5 years ago

[rantanamo]

http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/photo-survey/photos/0525.jpg
http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/photo-survey/photos/0482.jpg http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/photo-survey/photos/0526.jpg

[jsoto3]

AWESOME!!

Where did you get those? Are there more?!

[psukhu]

It's hard to believe how much progress has been made. What’s even more amazing is that the momentum has been maintained throughout the down economic cycle. It will be fun to see what happens in the next five years now that money is beginning to flow again.

[aceplace]

The changes are truly something wonderful... to think that a suburban, Sunbelt city would evolve urban neighborhoods... and we can wonder why it just started happening in the 1990s, why hasn't it been happening for the last 50 years.

At any rate, we're in a full-fledged urban boom now. Steve Brown's column in the DMN last Friday mentioned that the apartment market in Dallas was in decline, everywhere except Uptown (and the Old Downtown, he forgot to mention.)

Amazingly, very few people outside of Texas know that Dallas has an urban center.They judge our city by the office buildings on LBJ. I guess we need to keep spreading the word.

BTW, Rantanamo, thanks for the pictures.

[JBB]

Okay, a little help for the Dallas-idiot over here. Where is that and what are we looking for that is significant?

edit: Central and Woodall Rogers?

[rantanamo]

Sorry about not putting up much info on the pics. These are from the 800-1000+ pics in the NCTCOG aerial traffic survey. There are some truly awesome pics as well as some that would make you ashamed. They are from '98/'99 and really shows one how much DFW has grown in just the last 5 years.

For those that don't know Dallas so well, this is indeed Woodall Rogers and Central. As far as what to look for, I guess I'll go pic by pic:

In the first pic, Central is running left to right. Notice there are only 2 lanes each way. To the Upper right of the interchange is State-Thomas. For those who don't know about State-Thomas go here for ground level pics http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1279

or go here for aerials
http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=432

Also below Central you can see a housing project(as in public housing) that has since been totally demolished and rebuilt (still as a housing project) but in the form of nice townhomes.

The second is essentially the same pic rotated 45 counterclockwise. Gives a nice aerial of the Post Uptown Village, and a bunch of lots. Really shows off where State and Thomas has come from in the last 5 years. Nothing short of incredible.

The last pic is a little to the north of the other two. You can make out that only half of Central was completed. Also notice the width of the Central overpasses. Pure greatness I think. Almost like decks. You can see where that apt complex with the large clock next to Cityplace is being constructed. Again, you can see the large amount of open space in State-Thomas on the left of the pic. For those who don't know, these lots are essentially filled new urbanist development. There are but a few left, and they are all pretty much planned for development or have development being constructed. The Wal-mart site can be seen well in this pic. Hope they do something nice with that prime location.

[jsoto3]

Rantanamo,

Can you please provide a direct link to the NCTCOG aerial traffic survey?

[rantanamo]

http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/photo-survey/

The download is big, but I recommend it to anyone who has the speed or patience to download it. There's a viewer there, but it's almost useless without downloading the pics first to know the numbers. Plus if you download them you can look at your own leisure. There are a ton of pics and they are not labeled at all.

Awesome examples that should depress us, but have a certain majesty to them


http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/photo-survey/photos/0773.jpg
http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/photo-survey/photos/0840.jpg
http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/photo-survey/photos/0829.jpg

[CTroyMathis]

Good thread rantanamo...


And, sweet freakin' jeez - that DNT photo by the Galleria is wow (in a frightening way, heh.)

[CTroyMathis]

You know, I should download that just for fun. I usually just guess at a number to input and when I find something interesting - hover up or down to the next numbers. Such a great resource!

[aceplace]

The way those photos are shot... long telephoto... brings into focus the worst excesses of 20th century urban style... its monumentality and its overbearing suffocation.

It's a reminder of the social forces and the drives of urban history that took our downtown away from us.

[freewaytincan]

Holy crap, aceplace, despite sounding like an art critic (hey, monumentality and suffocation in the same sentence, that's something I never thought was possible!), you are so incredibly...right.

I don't know how to say that better, just that I couldn't have said it better myself.

[tamtagon]

Without such monumental and overbearing excesses, cities like Dallas would not be prosperous. Urban sprawl, with it's outrageous highways full of hardly occupied vehicles, is a direct result of giving people what they want.

"Some people believe that highways are the cathedrals of our time; not me." --from Ture Stories.

While it is true that this style of development retarded the CBD, it will also be responsible for the rebirth of downtown Dallas (using the word "Dallas" to mean a place where people live and work, rather than a governmantal entity). We may bawk at the vulgarity some perceive in the growth of towns like Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, Plano, and most recently Frisco. But these cities are just beginning the cyclic nature of primarily residential areas within a large metropolis. As the pioneer families of the "new" suburban cities age, their needs change, and a big house w/yard is not necessary. Most homeowning families eventually sell the house which raised a family. When the student popluation of Plano schools reach consistency from year to year, the city may have reached an equilibrium between departing retirees and beginning families moving in. Dallas and most 'new' cities are very fortunate to have conveniently located suburban neighborhoods providing an entact suburban setting. It does take decades for the cycle to reveal itself, and the dynamics are not fully understood - it's never happened quite like this.

Dallas is approaching a time in it's development when more jobs will be located in the central city. The scope of business activity is broadening, and public transportation is offering an alternative to individual commutes. Entire sections of the central city are being rebuilt. Just as Plano went from a tiny farming/ranching town to a residential/business city of 250,000, the same is now happening to central Dallas - Uptown and West Village are our current examples. This redevelopment is a direct result of giving people what they want. Millions of transplants raised hundreds of thousands of children in Dallas (the metropolitian stastical area) who prefer a dense urban area with all kinds of stuff happening - just like most young single people. In the next 10-15 years, residential population within a mile of the CBD could grow easily to 100,000+ as a new style of urban development unfolds. Presently, high dollar midrise and highrise condo/apts are reshaping the Uptown skyline. Soon, more moderately prices (and of course with less amenities) mid & high rise buildings will complete the build out of uptown.

In 10 years, no one will be compelled to say they hardly see any people walking on McKinney. In such time if the statement is presented, inexact grammar would not be the only potential error bringing about a pompous, santimonious attack upon the poster. In fact, more pervasive emotional reactions would be of confusion over the criteria used to define what the poster would consider 'a lot of people.'

[psukhu]

Good post.

Here’s an interesting correlation: The American metros that are currently the most prosperous also have the worst auto traffic congestion.

I think Philly has the best traffic out of any major metro. I guess the construction there has caught up with the population. Philly population hasn’t grown much since the 1980s.

[aceplace]

Urban sprawl, with it's outrageous highways full of hardly occupied vehicles, is a direct result of giving people what they want.

Unfortunately, no. The urban sprawl model of housing was the only choice anyone was given, until the New Urbanism revolution of the 1990's.

The commercial marketplace, and quasi-governmental bodies such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc, ensured that housing loans were only available, in realistic quantities, for suburban sprawl housing.

Add to this the practice of subsidizing freeway construction for urban transportation, at the expense of other transit modes, and our society was locked into an urban pattern, as pathological, in its own way, as the Soviet Economy was in its.

Now that consumers have a realistic choice in their housing, and central office space is becoming valued more for its location than as a square-foot commodity, we are seeing the economic collapse of freeway office space and edge city construction all over Dallas.

It's not just an historic coincidence that monumental building styles (as we see along LBJ and the North Dallas Tollway) are similar to the architectural schemes of Hitler's Third Reich.

[tamtagon]

The commercial marketplace, and quasi-governmental bodies such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc, ensured that housing loans were only available, in realistic quantities, for suburban sprawl housing.

Duh. The people wanted houses in the suburbs, so the marketplace responded - and created a very profitable industry. Eventually, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came along so "high risk" poor people could buy a house in the suburbs without being financially raped through high interest rates offered by the affluent.


The urban sprawl model of housing was the only choice anyone was given, until the New Urbanism revolution of the 1990's.

Ace, come on, think about it. Sorry, but that's wrong and indicates either a myoptic worldview or a hastily offered comment. Since the 1950s affordable and very convenient auto transportation opened up to families the NEW option of rasing a family in a spacious suburban setting RATHER THAN the crowded city. Everyone was having kids, and everyone who could afford it wanted to live outside of the city. What we now call urban sprawl was once called the American Dream. A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage.

New Urbanism is less of a revolution, and more of a realization of what is convenient - and indicates that the marketplace is once again responding to what the people want. Children of the suburbs want to live in the city as young adults. That independent lifestyle is anticipated by millions of teens across the country who feel trapped in the suburbs, and for the first time, the sunbelt cities will become more dimentional. Perhaps the early 2000s will eventually be noted less for its technological innovations but rather for lifestyle innovations.

[aceplace]

Sorry, Tamtagon, you have a poor ides of what Dallas was like in the 1930s and 1940s. Before massive Federal intervention reduced the available choices for housing.

The general population in Dallas had no particular desire in those days to live in Plano or Carrollton, or any other suburbs. They wanted better housing, to be sure, but in the context of existing neighborhoods, within walking distance to shops, well served by transit, in streets that were part of the grid of Dallas.

In a normal market, there is a wide range of choices... check out the Central Market food store at US75 and Lovers to see the blinding array of goods for sale.

In the perverted market for housing created by Federal intervention, there was essentially one basic choice for everyone... take it or leave it.

Are you trying to prove that out of the entire population of America since 1950, the suburban sprawl model was the ONLY one that people wanted?

Actually, it is not. In public opinion polls, people consistently express preferences for urban villages... houses within walking distance of shops, or a small downtown, community with neighbors, and so forth...

The suburban sprawl of the 1970s and 1960s has now become the ghettoes of the 2000s, with crashing housing values, ramshackle, deteriorating streets, crime problems.

And what are the sustainable neighborhoods today in Dallas? Yes, those neighborhoods from the 1930s, built in what has now become the New Urbanism style...

It's pretty clear that massive government intervention on the free market forced a uniform housing style upon America... if you claim that that's what everyone wanted without exception... you'd better do some more explaining...

[tamtagon]

Ace, you seem to suffer from a from a peculiar form of egotism which renders you mostly void of self-awareness, incapable of objectivity, and confines your seemingly very capable intellect to select a view of facts - both historical and those of current events - which only support your initial point of view. Please make great haste to reference the mental health particulars of the insurance so graciously provided to you by your employeer and select a therapist or support group. Apply in triplicate, make sure a soulless corporate entity will shoulder the financial cost of your treatment, even though many people would select to self-pay for these services to hide evidence of a mental defect (a very very big step for you, I understand, but think of it as a first step to recovery - if you can even conceive of seeking assistance, there is still a glimmer of hope) The years of intensive reprogramming required to bring you back to the world of the living and productive will test the purse strings of even the most financially secure. Well, that was fun.


Before massive Federal intervention reduced the available choices for housing. Are you refering to the intervention which was the govt's mode to keep families off the street; The Great Depression eliminated all choices, not the governmental response to a nation of starving homeless. In addition to providing a financial structure allowing home ownership, the govt also provided jobs to thousands. It would be interesting to read your take on how the govt thwarted an efficient marketplace through the publics works projects initiated during the great depression.


Are you trying to prove that out of the entire population of America since 1950, the suburban sprawl model was the ONLY one that people wanted? No, silly goose, of course not, I'm not really trying to prove anything; is your paranoia forcing these mongoloid ideas to surface? Perhaps my inexact grammar and over use of somewhat vague pronouns confused you. The suburban model which developed and brought millions of families to the country side, further and further from the center of the town, has just been a very popular choice of couples starting a family. It will continue to be popular until the majority of parents determine the suburban lifestyle with big houses w/yards is a less favorable environment in which children are to be raised.

Specifically, what were the choices for housing eliminated by the massive Federal intervention of the 1930s & 40s? Other than owning and renting, what else was there?

[rantanamo]

I believe Ace is referring to some of the redlining practices that insurances companies and banks were basically mandated into using. These were basically prop-ups for them, as well as the construction firms that build houses, roads, etc, as well as lumber companies and Detroit (Auto industry). I'm not going to allegate racism, classism or whatever, but I remember reading lots of cases and articles about these practices in policy and sociology classes. There were very racist and classist tones to these practices. I remember a case where a section of St. Louis had a red line drawn around it on a map. This was a working class "black" neighborhood. And 3 other colors were used for neighborhoods throughout St. Louis. The colors were labeled A, B, C, and D. Basically A's could get loans to move to certain subdivisions, which were new sprawling subdivisions out in the burbs along new expressways. B could get closer in loans. C could get closer, and D could not get them. Does anyone know what I'm referring to? I don't remember this being discussed in a particular book, but in almost a journal full of articles from the 30s, 40, and 50s. Anyways, I say sprawl was not a want of the majority, rather a slow campaign of economic engine building. Not a conspiracy at all. I had no idea about any of this until I began taking policy courses. Many issues such as annexation, and city government styles were brought up in the coursework. You come to find out there are no real accidents in living trends in the United States. In fact, one could say the current Urban revitalization trend is similarly government driven. Just think, TIF money, federal highway regulation penalties and rewards. The suddenly more ease of zone changes, which is still hard to do in select places, but not in the city anymore. Those ideas are hardly mongoloid, but well documented if sought out. Heck, there has even been evidence and allegation of redlining in Austin not too long ago.

Here's one
http://cml.upenn.edu/redlining/

or just type redlining into google or yahoo and see the tons of examples .

[freewaytincan]

Originally posted by rantanamo
I believe Ace is referring to some of the redlining practices that insurances companies and banks were basically mandated into using. These were basically prop-ups for them, as well as the construction firms that build houses, roads, etc, as well as lumber companies and Detroit (Auto industry).

It's called socialism, guys. You know, that's what really led to the problems we have today, or at least a major component of such. It just goes to show that government intervention in everyone's lives - every aspect - produces disasters.

[aceplace]

Tamtagon is basically claiming that sprawl is "popular". This is a classic case of Hobson's choice... either take the horse that you are assigned, or none at all. In the case of housing choices, sprawl has pretty much been the only option offered. Its "popularity" is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why is this? Government bureaus by their very nature force their regulation into narrow categories. It is simply easier for a bureau to administer home loans to a massive subdivision sprawling across many square miles of land, with uniform and predictable house prices. It is easier to evaluate and refinance a property in a sprawled subdivision with thousands of nearly identical units to establish a baseline price.

The alternative, to secure mortgages in established inner city areas, with housing values based on a multitude of factors, is simply too inconvenient for our governmental minions... so our existing city areas are basically written off thru the redlining process that Rantanamo described so well.

Another disincentive for our organic and vital established city areas is FNMAs refusal to recognize the inherently lower costs of maintaining a lifestyle in an older, non-sprawled city area. People drive less where there is adequate public transportation, families buy fewer cars when they don't need them to get a gallon of milk, they spend less on fuel and maintenance. This should qualify them for a better, more expensive home, of course.

Another aspect of sprawl is the uniformity of income levels and demographic ranges in a given sprawl zone. What does this mean? It means that the neighborhood and its housing values will eventually crash.

In a more organic neighborhood, with a variety of housing prices and demographic groups, a deteriorating house will be seen as a special case, with no implications for the rest of the neighborhood. In a sprawled sea of uniform buildings, a deteriorating house looks like a harbinger of the entire neighborhood's collapse.

For an example of this phenomenon, look at neighborhoods in Dallas like the M streets, or Lakewood, or Stevens Park. These non-sprawled neighborhoods are basically self-regenerating, with a mix of old and new, rich and modest, old people and young people. They are highly sought after because the entire neighborhood has something that appeals to a wide demographic. They constitute stable human societies.

Compare those neighborhoods to a 40 year old sprawled subdivision. Every house is old and deteriorating at the same rate, the residents are selling out to increasingly poorer, hungrier people, property values are uniformly going down... not particularly a stabilizing trend in a society.

What's the end of the sprawl cycle? Whatever it is, I hope it happens quickly.

What would our cities have been like if our governments had not had a social policy encouraging sprawl? That's a good subject also... anyone else want to comment?

[rantanamo]

Originally posted by UrbanLandscape
It's called socialism, guys. You know, that's what really led to the problems we have today, or at least a major component of such. It just goes to show that government intervention in everyone's lives - every aspect - produces disasters.



For all the problems created, government intervention in these cases also produced the very fortunate lives that many of us have lived. We have to put this into context. We have hindsight that is very clear now, but back then we had a lot of growing up to do as a country, and were not having the greatest time of it.

As for government intervention, I see it as a constant. It's not going away for better or for worse. We tend to want it when times are bad, and claim we hate it when times are good. No intervention in depressionary times, and maybe we never come out of the depression. I can see places where they are in it too deep right now, as well as places where they need to take control. Our opinion of it is purely based on need for it. It's not bad or good. In the case of "forced sprawl" it is neither good nor bad, but a choice to become the most powerful nation in the world by working new cynergies that other nations couldn't work at the time. The market, LOL. I always laugh when a reporter says the market is driving something. The market drives nothing. It is driven. HDTV, mandated by the government. DVDs, same as HDTV. PC contracts by the gov basically kill the Mac. Windows. SUVs(Yes there are SUV tax breaks) . Like it or not this is how this and any other nation works besides maybe Switzerland.

The above is not a judgement, as I am very neutral on the subject. I wish the market could control itself, and that people really want to ride DART, live urban, and watch HDTV. But I know better having studied a little bit of policy.

[mikedsjr]

Interesting pics. Look at how much concrete was poured.

Welcome to the Concrete Jungle.

[tamtagon]

Has anyone seen any aerial pics of the High 5 enterchange that could be posted here? I wonder if a cinematographer thought to create a time lapsed collection of the High 5 construction. That would be cool. I also wonder if we'll see a localized construction boom once the highway connections are done.

[LakeHighlands]

Plenty more like this. http://www.houstonfreeways.com/modern/dfw_high_five_2003-12.aspx