Lower Greenville: Cityville Greenville

[rantanamo]

Was I the only one to see this story on the evening news? Seems a developer wants to do 3 or 4 stories of apts/ground retail. The residents seemed to disagree with the size. Any stories on this yet?

[gc]

I saw the teaser but missed the segment.

[dallastophoenix]

which news station?

[rantanamo]

I saw it on wfaa. Looked very nice. It was mentioned as a renovation as well as tearing down a structure to build a 3-4 story luxury apt complex above retail. Several million dollar renovation was the way they put it.

[psukhu]

I just saw it on NBC 5 on Friday morning.

It looks similar to 1001 Ross. The developer said they were going to have shops for the residents like Star Bucks and Mail Boxes etc.


Of course they showed the Lower Greenville residents speaking out against it.

Why do the residents in Lower Greenville expect their neighborhood to stay 1940's suburban when the live near the center of one of the largest, fastest growing cities in the country?

On the other side, why do businesses fight with residents to be there? Those businesses would be welcome in other parts of the city.

[mikedsjr]

I back the residents of that community before i back the business. They are not trying to get rid of the developement. They want to protect their residential streets. If they are going to build something in this area like they have shown, why not build an underground garage?

Residents were reportedly told it was going to be no more than two stories. The plan showed 3.

[aceplace]

The new development will help the neighborhood, not hurt it.

Here's why.

The building will include adequate parking for the retail on the ground floor. This retail will replace or at least supplement existing retail without parking.

If all the current parkingless retail on Greenville were replaced with developments like this, then there would be no more parkers on neighborhood streets. No more stress on the neighorhoods. Probably much less mugging of drunks going down a dark street to find his car.

What about people visiting tenants in the residential building?

Current parking requirements allow for that contingency, don't they?

......................

I'm following the construction of the multi-family by the same developer currently going up on Live Oak and Peak, and he's creating a pretty delightful neighborhood there... a good mix of residential and retail... this should be even better.

[dallastophoenix]

i agree w/ aceplace. why wouldn't this help the neighborhood? if the developers were wanting to build a suburban style building, then i think we all would be complaining - but this is supposed to be more urban (right?)... in fact, it would likely tie into the neighborhood better than some of those tacky 1970's storefronts...

[tamtagon]

Why do the residents in Lower Greenville expect their neighborhood to stay 1940's suburban when the live near the center of one of the largest, fastest growing cities in the country?

That's the best part about living there.

[CTroyMathis]

From the Barking Doggies:

Apartment/retail development proposed for Lower Greenville
FirstWorthing makes presentation on $22 million project
January 23, 2004
http://www.barkingdogs.org/html/012304_apartments.shtml

Neighborhood residents had their first look at a proposed $22 million residential / commercial development on Lower Greenville at the Joint Neighborhood Meeting last evening at The Arcadia.

FirstWorthing asked for this joint meeting so they could present their plans and begin the community input process with area residents. The meeting was sponsored by Belmont NA and Lowest Greenville NA. Our thanks to The Arcadia Theatre for hosting this event.

Slated to be built on three acres of land owned or occupied by Kiser Air Conditioning and Heating, along with contiguous properties, the 220-250 unit apartments will be the first major development on Greenville in nearly 50 years, by some estimates.

The development will be built on the west side of Greenville on the land surrounded by Summit, Greenville, Alta and Lewis. It does not include land currently occupied by Taco Cabana or Big Foot Productions (occupying the former Masonic Lodge).

Contracts on all land parcels are pending a review and approval by the City’s Plan Commission and City Council, which may not happen until May or June. This meeting was the first of many public meetings that will be needed in order to bring a final plan to the Council.

The issues that are yet to be decided - among many others - are density, infrastructure, traffic and height of the buildings various faces. As was noted at the meeting, the devil is in the details and the process is not over.

[trolleygirl]

One comment on the neighbors on Lower Greenville "fighting" with businesses all the time and that's just to say that most of the residents (and I mean ~ 90% of the homeowners, and not just the renters, don't have one problem with the businesses per se, they just want the businesses to adhere to the letter and spirit of the laws in this City and State. And we all know that most businesses, if given the opportunity. will break every law that they can get away with, especially if they are not challenged. Some of those businesses are just simply bad neighbors, in that, they refuse to take any iota of responsibility for the kinds of problems that their very exsistence creates for the residents.
For example, if your next door neighbor had a big party and 200 people showed up and parked cars all over your street where you couldn't even get into your driveway, blocked your driveway, urinated and vomited and passed out in your shrubs, threw beer bottles all over your yard, had sex in their cars in front your home and left their condoms in the street for your kids to pick up, and you went over to your neighbor's house and asked him nicely to ask his guests to please park on one side of the street and not block driveways and to have a little respect for the neighborhood (especially when most of his guests don't live anywhere near the neighborhood), and your neighbor instead laughed at you and slammed the door in your face, you'd be pretty upset. You'd want a meeting with your other neighbors. You'd call the cops. You'd have cars towed away. You'd call your City Council Representative. You'd want someone to help you have a voice, and that's what's been going on over there for all these years. But, and even Avi will admit this, it is getting better.
I feel for those residents, they have been getting shafted by being slpit into three different Council districts, they have been getting shafted by Aw Shucks and the Rack Room for so many years and seemingly fighting in vain, any jerk can see that this neighborhood would be easy to take advantage of- they have no political clout and are viewed by the public as a bunch of old whiney windbags. SO why bother telling them anything?

[aceplace]

Trolleygirl,

I would think that urban redesign would solve a lot of the urban nuisance problem.

Why are the drunks in the neighbors' yards? On the way to their cars.

So, just enact no-parking zones on the adjacent streets. If someone parks there, a resident can call a tow company.

A resident doesn't want drunks on his front yard?

Why, oh why, do we have an urban design that mandates an unfenced front yard? In many other civilized countries, people have a high wall around their front yard, just to eliminate this sort of problem.

In Dallas, the front yards are not meant to be used by the house dweller... they are meant to provide a swath of visual beauty to passersby, and to emulate, in a small way, the look of an English country house set in parkland.

This is obviously not an appropriate land use for the immediate edges of an entertainment district.

Should Lower Greenville go away in order to accomodate the convenience of the adjacent homeowners?

Only if the homeowners can replace the enormous tax payments (property tax and sales tax) currently supplied by the district. Of course they cannot...

Bottom line... stop pretending that Greenville is a suburban avenue from the 1950's which has temporarily been overwhelmed by barbarians. Redesign Greenville to accommodate its highest and best use - an entertainment strip, while at the same time protecting the immediate neighbors.

Or... buy out the neighbors and convert their land to parking lots.

[mikedsjr]

Thanks TGirl, for that additional info.

[AviAdelman]

I am the editor of the BarkingDogs website, as well as the president of the Belmont Neighborhood Association.

I found this forum by following some links in my website visitor logs (I am also a geek - web design and print production).

There are just a few points I wanted to throw into as answers to comments made here.

--- Due to variances and city of dallas ignorance, we are short nearly 700 spaces in the area for the current business uses. Some of the streets do have Resident Only Parking (and I helped raise nearly $3000 for this), some have parking on one side only (Dallas Fire Dept requirements that we demanded apply here).

But when the property owners wanted to build parking lots on multi-levels, we said fine, as long as the neighborhood is closed to non-resident parking forever. They said no, we need the lots AND the streets. End of discussion.

--- There are nearly 90 TABC licensed businesses in an area less than one mile long. The city ignores / does not see that many of them are improperly zoned as restaurants when most do not even have a kitchen. Dancing is illegal without a permit but it goes on here. Things happen on Lower Greenville in re zoning and Certificates of Occupancy that just would not be tolerated anywhere else in Dallas.

--- We are NOT anti-bar, we are pro-code compliance. We are not anti-development, we are pro-making it fit in.

--- This proposed development will happen in one form or another whether we like it or not. The trick is to refer back to the Lower Greenville Land Use Study (which was jettisoned when the Lower Greenville NA and some property owners caused it to be stillborn) and its concepts of density.

Set the stage for discussion here and use it as a basis for future development - and yes that will happen slowly but surely.

If we don't work together, we will have apts like you see in Vickery Meadows - with all the problems and none of the benefits.

--- This chunk of land is the last area without any bars on it (3 acres). If this concept falls through, the next developer will put in 15 bars without so much as a "Do you want me to wear a condom while I do this?"

--- At least FirstWorthing is talking to us. If this had been Lou Reese or The Infamous Andres (we don't own our domain name) Brothers, we would just wake up one day and see construction.

I look forward to more comments, but I have a request - we have set up a page on our neighborhood site for comments that will be sent to the developers. Please come by and leave your thoughts for us.

http://belmontna.org/html/firstworthing.shtml

With best regards.

ASA

[snooch]

Ace, I can tell you that the drunk a**holes who leave the bars on Greenville at 2 am on a Tuesday night aren't going to behave regardless of what kind of parking or barriers or urban design you present them with. They are barbarians, which is evidenced by them roaring up and down Greenville in their trucks, hot rods and crotch rockets at all hours.

I live in a brick apartment complex far off the street and there are about two nights a week (average) that some idiot is screaming at the top of his lungs getting in a fight or breaking beer bottles in the street at 3 in the morning. This is always on a weeknight, of course, when the rest of the civilized world has to be at work the next morning.

I don't care what anybody says, Lower Greenville was a suburban neighborhood first before it became an entertainment district, and as such the neighborhood should be respected. The architecture of the houses is beautiful and should be preserved, and the residents should not be assaulted by some dickhead who owns a sleazy techno bar just because he serves his customers too many drinks and then dumps them out into the streets late on weekday mornings. No argument against that is going to make any sense to anybody who lives there. And guess what, I think the majority of those residents would happily trade in those property taxes for more regular piece and quiet. I like San Franscisco Rose, Gloria's, and Kizmet, but I also like my sleep.

[tamtagon]

I really like the idea of new high density residential developments along Lower Greenville. If the developer just insists on mixing retail space into the design, the construction of retail parking should exceed the maximum estimated need.

If you live within a 5-10 minute walk of Greenville, stumbling drunks are just part of your neighborhood. However, the city should sponsor strategicly constructed parking facilities for a couple reasons including safety, generate revenue (even if just a little), give nearby residents street congestion relief, and just to make it easier to find a parking spot!

Starbucks on Lower Greenville, oh no. Whatever happened to Grinders?!?!

[CTroyMathis]

(Welcome to the forum AviAdelman. It's really great to have your input in 'issues et al' also!)

[evdallas]

whats wrong with people peeing in your front yard?

[aceplace]

AviAdelman,

Please clarify something you said ... do you expect the current property owners to build parking garages? Under what set of incentives should they do this for you? Also, does your organization support a zoning change to allow property owners the privilege of fencing their front yards?

Snooch, welcome to life in the city. I think the idea is to keep the drunks out of the immediate neighborhoods by denying them a reason to go there... ie no parking.

Proper urban redesign would create an urban buffer between the noisy Greenville Ave strip and the residential neighborhoods. And create visual and physical barriers to the movement of drunks and rowdies off of the strip.

One thing I saw in Amsterdam... a public pissoir on the main street. Drunks have a place to perform a necessary function without recourse to a dark neighborhood sidestreet.

Just as a question... if someone is drunk and rowdy, why should he be able to walk to a car and drive home? Don't the police have an interest in arresting someone for public intoxication?

Also, If a drunk, loud and rowdy, walks onto my property and menaces me, do I have a legal right to fire a weapon at him? As brutal as it sounds, a couple of "incidents" might solve your problem.

Sure, the city council makes a lot of money out of the bars there, more than they make out of the neighborhoods... and everyone, including the neighborhood residents, is motivated by self-interest. No one, the bars, the residents, is acting out of pure altruism.

[tamtagon]

walks onto my property and menaces me, do I have a legal right to fire a weapon at him?

Only if he/she enters your dwelling.

[AviAdelman]

The idea of parking garages built by the property owners or bar interests came from two sources:

- The Land Use Study w/ Lou Reese wanting to flatten the Arcadia to build a five-story apartment complex with a garage embedded in the middle (under the pool) but big enough for residents and bar patrons

- and Jeanne Terelli, who wanted us to march downtown arm in arm with business folks so we could demand the city build these underground garages all over the Lower Greenville (at taxpayer expense), “since the city won’t listen to the residents alone but will listen to the residents and business people together”

In both cases, when we asked for blocking off neighborhood streets for resident only parking, the request was denied immediately by them.

In Jeanne’s case, not one week after Resident Only Parking (ROP) was imposed on the street behind her restaurant (which means the residents voted for it and paid $400), she marched her butt to City Hall and tried to have the law changed so “my valets can use the street for parking cars for my customers.”

ROP is on several streets near the bars on Lower Greenville, and they hate every minute of it. We figured it took back about 300 parking places per night. Then we forced the Fire Department to resurvey the width of the streets – anything less than 25 feet was made No Parking on One Side so that their biggest trucks could use them in an emergency. That cost 3,000 spaces.

In both cases, the same point was made by residents – We need our streets back for our cars and families, we don’t want the noise and trash and we don’t want the drunks. We met the legal qualifications (as stacked against us as they were compared to what we wanted) and even beat the biased city survey persons who support bars, but we win.

See the current law with our suggestions for changes especially in the survey portion

Resident Only Parking Law (http://barkingdogs.org/html/legal/revised_resident_only_parking_.shtml)

We also wanted – under the Land Use Study – the buffers and greenery and sloped housing lines and all the visual/physical things that would improve the area and create the buffers over the next 20 years. That all was shot down in one fell swoop.

Trucks ignore the No Large Truck signs – barriers would just become a target for them unless they were bigger than the trucks

If someone is drunk / rowdy, that is public intoxication and an offense – our private Expanded Neighborhood Patrols (off-duty DPD officers) regularly arrests them on Friday and Saturday evenings when walking in the neighborhoods.

If someone crosses your property line after dark and you believe there is an immediate threat to your safety, you do have a right to shoot them. As the old joke goes, “just make sure they bleed on your side of the property line.” (I am not a lawyer, however)

There is no money being made out here. The sales tax and liquor taxes go to the state, who then return a portion of it to the city coffers. That income is negated by the requirements for extra city services that are NOT paid for by the bars – extra inspections, extra DPD patrols, infrastructure damage (streets and sidewalks), etc

[rantanamo]

I'm a younger person, so I don't know this. When did Lower Greenville become the "spot" that it is now? and How long have said problems been taking place, and how long have residents been fighting it out with owners and patrons. I ask this because the first time I saw Lower Greenville with my own eyes I thought it an odd location and placement. It seems like an area like the Lakewood village or that little strip at Live Oak and Haskell(not sure exactly) would be more of an effective location for this kind of thing.

[AviAdelman]

Lower Greenville was a suburban commercial district until malls opened up - poof there go the personal businesses.

Go to my BarkingDogs.org site - I have a list of what was there at certain times in the past

Lower Greenville 1969, 1967 (http://barkingdogs.org/barking_archive/312%20Myth1.htm)

During the 80's most of it was empty storefronts.

In the 90's bars moved in with a wink from the City to avoid compliance with code and next thing you know we have 60 some TABC permits in the area without enough parking.

The big battles started when a former church became a bar - 50 feet from homes deep in the neighborhood.

That is when I became involved.

Hope this helps

ASA

[aceplace]

AviAdelman,

Thanks for passing on the statement from your association.

I am curious, though...

If a series of parking garages were to be built, public and open to all businesses, why would the businesses be opposed to ROP? Especially to the point of losing the garages? You would think they would no longer need street parking. The West Village doesn't need street parking.

I'd see an uptown solution for your neighborhood problems. Greenville as a purely commercial street, buffered by a block of high density residential on either side, with low density residential beyond.

Also, you did not respond to my question about fenced front yards. Is there any interest in that? I see a lot of fenced back yards in LG, but not front yards.

Bear in mind that the entire city has a stake in the amenities of Lower Greenville, but not in the comfort of the adjacent neighborhoods. Thus, you are in a fight, indeed.

[AviAdelman]

The businesses want not only the parking lot but the neighborhood streets (the ones still open) for their patrons. They have refused to consider barricades or similar deterrents to patrons in the neighborhood.

ROP is bad for business, since the folks will be forced to drive further out into the 'hood to park - eventually they just stop looking and drive away from the area completely.

Their patrons don't want to pay for parking but the bars (who manage the lots by proxy) are screwed since they pay separate rents for the lots (not part of the lease for the buildings in most cases) and want a return on their money via the parking valet services.

Some actually tried to get the law revoked but failed. They could not understand that we have a right to protect our streets and homes and it was legislated to that end.

In other words, they want MORE parking spaces.

Re fences - Ironically, my house is the only one in the proposed Belmont Addition Conservation District that has a front yard fence - and it ain't coming down until I replace it. I am pretty sure the new rules would prohibit the fences in the future.

[rantanamo]

wow, so the whole "Lower Greenville" thing is that recent? Would you guys that live there like the return of the purely commercial district? I can understand the cache of the location, but it still strikes me odd for a club/bar district. What would everyone there REALLY like there?

[AviAdelman]

When I moved to Dallas way back in 1980, there were personal service businesses here - Safeway was new, and the Simply Fondue was a health foods store, for example.

We don't mind the bars / restaraunts, as long as they are within code and zoning, which most of them are not. Illegal bars, dance halls, etc do not fit in the Community Retail classification and use here.

Now we have super-bars like MilkDud trying to get a legal dance hall and they lie to the City re where the parking is. The parking lots are striped for small cars only and none of it is free since you pay to get in and park yourself.

Dallas City Hall ignored this area for years and now it is coming back to bite them in spades.

ASA

[aceplace]

I am pretty sure the new rules would prohibit the fences in the future.

Any reason to institute such rules to prohibit front yard fences? Why should someone's property be exposed to casual passersby?

[AviAdelman]

i don't remember the reason - i think i missed that meeting but they were probably looking for consistency of the setbacks from the street to the doors and fences were interruptions.

backyard fences were okay - mine may fall down before i replace it however :)

ASA

[clipper]

Given the history of strong neighborhood groups in that area opposed to higher density development, it is unlikely this project can recieve approval. And the reason there is not enough parking down there is the homeowners associations have for years blocked any attempt to build new parking lots. The retail and business in that area was built in a time when people took the street car and Interurban to access the area. Unlike later shopping districts such as Preston Center, Inwood Village, etc. the Lower Greenville strip was never planned for today's autos.

[JaeTex]

Most are not in compliance with zoning? What percent? Which ones? I should probably look at your website. A list of those that don't comply might guide my choices of restaurants.

If the zoning, etc. ordinances were enforced on Monday would the neighborhood be dramatically different? Or would it just be easier to park?

[AviAdelman]

I actually think the project will get approval but with many changes in density etc

Re parking - there is not enough not due to anything we in the neighborhoods did or did not do. It is simply that the current (illegal) uses require more parking than is available on the parking lots, due to variances, mulligans, and just plain lying on the part of who has what spaces.

So we now have enough bogus businesses to justify needing 1200 spaces but there are only 500 spaces available, according to a city survey.

So where do you think all those people used to park? Until Resident Only Parking, in front of our homes. Now they can't do that.

Re parking lots - we never BLOCKED the idea. But we will not approve a zoning change for parking lots UNLESS we get the streets to be ALL resident only. Why give in on a parking lot when you bring in 50% more people and the only one getting the benefits are the businesses, while the residents get the shafts.

Trust me - the bars/restaurants did not start paying attention to us until we were able to buy back streets per ROP. I tell you, take away about 500 spaces and you got em by the balls.

In regards to zoning, here is the most recent list I have of who has what CO type and what they really do

Certificates of Occupancy on Lower Greenville (http://barkingdogs.org/html/11_20_smoking.shtml)

If the City came in on Monday to enforce the code, about 15 - 20 might be forced to close down (that would include illegal dance activities per SOB laws).

It is not just a matter of use, but a factor of sales of alcohol-based products to non-alcohol based products.

Example - Tantra is a bar with no food. It has dancing without a permit. It is CO'd as a Restaurant without Drive In Service.

Go figure out why the City won't do anything, and then let me know what they tell you.

ASA

[tamtagon]

It's in the best interest of all businesses on lower Greenville to make the residential neighbors happy. Locals walk to Greenville, and are heavy users. Another large segment of 'the lower Greenville cutsomer' base are friends of the area's resident population, who first fill up off street resident parking then walk to Greenville.

The best way to increase profit is to provide parking to the light users of the area. The lack of parking may be a direct result of the high number of pedistrian customers. I would hate to see a limit to the number of establishments in uptown simply because there is not enough alotted parking.

[AviAdelman]

Here's an interesting concept -

Local residents DO NOT patronize Lower Greenville (south of Belmont) bars/restaurants.

At least in the large and grandiose numbers you would think based on the bars' claims that they are community fixtures.

Shocking but true.

Why do I say that? Simple. Some of the bars - who proclaim themselves to be neighborhood friendly and neighborhood supportive [translation - We want your money but don't bitch about us] are only open on three nights each week: Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

That would include the big ones like Tantra, Whisky Bar, Dirty Dave's, Arcadia.

The balance are absolutely DEAD on weeknights - you can sit inside one bar and hear a glass break in the next one.

This would include Rear Window, Blarney Stone, Service Bar, Suede.

Their marketing - in the Observer, on the radio, etc, does not even consider locals in their presentations.

And to be truthful many of them wish we would just go away and not complain about little things like Code Enforcement and parking issues.

I have bets that two will soon close down simply due to lack of business income.

ASA

[evdallas]

Originally posted by AviAdelman
Here's an interesting concept -

Local residents DO NOT patronize Lower Greenville (south of Belmont) bars/restaurants.



I lived there and did....

[JaeTex]

I would think if they had the multi-level lots that provided the necessary parking then ROP would no longer be needed. The patrons presumably would prefer to park in a lot near their destination and not on the street a block away. Yes some would still park on your streets, but not as many as do now, and besides they are public streets.

Why not support the garages w/o ROP, then if it is still as bad, get ROP and it will be really hard for anyone to oppose you.

Pie in the sky idea: trolley cars from Mockingbird station down Greenville, expand DART parking lot at the station. Eventually go to Ross turn towards DT and head to Pearl St. light rail through Art District. That way after an opening night opera at the new CPA, the opera patrons could go tie one on on G'ville. ;)

[bloodandpopcorn]

I like that idea, JaeTex! Think it'll happen in the next quarter century?

[AviAdelman]

Nice idea but not what the businesses wanted when the idea of parking lots first came up,

We knew from Day One that the only goal they had was to bring MORE people into the area - thus a parking lot of say 300 spaces (small but do able) plus the residential areas would be a start.

We knew they hated ROP and other means such as one side no parking due to Dallas Fire Code requirements (narrow streets).

The City was not an honest broker either. When we asked for the DFD survey, based on precedent on the streets around the upper end of Lower Greenville, they surveyed streets that were NOWHERE even near my neighborhood. Only after a TV news piece showing how bad it was out here did they survey the streets in the area we wanted.

Of course, following the trucks around and talking to the firefighters made sure they knew we were watching.

They ARE public streets, but there is a CITY CODE that allows us to buy back the streets via ROP if we meet the requirements - number of non-residents who park there at certain hours vs residents, etc. Once we got a chunk of streets, the City folks showed their bias and did not do the surveys properly - hence we have been rejected on a few (not to worry that will change soon :)

ASA

[ibryant]

Actually, the Blarney Stone is packed on Wednesday nights for $2 import drafts...great place!

Also, I know many people who live in Lower Greenville and they frequent the bars/restaurants often. In fact, many times I drive to their houses and we walk to the strip.

[tamtagon]

I've generally avoided lower Greenville on the weekend simply because of the suburban tourists. Most of my friends (many still) living in the area stay away on the weekend.

Without futher delay, a trolly/streetcar should be planned from Mockingbird Station to lowest Greenville, with one branch continueing along Ross/Live Oak into the CBD and with another branch continueing along Munger/Columbia through Exposition park and Deep Ellum into the CBD.

The city and the businesses on lower Greenville should let the residents have the street parking - they already live with the noise.

[jsoto3]

WFAA News Clip (http://www.wfaa.com/cgi-bin/bi/video/G2redirect.pl?title=5675640)

[psukhu]

Without futher delay, a trolly/streetcar should be planned from Mockingbird Station to lowest Greenville, with one branch continueing along Ross/Live Oak into the CBD and with another branch continueing along Munger/Columbia through Exposition park and Deep Ellum into the CBD.

This would be great!


AviAdelman, what does your group think about something like this?

[AviAdelman]

I have a friend who is a conductor on the trolley.

There is even a gouge mark in the sidewalk named after him - he bounced the train off the track.

That alone scares the hell out of me...

But yes it would be nice. In fact, Matilda (which is parallel to Greenville on the east side) has some old belgian blocks and track deep under the street from the original trollies.

ASA

[clipper]

Again, the point here is unlike Uptown this area does not want new development. And they want many of the businesses that are there now to close. It's a whole different perspective.

[dallastophoenix]

what if the city of dallas decided to offer nice incentives for those businesses to close shop in lower greenville and reopen in - or around - dt dallas?

then the residents of that neighborhood would be happy... i know it would never happen - just a thought...

[tamtagon]

In the 20 years I've been familiar with lower Greenville, the ebb and flow of the 'scene' has always been accompanied by a consolidated resident opinion, street parking always being a nuisance during the glory days. When Deep Ellum was gaining popularity, Greenville cooled off. Now that D.E. has developed into something else, the atmosphere along Greenville became overpopulated. With the rise of uptown and CBD activity, it's certain that, naturally, some of the stress Greenville is experienceing will be releived.

Lower Greenville has always been one of the cool places in Dallas. Everytime Greenville gets to be too much, another part of town gets popular. It's a recognizable cycle.

[Columbus Civil]

It looks like the residents are starting to fight back:

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/012704dnmetrobberies.5c4d3.html

[psukhu]

Wow, I'm not going back to lower Greenville.

If you get mugged at the valet stand, then there is no safe place there.

(unless I bring my friends who are Marines and they bring guns)

[gc]

That is insane.

[tamtagon]

Wow. That's whack.