBD simply hasn't been seeing a lot of demand for new office.

trueicon wrote:

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:

rono3849 wrote:Hillwood's plan included hotel, office, & residential components. Most new supertall's have multiple aspects now. The new buildings in Downtown Los Angeles are made up of multiple kinds of tenants. I don't know if Dallas can support this kind of development.

This is already a thing here tho. We're seeing that multi faceted approach with 1401 ElM and even the Union. I think one of the reasons you don't see this here is height restrictions. If Uptown didn't have the height restrictions, I'm sure we'd have one by now. However, these types of developments are not happening in downtown. I think that's more a reflection of downtown than anything else. The CBD simply hasn't been seeing a lot of demand for new office.

But literally across the street (i345) from downtown the demand for office high rises is booming. Regardless of whether i345 is torn down, you better believe the definition of CBD does include (or will include) projects like Epic. We are absolutely splitting hairs and engaging in mental gymnastics if we think the average person in suburbia defines "Downtown Dallas" by the perimeter of 35e/woodall rogers/30/i345.

On top of that, the developers of East Quarter are also proving the thesis that there isn't demand for office space downtown wrong. I walked past many buildings on Commerce St that are part of this development and most appeared to be leased or in the process of being leased.

rono3849 wrote:Hillwood's plan included hotel, office, & residential components. Most new supertall's have multiple aspects now. The new buildings in Downtown Los Angeles are made up of multiple kinds of tenants. I don't know if Dallas can support this kind of development.

Tucy wrote:

mhainli wrote:At the right location in the CBD, like near KWP, I think it would work. The new office building on Pearl on the CBD side that sold for a record amount per sq ft could have been mixed use and taller. Might have been a challenging site for it but that’s what we’re talking about.

Another example is the Hall development in the Arts District. Nice hotel, nice office building, very nice condos, large underground parking garage already in place - but all separate conservatively sized buildings. The office building has done well too. Could have combined 2 or more of these into something taller with more room left for future development, but Hall decided on the conservative approach.

Didn't Hall try to find a market for taller buildings on his site for many years, indeed decades, to no avail?

CRE_Investor wrote:I hate to break it to everyone here, but "super tall" buildings are a thing of the past and I wouldn't be surprised if we never see a new 30+ story office building built again in Dallas. .

Alpaca_Obsessor wrote:Regarding the issue of suburban vs urban office space demand, I actually did a project about a year ago tracking the quarterly office stats for the largest 20 cities and sad to report Dallas ranks pretty poorly on most metrics. Even compared to other sunbelt cities that have a large portion of their office market in the suburbs, most others are seeing shifts to where a large share of new construction or net absorption has shifted back to their downtowns but doesn't seem to have occured in Dallas yet (if at all).

Tnexster wrote:I wonder what this current reality will mean for Hillwood's plan for this property. Maybe they will be forced to be more creative in their thinking.

rono3849 wrote:

Tnexster wrote:I wonder what this current reality will mean for Hillwood's plan for this property. Maybe they will be forced to be more creative in their thinking.

Ross Perot Jr. doesn't appear to have that kind of mindset. He's very traditional in his thinking. If I were him, I'd build the round tower. 35 stories would be hotel, 25 stories would be condo/apartments, 18 stories would be office, & top 2 would be observation with restaurant/bar dining. That would give him 80 stories. If he were to go to 72, subtract accordingly from the suggested line up.

Perot.Dallas.Round.Tower.jpg

Structure Type: Building
Structure Name: 2012 Field

Site Elevation: 424
Structure Height: 626
Total Height (AMSL): 1050