Downtown Progress

[willyk]

Downtown Dallas: A Turnaround Built on Parks, Arts, and People

http://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/downtown-dallas-turnaround-built-parks-arts-people/

[dukemeredith]

I don't know if there's a better thread to ask this question, but was anyone able to make it to the Downtown Residents Meeting at the Tower Club this evening?

Regrettably, I got caught up at work...

[dukemeredith]

Buffalo Becomes First Major City to Eliminate Parking Minimums

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/03/b ... ing-rules/

Why can't we do this?

[Hannibal Lecter]

Buffalo hasn't been a "major city" in a long time. Population is somewhere between Garland and Plano.

So why would we want a city that's been losing population for 70 years as a role model?

[dukemeredith]

Fair point about Buffalo.

But the article mentioned Miami and Denver as examples of big cities that have also implemented FBCs. I'd say those are certainly two cities worthy of attention.

[tanzoak]

The move to eliminate parking minimums has been picking up steam, and in a lot of places that mirror Dallas's population growth and high level of auto use. Seattle and Portland eliminated them for non single-family areas, and Oakland eliminated them downtown and drastically reduced elsewhere (like 0.5:1 parking:unit ratio). Even Austin and Houston have eliminated them in their downtowns.

Both supporters and detractors should keep in mind, though, that a reduction or even repeal would be unlikely to produce significant changes in the near term unless you're currently seeing developers building at only the minimum. Which I don't think is the case in Dallas, though figuring out project details is so difficult it's tough to tell.

[tanzoak]

I think a lot of times when people hear "reduce/eliminate parking minimums" they think that it means imposing parking maximums or otherwise requiring a reduction in parking. It doesn't. It merely allows the market provide how much parking people are willing to pay for rather than the government mandating an arbitary amount (and as a transportation engineer, I cannot stress how divorced from rigorous analysis they are).

It means, for instance, that if a developer is building a development in Uptown with a bunch of 1BRs geared towards young, childless, single people, maybe they think they only need to build 1.25 spaces per unit instead of 1.5 (or whatever it is). Maybe they're wrong, but if they are, then their project will do poorly and other developers will take note not to try that for a while. But if they're right, then future developers can see that and can reduce the cost of those projects, which is both good for them and good for the broader public, as they don't then pass those unneeded costs onto everyone.

[gshelton91]

And from a retail point of view i would rather pay to park once in a parking garage then park for free at one store and have to move my car to shop at the next store down the street.

[tamtagon]

Sometimes when thinking about the downtown area residential inventory increase, and considering how closely the long time big construction and rental property owners monitor and analyze 'the cycles' of development, I'm starting to think the big boys intentionally misread 'the cycle' of (especially) residential supply and demand. Sometimes I think downtown area would be better served by a building surge putting inventory 30% over demand ---- simply because the extra would be absorbed, but maybe not a quickly as the power-players have foreseen; maintaining 'a cycle' ceiling baseline that's actually too low, deters too many outsider from impacting the market, optimizes revenue beyond a reasonable profit and cedes control to the same handful of players.

For years we've been talking about how quickly the CBD residential population would reach 10,000, and look at how quickly Uptown has grown... but really, the population could be so much more already, but the supply just isn't there.

[dukemeredith]

Sometimes when thinking about the downtown area residential inventory increase, and considering how closely the long time big construction and rental property owners monitor and analyze 'the cycles' of development, I'm starting to think the big boys intentionally misread 'the cycle' of (especially) residential supply and demand. Sometimes I think downtown area would be better served by a building surge putting inventory 30% over demand ---- simply because the extra would be absorbed, but maybe not a quickly as the power-players have foreseen; maintaining 'a cycle' ceiling baseline that's actually too low, deters too many outsider from impacting the market, optimizes revenue beyond a reasonable profit and cedes control to the same handful of players.

For years we've been talking about how quickly the CBD residential population would reach 10,000, and look at how quickly Uptown has grown... but really, the population could be so much more already, but the supply just isn't there.

When I find myself with similar frustrating thoughts, I have to remind myself what's on the horizon for CBD:
- Statler Residences
- Drever apartments
- AMLI apartment tower near Fountain Place
- High rise apartments across from Trammell Crow Center
- High rise apartments at Flora and Olive in the Arts District

And then I look at Google Earth and see all the empty spaces and car parks...
- Field and San Jacinto
- Leonard and San Jacinto (Spire Realty?)
- Elm and Pearl
- Wood and Ervay
- Cadiz and Ervay
- Wood and Field
- Jackson and Griffin
- Main and Lamar

I'm sure there are more

[tanzoak]

Who sets the "cycle ceiling"? Are you just talking about developers and (especially) lenders being leery after a certain (too low) level, or is there some sort of city policy that restricts it beyond a certain point?

[willyk]

Sometimes when thinking about the downtown area residential inventory increase, and considering how closely the long time big construction and rental property owners monitor and analyze 'the cycles' of development, I'm starting to think the big boys intentionally misread 'the cycle' of (especially) residential supply and demand. Sometimes I think downtown area would be better served by a building surge putting inventory 30% over demand ---- simply because the extra would be absorbed, but maybe not a quickly as the power-players have foreseen; maintaining 'a cycle' ceiling baseline that's actually too low, deters too many outsider from impacting the market, optimizes revenue beyond a reasonable profit and cedes control to the same handful of players.

For years we've been talking about how quickly the CBD residential population would reach 10,000, and look at how quickly Uptown has grown... but really, the population could be so much more already, but the supply just isn't there.

When I find myself with similar frustrating thoughts, I have to remind myself what's on the horizon for CBD:
- Statler Residences
- Drever apartments
- AMLI apartment tower near Fountain Place
- High rise apartments across from Trammell Crow Center
- High rise apartments at Flora and Olive in the Arts District

And then I look at Google Earth and see all the empty spaces and car parks...
- Field and San Jacinto
- Leonard and San Jacinto (Spire Realty?)
- Elm and Pearl
- Wood and Ervay
- Cadiz and Ervay
- Wood and Field
- Jackson and Griffin
- Main and Lamar

I'm sure there are more

Add:
Butler Brothers
Corrigan
Tower Pertroleum
Mayflower

All good stuff, but like everyone else I feel like Downtown is perpetually on the cusp.

Uptown started with some entrepreneurial developers taking chances in State Thomas. That same breed is taking chances again in West Dallas, East Ross, Henderson and the Design District. I like all of those plays, but Downtown is a better bet than any of them because once it catches on, the gaping price differential between Uptown and Downtown will narrow and deliver significant appreciation to the Downtown investments.

That opportunity for appreciation is unique in the Dallas market. But it's going to take new construction to fill the dead spaces between Uptown and all of the recently renovated properties. Chicken meet egg. Let's hope we still have some hungry developers looking to eat them both.

[DPatel304]

All good stuff, but like everyone else I feel like Downtown is perpetually on the cusp.

Uptown started with some entrepreneurial developers taking chances in State Thomas. That same breed is taking chances again in West Dallas, East Ross, Henderson and the Design District. I like all of those plays, but Downtown is a better bet than any of them because once it catches on, the gaping price differential between Uptown and Downtown will narrow and deliver significant appreciation to the Downtown investments.

What you're saying is definitely true, but I suppose the advantage of the surrounding neighborhoods is all the small-scale development that is happening in addition to the large scale development. If a developer were to build something large on Ross Ave, chances are, there would be numerous small town-home communities that pop up nearby to help support the larger development and keep the momentum going. That's just not something you're likely to see in Downtown though. Anyone taking a chance and building something big Downtown will just have to hope that other people also take as big of a chance to build something else big nearby to keep the momentum going.

[muncien]

I also think you have too many players (owners & developers) sitting on block size properties in the CBD waiting to cash in on some business wanting to build a big corporate tower. It's an 80's mindset that likely won't come to fruition. Unfortunately, the assessed land values are all screwed up in the CBD, and it makes it more convenient for such owners to shell out the property to parking operators and use the revenue to pay the minuscule taxes that are due.
The first thing that needs to happen is that the county assessors get their act together and assess the land for what it's real value is (near to that which it would buy/sell for).
Then, owners will be more willing to act on the property (poo or get off the pot) and allow alternate uses (mixed use/residential) to sprout up.
There'll still be plenty of land for corporate clientele, but I suspect that about 80% of what is available should go to other uses. Not to mention the fact that more residents will encourage more business... Everybody wins.

[tamtagon]

^Totally, especially with the major Ross Avenue bookends: Headington & Spire. Spire property especially is much more likely to land the big corporate tenant(s) in a 1,000,000 sq ft building if a lot of people are already living along/near the amenities portion of that development (that would connect the train station to the Arts District --- a pedestrian corridor that alone could support a great deal of Spire's non-office plans). The Headington corners being prime location for >1,000 room hotels, significant and unique entertainment venues.

[dukemeredith]

Here's everyone's favorite intersection. Looks like some roadwork being done. Any thoughts?

Routine maintenance? Prepping the area for development?

[willyk]

This sounds like a big improvement in rents along Ross Ave--can anyone else confirm?

Rents in St. Paul Place average $10 per square foot less than those in the newest Uptown offices. The building is just over 80 percent leased, with major tenants including D Magazine, Crowe Horwath, Sendero Business Systems, MapR Technologies, Vault Aviation and UNICEF.

"It all comes down to having the vision what the space can be," Cook said.
St. Paul Place is just one of a handful of 1980s-era downtown towers that are being renovated. And it's one of several large redevelopments along Ross Avenue on downtown's north side.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2017/04/18/tower-redo-bringing-business-dallas-ross-avenue

[DPatel304]

The towers in downtown and Uptown Dallas are just blocks apart.

But when it comes to office occupancy, there is a much greater gulf.

While Uptown's major office projects average more than 94 percent leased, downtown's big towers — most of them built in the 1980s — are just over 70 percent rented, according to a new report by commercial property firm JLL.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/rea ... still-lags

I'm not sure how meaningful these numbers are. According to the article, it seems that commercial space still under construction is considered vacant, which is why I question how meaningful these numbers are:
"Tenants also don't have a lot to choose from in Uptown. Most of the vacant space is in a handful of buildings still under construction."

[Matt777]

Overall, not terrible for Downtown leasing space considering there is still a bunch of space in buildings that are frankly obsolete for modern office usage, and need upgrades or conversion to other use. 1700 Pacific sure needs some more space leased up. I know parking there is not super plentiful. Maybe they could convert a large chunk of it to residential that requires less parking per sqft, or hotel that can have valet parking offsite? Also, more of the ground level should be opened up to the street for retail, with a plaza reconfig. It's just begging for it.

[Cord1936]

I'm not sure how meaningful these numbers are.

^^^^^^^
They are not meaningful in a big picture view. The JLL report measures multi-tenant space only and does not include single tenant buildings in its numbers. There are a LOT of single tenant occupied buildings in Downtown Dallas that are completely ignored in this report as if they don't even exist.

In fact, almost all major commercial reports reflect multi-tenant data only.

The one exception is Transwestern. Transwestern measures and reports on both multi-tenant and single tenant space, thus providing a much more accurate view of occupancy in any city, not just Dallas.

The latest Transwestern report for Dallas was issued in April and is through end of 1Q17. It shows direct vacancy in Downtown Dallas was 21.3% and overall vacancy (including sublease space) was 22.2%. Still on the high side but quite a bit lower than JLL's multi-tenant only numbers.

Transwestern is the only commercial group that tells the complete story.

https://www.transwestern.com/api/data/resource/?id=%2fresearch%2fDocuments%2fCentral+-+Dallas+Fort+Worth+Office+Outlook+-+Q1+2017.pdf&h=fa66a1c709430fbf07d7937923adca01

[Tucy]

I'm not sure how meaningful these numbers are.

^^^^^^^
There are a LOT of single tenant occupied buildings in Downtown Dallas that are completely ignored in this report as if they don't even exist.

Are there? I can only think of one... Hunt. What buildings am I overlooking?

[muncien]

I'm not sure how meaningful these numbers are.

^^^^^^^
There are a LOT of single tenant occupied buildings in Downtown Dallas that are completely ignored in this report as if they don't even exist.

Are there? I can only think of one... Hunt. What buildings am I overlooking?

Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.

[Tucy]

^^^^^^^
There are a LOT of single tenant occupied buildings in Downtown Dallas that are completely ignored in this report as if they don't even exist.

Are there? I can only think of one... Hunt. What buildings am I overlooking?

Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.

Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?

[The_Overdog]

I know these numbers aren't exact city boundaries, but everything listed as Ft Worth equals 27.379m sq feet of office space based on that TransWestern report. Irving/Las Colinas needs to build approximately one building to surpass them at about 27.344m sq feet. Plano/Legacy (which I guess includes some of Frisco, but not much) is at 32.653m sq feet.

Ft Worth really needs some strong leadership and to step it up to really be Dallas' sister city because it's going to be surpassed by multiple DFW suburbs in economic output despite it's size in the next decade. They have relatively low office vacancy so it seems the demand is there.

[willyk]

Are there? I can only think of one... Hunt. What buildings am I overlooking?

Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.

Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?

Oncor?
Government buildings?

[Cord1936]

Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.

Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?

Oncor?
Government buildings?

Not to mention the large hotels that are single tenant buildings ... Hyatt Regency, Sheraton Dallas, Omni, Adolphus, Magnolia, Joule, Fairmount, The Westin, Dallas Marriott, Aloft, Crowne Plaza, Hotel Indigo, Hilton Homewood Suites, and several more.

Hotels are counted as commercial space and the numerous Downtown hotels have to total millions of square feet.

AT&T occupies well over 2 million square feet of single tenant space.

And as you mentioned the government buildings are large single tenant structures.

While of and by themselves they may not be large, when smaller single tenants are totaled the numbers probably add up to something worth noting as well.

Suffice it to say the number of single tenant buildings in Downtown Dallas are quite numerous and altogether add millions of square feet of commercial space.

[Tucy]

Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.

Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?

Oncor?
Government buildings?

Oncor is a good catch.
AFAIK, None of the commercial real estate research companies include government buildings.

[Tucy]

Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?

Oncor?
Government buildings?

Not to mention the large hotels that are single tenant buildings ... Hyatt Regency, Sheraton Dallas, Omni, Adolphus, Magnolia, Joule, Fairmount, The Westin, Dallas Marriott, Aloft, Crowne Plaza, Hotel Indigo, Hilton Homewood Suites, and several more.

Hotels are counted as commercial space and the numerous Downtown hotels have to total millions of square feet.

AT&T occupies well over 2 million square feet of single tenant space.

And as you mentioned the government buildings are large single tenant structures.

While of and by themselves they may not be large, when smaller single tenants are totaled the numbers probably add up to something worth noting as well.

Suffice it to say the number of single tenant buildings in Downtown Dallas are quite numerous and altogether add millions of square feet of commercial space.

Indeed, they add millions of square feet. As you mentioned above, AT&T alone adds millions of square feet. Beyond that, the number seems to be somewhat limited. Collectively, we've come up with Hunt, Oncor, and DMN.

FWIW, we're talking here about office space. None of the commercial real estate research services include hotel square footage or government buildings.

[Cord1936]

^^^^^^^
Just contacted CoStar Group (http://www.costar.com/about/contact) to pose the question as to whether hotel and government data is included in commercial real estate numbers.

CoStar is an industry paid subscription service that actually collects and collates all of the data that feeds Transwestern's free real estate reports.

CoStar indicated government buildings are included in their commercial space reporting while hospitality is not.

[Tucy]

^^^^^^^
Just contacted CoStar Group (http://www.costar.com/about/contact) to pose the question as to whether hotel and government data is included in commercial real estate numbers.

CoStar is an industry paid subscription service that actually collects and collates all of the data that feeds Transwestern's free real estate reports.

CoStar indicated government buildings are included in their commercial space reporting while hospitality is not.

CoStar may collect information about government buildings, but that does not mean Transwestern and others include the government buildings in their calculations.

From Transwestern's DFW Office Market Report:
"The information in this report is the result of a compilation of information on
office properties located in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. This report
includes single-tenant, multi-tenant and owner-user office properties, excluding
properties owned and occupied by a government agency."

[Tucy]

Transwestern's 2nd quarter 2017 office market report is out.

Dallas CBD has 33.2 million square feet of office space, 7.5 million of which is vacant, for an overall vacancy rate of 22.4%. YTD Net absorption: 4,761 square feet.

For Class A space, the CBD has 23.2 million square feet, 5.9 million of which is vacant, for a vacancy rate of 25.6%. YTD Net absorption: 138,634 square feet.

Uptown/Turtle Creek has 13.6 million square feet, with 1.5 million vacant, for an overall vacancy rate of 11%. YTD Net absorption: 161,316 square feet.

For Class A space Uptown/Turtle Creek has 10.9 million square feet, with 1.1 million vacant, for a 10% vacancy rate. YTD Net absorption: 255,223 square feet.

Combined, our greater downtown area has 46.9 million square feet of office space, with 8.9 million square feet vacant, for an overall vacancy rate of 19%. YTD net absorption: 166,077 square feet.

For Class A space, the greater downtown area has 34.1 million square feet, with 7 million square feet vacant, for a Class A vacancy rate of 20.5%. YTD net absorption: 398,857 square feet.

[DPatel304]

Thanks for the updates. Those numbers aren't too surprising, but I'm expecting better numbers for the CBD going forward, especially now that Uptown is getting very pricey.

[Tucy]

Thanks for the updates. Those numbers aren't too surprising, but I'm expecting better numbers for the CBD going forward, especially now that Uptown is getting very pricey.

We'll see. We've been expecting better numbers for the CBD for thirty years and it never seems to happen.

[Tnexster]

^I tend to feel the same way, it seems like it has bottomed out around 20% and just never gets lower than that. There always seems to be more old vacant space ready to fill the void of the last tower to be repurposed.

[Thymant]

Thanks for the updates. Those numbers aren't too surprising, but I'm expecting better numbers for the CBD going forward, especially now that Uptown is getting very pricey.

We'll see. We've been expecting better numbers for the CBD for thirty years and it never seems to happen.

True but your failing to account the fact that uptown did not exist as it does today 30 years ago so even though percentages are the same the market is larger.

[Tucy]

Thanks for the updates. Those numbers aren't too surprising, but I'm expecting better numbers for the CBD going forward, especially now that Uptown is getting very pricey.

We'll see. We've been expecting better numbers for the CBD for thirty years and it never seems to happen.

True but your failing to account the fact that uptown did not exist as it does today 30 years ago so even though percentages are the same the market is larger.

FWIW, the market may not have grown by as much as you might think. For one, there was significant office space in the Uptown area, even thirty years ago. Second, a whole bunch of space has been taken off the market in the CBD over the last 30 years. My back-of-the-envelope calculation comes up with a net increase in the greater downtown office market of only about 4.5 million square feet.

[willyk]

The updates at TCC, FP and Chase will make a difference. I fear the laggards will be B of A and Renaissance, but EMC has become viable and unique and I hope that becomes their draw.

[Tucy]

Transwestern's 3rd quarter 2017 office market report is out.

Dallas CBD has 33.3 million square feet of office space, 7.5 million of which is vacant, for an overall vacancy rate of 22.5%. YTD Net absorption: NEGATIVE 104,108 square feet.

For Class A space, the CBD has 23.4 million square feet, 5.9 million of which is vacant, for a vacancy rate of 27%. YTD Net absorption: NEGATIVE 32,365 square feet.

Uptown/Turtle Creek has 13.7 million square feet, with 1.4 million vacant, for an overall vacancy rate of 10.6%. YTD Net absorption: 207,232 square feet.

For Class A space Uptown/Turtle Creek has 10.9 million square feet, with 1.1 million vacant, for a 9.7% vacancy rate. YTD Net absorption: 279,325 square feet.

Combined, our greater downtown area has 47 million square feet of office space, with 8.9 million square feet vacant, for an overall vacancy rate of 19%. YTD net absorption: 103,124 square feet.

For Class A space, the greater downtown area has 34.3 million square feet, with 7.4 million square feet vacant, for a Class A vacancy rate of 21.5%. YTD net absorption: 246,960 square feet.

[tamtagon]

Was it in the early 80s that CBD vacancy rate was less than 20%? ...it's like a weird normal or something

[dallaz]

Downtown Dallas 360 Plan to Manage Traffic, Growth

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Downt ... 19333.html

The new plan forecasts 20,000 more residents downtown and 50,000 more in neighborhoods within 2.5 miles of the city center within the next five years.

20,000 people in 5 years within the Downtown loop is a pretty high number? Do y’all think there is a high likelihood of this coming to fruition? I would assume that many people would need much more housing. Way more than what’s currently planned or under construction...

[dukemeredith]

20,000 MORE people downtown? So, in addition to the 11,000 already here? In only 5 years?

I’d love to see it. But that ain’t happening.

[dallaz]

20,000 MORE people downtown? So, in addition to the 11,000 already here? In only 5 years?

I’d love to see it. But that ain’t happening.

My thoughts exactly...

But after further research, the number (20,000 figure) is based on the projects under construction and the projects they are confident that will break ground within the 2-5 year range.

[tamtagon]

^cha, at first I was like no way, but, then like, right now what's under construction about to open and about to be under construction represents more than a third of existing apartments! Right? Then I was like, oh they're using the new definition of downtown that includes Victory Park or whatever....

11,000 residents, is the average up to 1.75 per yet? that gives us about 6,300 units, give or take.
Just off the top of my head, there's almost 1,800: Statler 230, Fountain Place 425, Arts District 375, Drever 350, (2 in Farmers Mkt) 400 something like that. I'm sure I've forgotten some already announced/UC or whatever, but that's a long way away from the 11,000 units needed to house 20,000 more people.

But as wild as it sounds, the 50,000 new residents moving into the downtown area over the next 5 years, well heck, it could be more than that. Whaddya know, it's about time.

[dukemeredith]

Unless they know something we don’t, then I don’t see how they’re going to get 11,000+ units in 5 years.

Even in some fantasy world, where (i) Spire, (ii) TC’s residential tower, (iii) Headington’s 4 corners at Field and San Jacinto, (iv) the parking lots around BOA, and (v) the Dallas Smart District are all built out, I still don’t see how we’d get to 11,000 units in 5 years.

[dallaz]

Unless they know something we don’t, then I don’t see how they’re going to get 11,000+ units in 5 years.

Even in some fantasy world, where (i) Spire, (ii) TC’s residential tower, (iii) Headington’s 4 corners at Field and San Jacinto, (iv) the parking lots around BOA, and (v) the Dallas Smart District are all built out, I still don’t see how we’d get to 11,000 units in 5 years.

That’s probably the only way that this can happen. To be that confident in potentially having 20,000 additional residents must include thounsands of units in the planning phase that’s not known to the public.

Even if that’s the case...I don’t see it happening. Even half of that amount is sort of a stretch.

I don’t want to be negative because I would love for it to happen, but I just don’t see it. Hopefully, I’m wrong and their projections are correct.

[dallaz]

^cha, at first I was like no way, but, then like, right now what's under construction about to open and about to be under construction represents more than a third of existing apartments! Right? Then I was like, oh they're using the new definition of downtown that includes Victory Park or whatever....

11,000 residents, is the average up to 1.75 per yet? that gives us about 6,300 units, give or take.
Just off the top of my head, there's almost 1,800: Statler 230, Fountain Place 425, Arts District 375, Drever 350, (2 in Farmers Mkt) 400 something like that. I'm sure I've forgotten some already announced/UC or whatever, but that's a long way away from the 11,000 units needed to house 20,000 more people.

But as wild as it sounds, the 50,000 new residents moving into the downtown area over the next 5 years, well heck, it could be more than that. Whaddya know, it's about time.

I was trying to figure out if they were talking about the “new” boundaries of Downtown too. But, based on what I’ve found thus far, they’re taking about the CBD within the freeway loop. I know for a fact the expanded definition of Downtown has more than 11,000 residents. So, there’s no way if could have included Uptown, Victory Park, the Cedars, etc.

[Matt777]

If Amazon announced HQ2 coming to the downtown area, then it surely is possible to get 20,000 people downtown in a short timeframe. That would be what, about 12,000 new units? That would only be 30 400 unit buildings, or 24 500 unit buildings. I'm thinking buildings that take up about the footprint of a Skyhouse but have parking underground or on the bottom floors rather than separate, and much less parking overall (increased retail options, downtown Amazon jobs, and new streetcar and D2 lines would lessen the need for having a car). It would make a drastic change downtown, no doubt about that, but there is plenty of open land currently taken up parking lots. If you add the Cedars to that, then they could do many times that over.

[Tucy]

Unless they know something we don’t, then I don’t see how they’re going to get 11,000+ units in 5 years.

Even in some fantasy world, where (i) Spire, (ii) TC’s residential tower, (iii) Headington’s 4 corners at Field and San Jacinto, (iv) the parking lots around BOA, and (v) the Dallas Smart District are all built out, I still don’t see how we’d get to 11,000 units in 5 years.

And in reality, it would take a lot more than 11,000 units. 1.75 occupants per unit is very unlikely to ever happen. 1.4 is more likely, at full occupancy. 20,000 people at 1.4 per unit requires more than 14,000 new units. That's crazy talk. Doesn't even pass the giggle test.

That would require net absorption of approximately 714 units every quarter for five years. As a point of reference, in the 3rd quarter of 2017, the area CBRE defines as "Oak Lawn", which includes the CBD, Uptown, Victory Park, and Oak Lawn, had net absorption of 437 units.

Has anyone been able to find where in the plan document it actually makes the forecast of 20,000 additional residents in the next five years? I took a quick look and did some key word searches and cannot find it.

[dallaz]

Unless they know something we don’t, then I don’t see how they’re going to get 11,000+ units in 5 years.

Even in some fantasy world, where (i) Spire, (ii) TC’s residential tower, (iii) Headington’s 4 corners at Field and San Jacinto, (iv) the parking lots around BOA, and (v) the Dallas Smart District are all built out, I still don’t see how we’d get to 11,000 units in 5 years.

And in reality, it would take a lot more than 11,000 units. 1.75 occupants per unit is very unlikely to ever happen. 1.4 is more likely, at full occupancy. 20,000 people at 1.4 per unit requires more than 14,000 new units. That's crazy talk. Doesn't even pass the giggle test.

That would require net absorption of approximately 714 units every quarter for five years. As a point of reference, in the 3rd quarter of 2017, the area CBRE defines as "Oak Lawn", which includes the CBD, Uptown, Victory Park, and Oak Lawn, had net absorption of 437 units.

Has anyone been able to find where in the plan document it actually makes the forecast of 20,000 additional residents in the next five years? I took a quick look and did some key word searches and cannot find it.

I have found the presentation given to the city council by DDI. I forgot to post it last night


Here ya go...

http://dallascityhall.com/government/Pages/Live.aspx

[Matt777]

Another great thing I notice from the plan is the possible removal of the Live Oak offramp onto Field Street. Take that out and redesign field using a complete street method. Right now, it is an asphalt river that kills all pedestrian activity around it as cars speed through the wide thoroughfare. Almost like an expressway.