NMAddison wrote:If the vast majority or most of your customers are on business trips, they wouldn't give a flying f*** what the tax rate is, since they're not paying for the reservation...itsjrd1964 wrote:Thanks. I didn't know at the time I asked. They've since updated our computers at work for the correct tax posting. Amazingly, I haven't had any guests (yet!) that have pissed/moaned/etc. about the new rate.Tucy wrote:
Started January 1, 2023
Dallas Convention Center
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Business travelers don't check taxes. They check the rates. When you go into a market like New York, San Francisco, & Austin, you are charged exorbitant rates just to stay in those cities. They know the taxes will be high because they are used to it. If a company needs to send people into those markets, they know they are paying for the cost of doing business in that city. Dallas is a hot market business wise, so people will pay the rates and move on. They just want to get to the airport and catch their flight home.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
The company might care about the rates.rono3849 wrote:Business travelers don't check taxes. They check the rates. When you go into a market like New York, San Francisco, & Austin, you are charged exorbitant rates just to stay in those cities. They know the taxes will be high because they are used to it. If a company needs to send people into those markets, they know they are paying for the cost of doing business in that city. Dallas is a hot market business wise, so people will pay the rates and move on. They just want to get to the airport and catch their flight home.
The travelers the company's paying for couldn't care less about the rates as long as they don't exceed some arbitrary threshold their company has imposed.
As the late Gilbert Gottfried would say, food tastes a lot better if someone else is paying for it.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
I love these photos, mainly just because of what appears to be 50B in new towers, infrastructure improvments and developments that we will never see. The only things I could see coming out of this is a new convention center and maybe a new hotel tower.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
and new hotel tower likely only comes if it's heavily subsidized or outright owned by the City of Dallas (like the Omni). This is just one of the fun games the City of Dallas plays.Tnexster wrote:I love these photos, mainly just because of what appears to be 50B in new towers, infrastructure improvments and developments that we will never see. The only things I could see coming out of this is a new convention center and maybe a new hotel tower.
1. We need to build a convention hotel to get the full benefit of our convention facilities --> City overspends to build Omni convention hotel.
2. Now that we have the hotel next to the convention center, we still have trouble attracting conventions because there's nowhere else nearby to eat --> City builds a building to subsidize restaurant operations.
3. We need to expand the convention center so that it's big enough to handle the groups the hotels and restaurants can attract --> City overspends to build flashy new convention center (incidentally, further from the rest of downtown and its hotel stock).
4. Coming soon after the new convention center: Now that we have a big flashy, overpriced convention center, we need more adjacent hotel space in order to book the size and quantity of gatherings the new center is built for --> City builds (or at the very least heavily subsidizes) another convention hotel. They'll probably also discover a lack of sufficient restaurants in the area and subsidize more development. and on it goes.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Certainly agree that the city had been very reactionary as stated above. Can’t argue with any of those points. However, this multi-level study as it relates to the large scale rebuild of the convention center is long overdue - no more band aids. It is too bad this study wasn’t done BEFORE the Omni (and restaurants in front of it) were built. We’d likely have a future CC location that connects better with downtown near the current site or a brand new location..Tucy wrote:and new hotel tower likely only comes if it's heavily subsidized or outright owned by the City of Dallas (like the Omni). This is just one of the fun games the City of Dallas plays.Tnexster wrote:I love these photos, mainly just because of what appears to be 50B in new towers, infrastructure improvments and developments that we will never see. The only things I could see coming out of this is a new convention center and maybe a new hotel tower.
1. We need to build a convention hotel to get the full benefit of our convention facilities --> City overspends to build Omni convention hotel.
2. Now that we have the hotel next to the convention center, we still have trouble attracting conventions because there's nowhere else nearby to eat --> City builds a building to subsidize restaurant operations.
3. We need to expand the convention center so that it's big enough to handle the groups the hotels and restaurants can attract --> City overspends to build flashy new convention center (incidentally, further from the rest of downtown and its hotel stock).
4. Coming soon after the new convention center: Now that we have a big flashy, overpriced convention center, we need more adjacent hotel space in order to book the size and quantity of gatherings the new center is built for --> City builds (or at the very least heavily subsidizes) another convention hotel. They'll probably also discover a lack of sufficient restaurants in the area and subsidize more development. and on it goes.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Agreed.mhainli wrote:Certainly agree that the city had been very reactionary as stated above. Can’t argue with any of those points. However, this multi-level study as it relates to the large scale rebuild of the convention center is long overdue - no more band aids. It is too bad this study wasn’t done BEFORE the Omni (and restaurants in front of it) were built. We’d likely have a future CC location that connects better with downtown near the current site or a brand new location..Tucy wrote:and new hotel tower likely only comes if it's heavily subsidized or outright owned by the City of Dallas (like the Omni). This is just one of the fun games the City of Dallas plays.Tnexster wrote:I love these photos, mainly just because of what appears to be 50B in new towers, infrastructure improvments and developments that we will never see. The only things I could see coming out of this is a new convention center and maybe a new hotel tower.
1. We need to build a convention hotel to get the full benefit of our convention facilities --> City overspends to build Omni convention hotel.
2. Now that we have the hotel next to the convention center, we still have trouble attracting conventions because there's nowhere else nearby to eat --> City builds a building to subsidize restaurant operations.
3. We need to expand the convention center so that it's big enough to handle the groups the hotels and restaurants can attract --> City overspends to build flashy new convention center (incidentally, further from the rest of downtown and its hotel stock).
4. Coming soon after the new convention center: Now that we have a big flashy, overpriced convention center, we need more adjacent hotel space in order to book the size and quantity of gatherings the new center is built for --> City builds (or at the very least heavily subsidizes) another convention hotel. They'll probably also discover a lack of sufficient restaurants in the area and subsidize more development. and on it goes.
If anything, the biggest mistake the city made was not building a new convention center sooner. It would have been a much more cost-effective project 10-15 years ago when interest rates and construction costs were lower.
- IcedCowboyCoffee
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Thanks for the link dallaz.
One takeaway seems to be they're choosing to keep Union station as the multimodal hub, hence the skybridge investment, rather than redirecting everything to the convention center station or the hypothetical HSR station. But I'm curious where the convention center DART station will ultimately land then. The detailed layout plan clearly marks the DART station at the ground level of the building itself (and there is still the ghostly impression of a station outside the building), while another drawing suggests the DART station outside. Guess we'll see, but I suppose "DART Station" likely simply means a DART bus station.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- MC_ScattCat
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 26 Jun 2019 16:12
Re: Dallas Convention Center
I'm curious why the deck park does not cover the entire area between the UPRR bridge and Lamar? Why not just cover the whole gap rather than part of it??? For some reason it's annoying me haha
- IcedCowboyCoffee
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22
Re: Dallas Convention Center
I believe there are restrictions on how much of a highway can be covered before ventilation equipment has to be installed. I guess leaving that gap open is a cost-saving measure to avoid having to do that.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
I think this 7 min video flyover gives a clearer idea of what they’re planning. I’m a visual personIcedCowboyCoffee wrote:Thanks for the link dallaz.
One takeaway seems to be they're choosing to keep Union station as the multimodal hub, hence the skybridge investment, rather than redirecting everything to the convention center station or the hypothetical HSR station. But I'm curious where the convention center DART station will ultimately land then. The detailed layout plan clearly marks the DART station at the ground level of the building itself (and there is still the ghostly impression of a station outside the building), while another drawing suggests the DART station outside. Guess we'll see, but I suppose "DART Station" likely simply means a DART bus station.
multi1.JPG
multi2.JPG
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KJXPG-vT- ... e=youtu.be
- Hannibal Lecter
- Posts: 830
- Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Then you would have incurred 10-15 years of operating losses, maintenance costs, etc...Addison wrote:If anything, the biggest mistake the city made was not building a new convention center sooner. It would have been a much more cost-effective project 10-15 years ago when interest rates and construction costs were lower.
(Brief pause to give the reader time to chuckle at the idea of the city actually maintaining anything).
Do you remember when the DART was building the rail tunnel under Central Expressway and had to halt construction for awhile when they ran into unexpected gas deposits? At the DART Board briefing on the delay, one of the rookie board members naively asked if the delay would cause cash flow problems for the agency. The construction supervisor had to politely explain that the delay was a great thing financially. Sure, they were paying now for construction expenses and interest on the debt. But it would be when they started operating the thing that the REALLY big dollars would start going out the door.
Same thing with the convention center.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
That was going to be incurred whether it was built in 2010 or 2025.Hannibal Lecter wrote:Then you would have incurred 10-15 years of operating losses, maintenance costs, etc...Addison wrote:If anything, the biggest mistake the city made was not building a new convention center sooner. It would have been a much more cost-effective project 10-15 years ago when interest rates and construction costs were lower.
Furthermore, that fact doesn't take into account the savings from no longer having to put band aids on KBH, nor the loss of revenue from conventions who reject Dallas because of its obsolete facility.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
This is long overdue. When I first heard about this study was very surprised and pleased that the main problems are finally getting studied and hopefully addressed. Do have concerns that this is moving far faster than most big city endeavors. Seems like the latest modified west of Lamar option needs to be studied vs other previous final options. For example one reason stated for going west of Lamar is it was the better option to cross IH-30 and connect to the Cedars - less property owner resistance and less of a footprint over IH-30 which TxDOT preferred. Now that the CC will not bridge over the freeway this factor is no longer in play. Also why wasn’t this boomerang shaped (with a bubble) option studied in the first place? Was the shape or location a deal killer? Who knows but now all the sudden it’s the chosen option. In addition to the location my problem with it IS the new shape. It’s lost its more linear shape and simplicity, ease of navigation- especially on levels 1 and 2. Also, in the original study how important was proximity to the downtown core and the current Discovery entertainment district vs creating new land for development, etc. Supporting and enhancing what DT has now would have been at the top of my list. I suppose this can all work out fine (the more entertainments districts the better) but we also might be creating yet another entertainment district that struggles to compete with the other districts (Deep Ellum, Discovery, Victory, Cedars, etc..) - some which struggle themselves..
Re: Dallas Convention Center
To a certain extent I think a bait and switch like this was to be expected. What's concerning to me if how quickly these new plans and renderings came out. I figure they had to have planned this for a while - to have an optimistic set of plans spanning the highway to get public support, while simultaneously putting this together with no real intention of following through with what we all thought we'd be getting. That alone should be looked in to.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Plans as impactful as this must be adapted to the needs and situation presented to the developers. I think this project doesn't need to fall prey to the selfish interests that befall so many American cities that eventually bring about a collapse in all planning. Chicago has continually fought projects that eventually abandoned the city for other venues. George Lucas was going to build a wonderful museum and due to the NIMBYs, he pulled the entire project and it's now being built in Los Angeles in their museum district near USC. Chicago is about to lose the Bears to the suburbs as they build a new stadium on the spot that formerly was a horse racing track in the suburbs.
Last edited by rono3849 on 11 Feb 2023 20:28, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Looks like the HSR station made the fly through
Re: Dallas Convention Center
The Chicago Bears moving to Arlington Heights is not a done deal yet, FWIW...rono3849 wrote:Plans as impactful as this must be adapted to the needs and situation presented to the developers. I think this project doesn't need to fall prey to the selfish interests that befall so many American cities that eventually bring about a collapse in all planning. Chicago has continually fought projects that eventually abandoned the city for other venues. George Lucas was going to build a wonderful museum and due to the NIMBYs, he pulled the entire project and it's now being built in Los Angeles in their museum district near USC. Chicago is about to lose the Bears to the suburbs as they build a new stadium on the spot that formerly was a horse racing tact.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
It's all but done. The Bears have told the city of Chicago that they plan to leave. Mayor Lightfoot is publicly upset, so I fully expect them to leave Soldier Field, which they've already upgraded once.Addison wrote:The Chicago Bears moving to Arlington Heights is not a done deal yet, FWIW...
Re: Dallas Convention Center
The Bears haven't actually closed on their purchase of the land in Arlington Heights yet (meaning they could still back out), and their plan seems to be partially dependent upon a tax incentive package that the State of Illinois must pass, which is getting some pushback.rono3849 wrote:It's all but done. The Bears have told the city of Chicago that they plan to leave. Mayor Lightfoot is publicly upset, so I fully expect them to leave Soldier Field, which they've already upgraded once.Addison wrote:The Chicago Bears moving to Arlington Heights is not a done deal yet, FWIW...
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Like to hear the odds of the HSR ever becoming a reality. Hopefully if it resuscitates, this latest DCC option accommodates it and the FW extension.tamtagon wrote:Looks like the HSR station made the fly through
Re: Dallas Convention Center
It's a good guess but I think the main money being saved is on not building park deck itself.IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:I believe there are restrictions on how much of a highway can be covered before ventilation equipment has to be installed. I guess leaving that gap open is a cost-saving measure to avoid having to do that.
I'm pretty sure they would have to build deck park clear from Hotel to Akard to enclose a KWP volume of space, and ventilation wasn't a primary budget driver on KWP, was it? I'm curious to anyone here who has that knowledge available.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
In some situations, the need to add ventilation also requires the acquisition of further right-of-way to house the ventilation infrastructure, further escalating costs.
NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 502 does not mandate that mechanical ventilation be provided in tunnels less than 1000 m (3280 ft.) long, but does require an engineering analysis be performed. Historically, for short tunnels, common practice is that they are not mechanically ventilated. However, societal awareness about the serious nature of fires in road tunnels, coupled with the development of NFPA 502, has led to a need to demonstrate quantitatively whether mechanical ventilation is needed. NFPA 502 states that emergency ventilation shall not be required in tunnels less than 3280 feet in length, where it can be shown by an engineering analysis that the level of safety provided by a mechanical ventilation system is equaled or exceeded by enhancing the means of egress or the use of natural ventilation.
NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 502 does not mandate that mechanical ventilation be provided in tunnels less than 1000 m (3280 ft.) long, but does require an engineering analysis be performed. Historically, for short tunnels, common practice is that they are not mechanically ventilated. However, societal awareness about the serious nature of fires in road tunnels, coupled with the development of NFPA 502, has led to a need to demonstrate quantitatively whether mechanical ventilation is needed. NFPA 502 states that emergency ventilation shall not be required in tunnels less than 3280 feet in length, where it can be shown by an engineering analysis that the level of safety provided by a mechanical ventilation system is equaled or exceeded by enhancing the means of egress or the use of natural ventilation.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
I just recalled that Kansas City built their convention center spanning I-35 quite a few years ago - 1990s? It looks pretty mice...
https://guides.library.cornell.edu/mice/industry
https://guides.library.cornell.edu/mice/industry
- MC_ScattCat
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 26 Jun 2019 16:12
Re: Dallas Convention Center
It was the 90s I was a kid living there at the time. They even had a big contest to local artists for designs on the metal sculptures at the top of the support columns. Each column has a different sculpture.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
The CC could definitely be built over I-30, probably with similar jet fans as KWP. My guess is that the recent CC footprint change is likely for the following reasons: avoids ROW acquisition (potential eminent domain), allows for more actual park over I-30 since CC is now not taking that space, maybe some cost savings, and most importantly it avoids being constrained to upcoming (and unknown) I-30 rebuild timeline. The new DCC is already being marketed for 2030 so not a lot of wiggle room for delays. TxDOT undoubtedly prefers a simpler park construction over highway than an active CC construction project. Would be a coordination nightmare.Tucy wrote:In some situations, the need to add ventilation also requires the acquisition of further right-of-way to house the ventilation infrastructure, further escalating costs.
NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 502 does not mandate that mechanical ventilation be provided in tunnels less than 1000 m (3280 ft.) long, but does require an engineering analysis be performed. Historically, for short tunnels, common practice is that they are not mechanically ventilated. However, societal awareness about the serious nature of fires in road tunnels, coupled with the development of NFPA 502, has led to a need to demonstrate quantitatively whether mechanical ventilation is needed. NFPA 502 states that emergency ventilation shall not be required in tunnels less than 3280 feet in length, where it can be shown by an engineering analysis that the level of safety provided by a mechanical ventilation system is equaled or exceeded by enhancing the means of egress or the use of natural ventilation.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Here is the D Magazine article about the convention center. It is positive overall.
One item of note is that the Dallas Streetcar extension into downtown has been waiting on the final design of the convention center and the associated changes in area streets.
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... -downtown/
One item of note is that the Dallas Streetcar extension into downtown has been waiting on the final design of the convention center and the associated changes in area streets.
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2 ... -downtown/
- Hannibal Lecter
- Posts: 830
- Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57
Re: Dallas Convention Center
^ So one archaic money pit is waiting on the final design of another archaic money pit?
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Hmmmn... Fair Park loses 24% of its funding. Convention Center loses 6.67% Seems fair.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
I look forward to learning more about this as that reporter didn't tell us much (and pretty clearly didn't understand what she was reporting).Tucy wrote:Hmmmn... Fair Park loses 24% of its funding. Convention Center loses 6.67% Seems fair.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
The same old Dallas bullshit. Living Large are we?
"To love ..(a).. city and to have a part in its advancement and improvement is the highest priority and duty of a citizen."
Daniel Burnham, 1909
Daniel Burnham, 1909
- IcedCowboyCoffee
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22
Re: Dallas Convention Center
An exclusive look at what we'll inevitably get:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Sounds about rightIcedCowboyCoffee wrote:An exclusive look at what we'll inevitably get:
- Hannibal Lecter
- Posts: 830
- Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Don't worry. The Fair Park share will soon be down to renovating a couple corny dog stands.Tucy wrote:Hmmmn... Fair Park loses 24% of its funding. Convention Center loses 6.67% Seems fair.
Fair Park has served it's purpose -- conning people into voting for the tax increase, thinking that the money was going to the park.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
SMH. I don’t know what to say. Dallas was built by banking execs that saw the growth of Dallas as good for business. Now, it’s real estate developers and a weak city government where the only goal is to slap up more cookie cutter apartment buildings that increase the tax base - for now.
It’s that, and then this propensity for sanitized, boring urban areas like the Arts District. This fetish with “family friendly” - every downtown pocket park has to be suitable for 3-8 year old children. Where is the quality-of-life development for adults who live here? Austin and Houston are running laps around Dallas.
It blows my mind how Dallas refuses to invest in anything that could make Dallas shine, give us all a reason to be here… like Fair Park should be. I remember reading a story from the original article 40 years ago about moving FP institutions to the Arts District. Even then they said the city needs to invest in FP. Nothing changes. Trinity River development is the same.
It’s that, and then this propensity for sanitized, boring urban areas like the Arts District. This fetish with “family friendly” - every downtown pocket park has to be suitable for 3-8 year old children. Where is the quality-of-life development for adults who live here? Austin and Houston are running laps around Dallas.
It blows my mind how Dallas refuses to invest in anything that could make Dallas shine, give us all a reason to be here… like Fair Park should be. I remember reading a story from the original article 40 years ago about moving FP institutions to the Arts District. Even then they said the city needs to invest in FP. Nothing changes. Trinity River development is the same.
- potatocoins
- Posts: 287
- Joined: 18 May 2021 14:01
Re: Dallas Convention Center
I do agree that Fair Park and the Trinity River are very underutilized assets.
With that said, I guess I'm still looking forward to this CC re-do. Ideally we could have gotten more money towards Fair Park, but when we voted on this the options were to either put money into the CC and Fair Park or no money at all. Of those two options, I'm happy with the outcome.
With that said, I guess I'm still looking forward to this CC re-do. Ideally we could have gotten more money towards Fair Park, but when we voted on this the options were to either put money into the CC and Fair Park or no money at all. Of those two options, I'm happy with the outcome.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Every time I see Austin, I wish Downtown Dallas could get a little some of that. What they've got going on down there is crazy. They've managed to overtake our skyline in height. Not surprised by it though...BigD5349 wrote:SMH. I don’t know what to say. Dallas was built by banking execs that saw the growth of Dallas as good for business. Now, it’s real estate developers and a weak city government where the only goal is to slap up more cookie cutter apartment buildings that increase the tax base - for now.
It’s that, and then this propensity for sanitized, boring urban areas like the Arts District. This fetish with “family friendly” - every downtown pocket park has to be suitable for 3-8 year old children. Where is the quality-of-life development for adults who live here? Austin and Houston are running laps around Dallas.
It blows my mind how Dallas refuses to invest in anything that could make Dallas shine, give us all a reason to be here… like Fair Park should be. I remember reading a story from the original article 40 years ago about moving FP institutions to the Arts District. Even then they said the city needs to invest in FP. Nothing changes. Trinity River development is the same.
Dallas skyscrapers don’t stack up to the booming Houston and Austin skylines
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/rea ... -skylines/
Dallas is losing Texas’ tall building race.
Both Houston and Austin now top Big D in terms of skyscrapers, according to a new report by Texas Real Estate Source.
Houston’s high-rises total 30,498 feet tall when combined. In Austin, tall buildings add up to almost 24,000 feet in height.
Dallas stacks up to only about 22,000 combined feet of skyscrapers.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
That article is so flawed. We have limitations here in height due to FAA restrictions due to being under Love Field flight path. Neither Austin or Houston have that. Also we have a much more urban experience surrounding downtown with much more density and more to come. I love a tall building but I would not want to sacrifice overall density for just a small looped downtown with supertalls that fall off into low rise neighborhoods as you leave it. To get more tall buildings in Dallas we need to convince more businesses and people to move to the center of our city, that is the real challenge not height.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
The height restrictions are a challenge, but aren't a show stopper by any means for a serious developer, as this can be worked around on the edges of downtown (see the Portman and Goldman Sachs sites as examples).Cbdallas wrote:That article is so flawed. We have limitations here in height due to FAA restrictions due to being under Love Field flight path. Neither Austin or Houston have that. Also we have a much more urban experience surrounding downtown with much more density and more to come. I love a tall building but I would not want to sacrifice overall density for just a small looped downtown with supertalls that fall off into low rise neighborhoods as you leave it. To get more tall buildings in Dallas we need to convince more businesses and people to move to the center of our city, that is the real challenge not height.
I'd say these are much bigger hurdles for Dallas:
1. Houston & Austin have very quick permitting & rezoning (well, Houston doesn't really have much zoning) processes. In an era of high inflation and labor shrotages, time is money, and developers ain't got time to pussyfoot around for months with Dallas' slow & dysfunctional process.
2. Downtown Dallas is not the geographic nor population center of DFW (for now, Addison, Carrollton and Irving are) and it's bleeding workers/companies. Developers take note of this and become convinced the demand isn't there. Meanwhile, downtown's Houston and Austin *ARE* the geographic/population centers of their regions.
3. With Austin especially, they have a ton of Big Tech money floating around. In many cities, the skyscrapers that are getting built are primarily residential and these projects are only profitable for developers to buil if they can charge a price that only high income earners (which Big Tech workers are) can afford.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
$2.8 billion Dallas convention center, I-30 deck park project contract to be awarded to affiliate of local developer
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... thews.html
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... thews.html
The Dallas City Council is slated to consider awarding a contract on Wednesday for project management services for the nearly $3 billion expansion of the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas and a proposed deck park over Interstate 30.
Inspire Dallas LLC, an entity tied to Lewisville-based real estate development firm Matthews Southwest, appears to be the frontrunner for a $65 million, six-year professional services contract, according to supporting documents posted with a city agenda on Monday.
Seven proposals were received for project management services for the implementation of the first component of a master plan that includes the expansion of the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas and proposed deck park and the demolition of the existing convention center, according to the city.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
And 7 more on DBJ at that link
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
New convention center footprint now includes part of former Dallas Morning News HQ
DMN site was previously proposed for boutique hotel, apartments and a concert venue
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... hwest.html
DMN site was previously proposed for boutique hotel, apartments and a concert venue
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... hwest.html
The facade of the new convention center will remain the same, Fleming said, but the footprint has been modified due to requests by the Texas Department of Transportation to use a flyover bridge for Union Pacific Railroad construction and staging space for dirt and equipment for construction on Interstate 30.
Fleming said new footprint is also meant to avoid conflict with the creation of a high-speed rail system near the convention center. In January, the Dallas Transportation and Infrastructure Committee discussed the potential for an elevated walkway, or "people mover," that would connect the already proposed high-speed rail station in the Cedars to the convention center and the Eddie Bernice Johnson Union Station, which is being reimagined as a multi-modal transportation hub, KERA reported.
- IcedCowboyCoffee
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Well my gut reaction is "ugh."
Part of what made the previous footprint appealing to me was that it built on top of the worst piece of land in all of downtown. Now it's not touching it at all. So this lot is destined to remain a lot now.
Part of what made the previous footprint appealing to me was that it built on top of the worst piece of land in all of downtown. Now it's not touching it at all. So this lot is destined to remain a lot now.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
It's definitely an improvement in general, but... I hope that lot is repurposed for something.
- IcedCowboyCoffee
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22
Re: Dallas Convention Center
The council powerpoint presentation is here:
https://cityofdallas.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=fe4104e6-83e2-4135-b77c-e22aef52ea07.pdf
Original orientation: New orientation: I can't watch the council meeting, but here's a Dallas Morning News article with more context:
I'm sorry, am I reading this right? We're radically altering a 1.2 billion dollar, 40+ year commitment project for the sake of a temporary construction staging space??? They mentioned the Union Pacific/HSR but that just feels tacked on to pad the excuse.
"Overbuild and reorientation of facility provides connectivity to Lot "E"
Lot "E" connectivity will enhance the facility's functionality in the following areas:
• Logistics
• Marshaling
• Potential parking
solutions
• Central plant location"
So, a surface lot it shall remain.
I was disappointed the convention center plans changed from going over the highway to then building ontop of this lot, but I warmed up to it because it was difficult to imagine how this lot would otherwise be built on. Now it's not doing either. It DOES at least address the problem I had of people being in the convention center in this distant plot of land having a hell of a trek to get to an exit that leads into downtown. So I dunno. Inside me are two wolves and they're both idiots who are impossible to please.
But the new master plan for the reunion site seemed at least somewhat possible if the convention center had stuck to the orientation of building on top of this lot.
https://cityofdallas.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=fe4104e6-83e2-4135-b77c-e22aef52ea07.pdf
Original orientation: New orientation: I can't watch the council meeting, but here's a Dallas Morning News article with more context:
- As convention center gets shift, some on Council say southern Dallas still not benefittingRosa Fleming, the city’s convention and event services director, said Monday that plans for the Texas Department of Transportation to widen nearby I-30 have led to the city planning to shift the new convention center north to free up a parking lot for state workers to use.
I'm sorry, am I reading this right? We're radically altering a 1.2 billion dollar, 40+ year commitment project for the sake of a temporary construction staging space??? They mentioned the Union Pacific/HSR but that just feels tacked on to pad the excuse.
Well...R1070 wrote:It's definitely an improvement in general, but... I hope that lot is repurposed for something.
"Overbuild and reorientation of facility provides connectivity to Lot "E"
Lot "E" connectivity will enhance the facility's functionality in the following areas:
• Logistics
• Marshaling
• Potential parking
solutions
• Central plant location"
So, a surface lot it shall remain.
I was disappointed the convention center plans changed from going over the highway to then building ontop of this lot, but I warmed up to it because it was difficult to imagine how this lot would otherwise be built on. Now it's not doing either. It DOES at least address the problem I had of people being in the convention center in this distant plot of land having a hell of a trek to get to an exit that leads into downtown. So I dunno. Inside me are two wolves and they're both idiots who are impossible to please.
But the new master plan for the reunion site seemed at least somewhat possible if the convention center had stuck to the orientation of building on top of this lot.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by IcedCowboyCoffee on 07 Feb 2024 12:20, edited 1 time in total.
- IcedCowboyCoffee
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 23 Mar 2022 13:22
Re: Dallas Convention Center
Also, weird bit is just how much they are changing the expectations for the convention center's ""deck"" park lol. Of course no formal design was ever put forth, but with every new look at the convention center's possible plans it keeps becoming less of a deck.
We started with putting the convention structure itself on top of the highway with a deckpark extending generously away from it. Cool but obviously a distant pipedream.
Then the possible plan went to the convention center structure will still be on top of the highway but with a small deck park feature in front of it with a large gap and possible deck park further down the highway. Then the possible plan went to the convention center will only abutt the highway with a small deck park covering the highway next to it, and now we are at the "deck" park is probably just a decorative sidewalk connecting us to a small park space on the other side of the highway lol. I know a lot more planning process is ahead of us, but they're really trying to keep these expectations as low as possible
We started with putting the convention structure itself on top of the highway with a deckpark extending generously away from it. Cool but obviously a distant pipedream.
Then the possible plan went to the convention center structure will still be on top of the highway but with a small deck park feature in front of it with a large gap and possible deck park further down the highway. Then the possible plan went to the convention center will only abutt the highway with a small deck park covering the highway next to it, and now we are at the "deck" park is probably just a decorative sidewalk connecting us to a small park space on the other side of the highway lol. I know a lot more planning process is ahead of us, but they're really trying to keep these expectations as low as possible
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Dallas Convention Center
So Dallas
"To love ..(a).. city and to have a part in its advancement and improvement is the highest priority and duty of a citizen."
Daniel Burnham, 1909
Daniel Burnham, 1909