Uptown: Harwood XII - 33 stories

[boozo]

I haven't seen this before. Sorry if it has already been posted.

Also on the BOKA Powell Website.

[noelamador]

now that's stunning! if it does get built, I'm hoping it won't be squat and stout like St. Anne turned out to be. now, if developers would just add 10-15 floors to the buildings here in Dallas. 45-50 floors seems common in Atlanta.

[AshtonM]

Great looking building. That design has been out for at least 1.5 to 2 years. They must have just not put it on there website or something.

[el Zilcho]

is that a typo or a reference to the shape of the building?

ahem.

[gchrisbailey]

Looks like an awesome building, but man during construction that would really be a headache traffic-wise leaving the parking garage when Mavs games let out...

[NTexUnited]

now that's stunning! if it does get built, I'm hoping it won't be squat and stout like St. Anne turned out to be. now, if developers would just add 10-15 floors to the buildings here in Dallas. 45-50 floors seems common in Atlanta.

Same in Houston. Why does it seem buildings have a max. of 33 floors here? Zoning? FAA?

[eburress]

I believe the height limit in this area is FAA-dictated, as a result of its proximity to Love Field.

[NThomas]

I believe the height limit in this area is FAA-dictated, as a result of its proximity to Love Field.
I don't think there's a ~25 story limit though... Look at the W Hotel's north tower, there's an example of what any of the new Uptown mid-rises could have been. Even the Gables/Granite tower was pretty tall before its design was revised so I don't think what we've seen gone up this decade has been limited by the FAA.

[citizen]

I don't think there's a ~25 story limit though... Look at the W Hotel's north tower, there's an example of what any of the new Uptown mid-rises could have been. Even the Gables/Granite tower was pretty tall before its design was revised so I don't think what we've seen gone up this decade has been limited by the FAA.


I believe that Harwood was successful several years ago in creating a Planned Development District with zoning that allowed for greater height, heliport, limited setbacks, skybridges, etc. etc. etc. My guess is that this is within the limits of what was approved. Prior to that the height limit would have been 240'. When Victory was first laid out all of the zoning was changed as well. I believe that part of the logic for Harwood was that they had proven themselves to be such a responsible developer that the city would let them do about anything they wanted.

[vman]

Harwood does tall(er) buildings fairly well. Unfortunately their buildings do nothing for street or pedestrian connectivity. LoMac has basically become an urban office park. I guess that's fine given the horrible street configurations in LoMac makes walking uncomfortable anyway.

[CDallas]

The FAA height limit I would think would be at least as tall as the large downtown skyscrapers. This seems more like a zoning issue rather than FAA.

[mannypr]

You got to remember though that most new developments are built north of Woodall Rodgers which is much closer to Love Field.

[eburress]

You got to remember though that most new developments are built north of Woodall Rodgers which is much closer to Love Field.

Yes, the height steps up as you move away from Love Field. There are height limits.

[TreeFrog]

Using the FAA site, it looks like Building Two Victory Park was approved for 500 feet (even though it has a caveat regarding Love field and a limit of 317 feet) in 2007. If I'm reading it correctly, Building 1 was given green at 376 feet or, if Love Field approved, up to 629 feet in 2005. I could be reading all that wrong though. First time I've ever looked through any of that stuff.

Emporis lists the W at 439 feet.

[NThomas]

Using the FAA site, it looks like Building Two Victory Park was approved for 500 feet (even though it has a caveat regarding Love field and a limit of 317 feet) in 2007. If I'm reading it correctly, Building 1 was given green at 376 feet or, if Love Field approved, up to 629 feet in 2005. I could be reading all that wrong though. First time I've ever looked through any of that stuff.
Emporis lists the W at 439 feet.
Link? I've always been really interested to see what that overlay looked like.

[dallasbrit]

Harwood does tall(er) buildings fairly well. Unfortunately their buildings do nothing for street or pedestrian connectivity. LoMac has basically become an urban office park. I guess that's fine given the horrible street configurations in LoMac makes walking uncomfortable anyway.
Makes for a great place walk your dog though, there's rarely anyone else around. For all of the density being added to "Lomac" it's pretty much an area for cars, so an office park is a fair description. Even the residential buildings in Lomac have zero activity around them. I don't think I've ever seen anyone walk out of the Ashton apartment tower ever.

[TreeFrog]

Link? I've always been really interested to see what that overlay looked like.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp
Click on "Circle Search for Cases" on the left, then enter "DAL" as the airport and your radius (I just did 5 miles to see what's out there). It looks like many of the times, a developer will file for a big height (like 1,000 feet) even when they don't intend to build that tall, just to see what the FAA recommends on the maximum.