DTD: 211 N. Ervay

[jsoto3]

I don't protest the demolition of 211 N. Ervay for its historic significance/aesthetic. I just think this is a viable property and that it makes no sense to tear it down for 'open space.' So how about a high-end, ultra-chic boutique hotel/restaurant/bar/club?! That ought to fetch the revenues needed to finance the building's redevelopment. This use , which would have valet service, would not require on site parking, reducing the cost of redevelopment. I don't know if the market is yet strong enough for another one though, especially with the W opening in a couple years.

[gc]

I totally agree jsoto. However, I do defend the aesthetics of this buidling, though I am saying it is the most beautiful building around. But to me, this is the type of building that adds character to the landscape. There are a few red and blue buildings in Chicago that may be "ugly" by themselves. But when viewing the Chicago skyline or a cluster of buildings, it is a sight to see. I have emailed the council several times defending this building. Obviously, I have not gotten my point across well. I encourage each of you to email the council as well. It may help.

[freewaytincan]

Originally posted by jsoto3
I don't protest the demolition of 211 N. Ervay for its historic significance/aesthetic. I just think this is a viable property and that it makes no sense to tear it down for 'open space.' So how about a high-end, ultra-chic boutique hotel/restaurant/bar/club?! That ought to fetch the revenues needed to finance the building's redevelopment. This use , which would have valet service, would not require on site parking, reducing the cost of redevelopment. I don't know if the market is yet strong enough for another one though, especially with the W opening in a couple years.

I agree with you most of the way. Especially about parks. Considering the realatively small size of our downtown, open space is "teh suck".

[bloodandpopcorn]

I disagree that open space is "the suck" - I think it's crucial to a downtown that is enjoyable on many fronts. But, in this case, I think it's a bad idea. Thanksgiving square is right across the street, and, from Thanksgiving Square, it's far more impressive to look out and be surrounded by tall buildings everywhere than tall buildings and then a small, pointless, secondary park.

Where parks should come in is parking lots, or the areas in/around downtown with ugly, small, rotting buildings that havent been used in a decade. And that is where most parks are planned. So why don't we save ourselves the cost of demolishing this building and creating a secondary, wholly unimportant green space, and put that money into covering woodall rogers? I promise that within the next 20 years someone will come along with the brians, the passion, and the $$$ to rejuvinate this building into something worthwhile. Once downtown is active again, it won't take even a second thought to fix this place up into something grand.

Just let it be.

[freewaytincan]

Well naturally I didn't mean that all the open space is "teh suck", but considering that this is a taller building with a small footprint and alrealy right next to what is effectively a park, yeah, it's a bad idea.

[bloodandpopcorn]

Ah, ok, sorry for misunderstanding.

[trolleygirl]

One of MATA's Founders here once said that "Dallas has destroyed more than what most City's ever had." I love that quote.

I'm on the fence about this building. I have always loved it, but that's because I'm a big fan of Ultra Modern anything. I collect Melamine! And of course, everything was blue, down to toilet paper and kitchen tiles. Actually it was torquise- "the new color that goes with anything", as Bounty once exclaimed.

Here's my Big Question: I wonder if there would be a hue and cry over saving the building if the landlord had taken better care of it, if there wasn't a liquor store and instead some other desireable business? It's easy to say "eww, it's ugly and scary" and then get on the Let's-Tear-It-Down bandwagon, but more difficult to do that if it were a nicer area.

Parks are good and I am a propnent of open public spaces. My favorite American city, St. Louis, has parks and plazas on every corner. And some incredible architecture and imaginative re-uses of builings, like the big SBC building- the built a building next to an old historic building and converted it to the parking garage for the new building and built a sky-brige between them. Great example of how old and new can work together, rather than compete with each other. But again, St. Louis has so many parks, so many open spaces, you just want to outside and walking around and doing stuff.

Both the Thanksgiving Square people and Big Blue's people are shrewd a cunning business types so I don't care one way or another about who bought the building to give to his kids and how much it should be appraised at, and who's the big bully on the block, boo hoo, blah. blah. I do care about the fact that the Mayor thinks the only option is to emenent domain, that's a little scary, especially when there is controvery surrounding it. And it's bad PR.

And something else to ponder is that these are people who claim to love and care about downtown, who aren't even from Dallas. That is personally offensive to me to have some Mayor and City Council and CDA and DID guys come in and tell people like me, the people who were born and raised here and who choose to continue to live in raise families in Dallas- in spite of all the reasons we have to move away from here, what we should be doing with our buildings. And I know there's a lot more to it than this simplified and emotional statement, however, I am always suspicious of people who are not from Dallas who desire to tear down a building- or other structure- to replace it with something new.

That's why Dallas has such a weak connection with it's past- we keep finding ways to forget about it.

[gc]

well said trolleygirl!

[aceplace]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I really LIKE the appearance of the building. Maybe I'm still enamored of the 1950s?

There have been similes made in the popular literature about burning down barns to get rid of rats. The building may have some, but perhaps the real motive is to eliminate the two liquor stores on the ground floor. If the liquor stores were replaced by a 7-11, wold the talk about tearing it down go away? Probably.

When the surrounding area boosts its population, fills up with 20-30,000 people, that building will look like a bargain to rehab.

[RuggerAl]

Maybe someone should approach Walmart- build a neighboorhood market in the place. i am not sure of the building, but they can do a vertical mall- surely. And they can also do a good deed. Imagine the press they would get in the city.Redevloping downtown, saving a building. It would also be an interesting regional angle and the business press imagine... Big Walmart moves to serve it's more urban customers use it as a test case to be able to move into other urban centers NYC, Chicago.. etc... Give them an angle to target the urban consumer with its new stores... What do you think?? Move in with a McDonalds and their new bank they have started! BAM!
The area could really use something like that and I think it would be a nice fit.. I know some maybe opposed to walmart...Maybe a GAP inc Redo like at galleria... Gap BR and Old Navy stacked one on another? build some gardens into it so you have like vertical parks... pack it with a Jamba Juice and starbucks.. Roly Poly sandwiches, Marble slab... Pei Wei...BAM!
I don't know my ankle hurts and I am on pain killers so this may not be a coherent response.

[JaeTex]

Just walked by it, and while everyone has plenty of suggestions for the ground floor, what to do with the rest? The thing is narrow, can't fit too many offices in there, oh and by the way I didn't see any parking.

I like the color and like that its different, but can't see much hope for any realistic reuse.

Still, there is also no need for a park next to T'giving square.

[Columbus Civil]

Turn it into a big video board, like in Times Square.

[bloodandpopcorn]

I agree that a verticle mall on the inside would be great. What about making part of it an art gallery? or some smaller, black box theaters? An asian-style karaoke establishment (where you rent out a private karaoke room with two mics, can order food and drinks - it's a ball, just tons of fun) could work on one or two floors. There are endless possibilities.

[dallastophoenix]

Originally posted by Columbus Civil
Turn it into a big video board, like in Times Square.

Excellent idea!!

[aceplace]

Well, there is no shortage of ideas.... the only thing lacking is the money.

What about this? In return for the right of possession (for a period of time), the community groups that will use the building agree to provide some "sweat equity"? If they want to use it, they rehab it.

[crescentboi]

I just came back from a short trip to New York and I noticed this building near to Grand Central Terminal and it reminded me a lot of our little building here. It's VERY narrow, but has a lot of retail and some offices above it. Now in my opinion it is much better looking than ours, but I think it shows that things can be done in a narrow building. There's really no need to tear down a good building.

[sterling]

This building has amused me for years, standing amongst the super-serious towers of the last big remake. I don't like the building, never have. I wouldn't mind seeing a lush promenade through there that connected with the area further south.

I think what bothers me most about it, is Dallas' rush to tear something down as soon as it is faded and old. And a lack of imagination to come up with any solution but demolition. So many buildings, whole neighborhoods got bull-dozed for basically the same reason. Dallas cogniscenti abandoned them for the "next wave" of architectural expression, perhaps afraid to be seen as provincial or behind the times.

Dallas has always attempted to be cutting-edge this, and world-class that as long as i can remember. I think the result of that thinking downtown has resulted in the almost irreversible sterility that exists today. The messy vitality which defines most successful American urban areas seems unsightly to us, as we are used to everything shiny and new. Somehow we grew up believing that you didn't steam clean old grimy buildings, you just tore them down. Recently it was discovered that people actually had some interest in older type buildings and miraculously a few survive downtown.

I think Aqua Paradiso is the same thing, just not as old as the vintage of buildings currently championed. I hate the building, but I recognize it's right to exist. What I hate most of all is NOTHING moving one way or the other. Where is the mafia when you need them?

[gc]

Any news here on my favorite building?

[gc]

Ready for a makeover
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/sbrown/stories/102204dnbusrecol.9d3f5.html

And ending where we started – with blue buildings – a languishing downtown office tower is being eyed for redevelopment. TJD Corp., which owns the vacant 211 N. Ervay Building, is negotiating to sell the high-rise to investors who would turn it into a storage facility.

The 17-story blue-paneled office tower at Elm and Ervay streets has been empty for years and has been called one of downtown's biggest eyesores. A redevelopment plan under consideration would convert the tower into storage facilities for downtown office and residential tenants.

[drumguy8800]

I assume that they'd do a bit of a facelift?

[tamtagon]

I assume that they'd do a bit of a facelift?

I hope any rennovation restores the original fascade. Every mod 50s building should be saved- they're cool. Storage space is a pretty good idea.

[JaeTex]

I hope any rennovation restores the original fascade. Every mod 50s building should be saved- they're cool. Storage space is a pretty good idea.

Why do anything other than the bare minimum if you're just storing boxes in it? That would just cut into your profits.

[jsoto3]

I fear this. I suspect the whole ground floor will become a loadng dock, either open to the street on all sides or enclosed with lifeless walls. While I am sure there is a need for storage downtown, I still think this building/site deserves a better use.

[crescentboi]

I think that this is a very adaptive use. It is a hard building to convert because of the parking and the limited size of the floor plates. I would think they'd be able to keep some retail in it on the ground floor...at least I hope. Plus there is a very large need for storage downtown for the residents. a lot of the people who are moving into condos and lofts are coming from much larger houses before and are having to "size down", so this is a great option. At least hopefully it will clean up that corner a bit.

[drumguy8800]

There need to be some design standards put on DT buildings.. like, anything being renovated and any new construction must have 50% of any street-facing side of their building devoted to retail.

[freewaytincan]

I fear this. I suspect the whole ground floor will become a loadng dock, either open to the street on all sides or enclosed with lifeless walls. While I am sure there is a need for storage downtown, I still think this building/site deserves a better use.

True. However, that leaves the question open as to where to put a storage facility. It's something a lot of people need, but whereever it goes, all of us will probably think of something else that could go there.

[crescentboi]

There need to be some design standards put on DT buildings.. like, anything being renovated and any new construction must have 50% of any street-facing side of their building devoted to retail.

I personally think that would be going too far. I downtown I don't think is supposed to be made of completely retail on the lower level, that would be over kill i feel. I like sometimes when the large office towers have this huge beautifull lobbies and entrys that you can view from outside. I kindof like what Chase Tower has going on with it, I think it's beautifull. The Sears tower and the World Trade Centers did not fully cover their lots. Sometimes if all the towers come to the furthest extent of all their lots i think it gets to be overwhelming or "claustraphobic" dare I say it. I like the differences, but personally I like the "old" section of Main St where all the buildings are up front.

[freewaytincan]

I personally think that would be going too far. I downtown I don't think is supposed to be made of completely retail on the lower level, that would be over kill i feel. I like sometimes when the large office towers have this huge beautifull lobbies and entrys that you can view from outside. I kindof like what Chase Tower has going on with it, I think it's beautifull. The Sears tower and the World Trade Centers did not fully cover their lots. Sometimes if all the towers come to the furthest extent of all their lots i think it gets to be overwhelming or "claustraphobic" dare I say it. I like the differences, but personally I like the "old" section of Main St where all the buildings are up front.

I completely agree. I used to think that all the buildings should have retail on the ground floor, but that would be a real estate disaster. Even New York or Paris do not have that much retail.

[BigD5349]

Dear God, please don't let them paint it battleship grey or puke brown!!

I'm not in love with 211 N. Ervay, but I have always believed developers ruined 1505 Elm and the Adam's Mark Hotel by painting over the funky blue facades.

You know, not every one in Dallas thinks building color schemes should only consist of red brick, grey, brown and beige.

The first thing the new building owner needs to do is kick out the cheap liquor stores on the ground floor. There will be an immediate lift in the entire area.

Anyway, in tomorrow's DMN:

++++

Buyer plans to take away tower's blues

California developer to turn former office space into homes


08:49 PM CDT on Sunday, July 10, 2005


By STEVE BROWN / The Dallas Morning News


An empty downtown office tower may soon lose the blues.


The 18-story 211 N. Ervay building is being purchased by a California developer that also owns two nearby towers.

3J Development LLC of San Diego plans to convert the 47-year-old office building at Ervay and Elm streets into residential units.

Clad in blue metal panels, the vacant tower has been praised by preservationists but is despised by some downtown boosters – including Mayor Laura Miller – who don't like its colorful 1950s architecture.

The new owners plan to redo the exterior.

"We are going to make the exterior look very nice," said Joseph Sapp, 3J Development president. "I don't know what it will be yet, but it won't be turquoise.

"We are playing with lots of different scenarios," he said.

3J Development is buying 211 N. Ervay from a local investor. Terms of the transaction have not been disclosed.

Since January, Mr. Sapp's firm has also purchased the 33-story 1600 Pacific tower, the 16-story Praetorian Building and an Elm Street parking garage.


A lack of parking has previously discouraged developers and investors away from redoing 211 N. Ervay.


"Our parking garage will serve all three buildings," Mr. Sapp said. "We now have over 1 million square feet in downtown Dallas if you include the parking structure."


Mr. Sapp said he hasn't decided if the buildings will be converted to rental units or condos.


He expects to begin construction on the first renovation within nine months.

[gc]

I am happy to see an adaptive reuse of the structure. I love to see this kind of news. If they could just get a few decent retailers on the ground floor (ahem....flagship 7-Eleven), then the rest will play out.

[texman]

Why is everyone trying to cover up a very distinctive part of our architectural history? Yes, some say the 50s and 60 was crappy period for buildings, but that doesnt mean it didnt happen.

I hated this qoute : "I don't know what it will be yet, but it won't be turquoise. "

Well, why not? It adds alot of color to Downtown (we all know downtown needs more color) and shows its own history. Ugh, this just made me mad.

[drumguy8800]

Why is everyone trying to cover up a very distinctive part of our architectural history? Yes, some say the 50s and 60 was crappy period for buildings, but that doesnt mean it didnt happen.**** happens.
Well, why not? It adds alot of color to Downtown (we all know downtown needs more color) and shows its own history. Ugh, this just made me mad.If they turned it into a much more modern look.. say, translucent, curvy blueish-clear glass (no paneling, at least no borders on the outside) wrapping the structure with limestone and steel. mmm.

You like the Grand Hotel, too. Have you seen Dark Water? We should stick you on Roosevelt Island.

[jsoto3]

Can we rename this thread to become the offical 211 N. Ervay thread? Perhaps "DTD: 211 N. Ervay".

[tamtagon]

Can we rename this thread.

Thanks for the suggestion jsoto3, it's better.

[tamtagon]

Since January, Mr. Sapp's firm has also purchased the 33-story 1600 Pacific tower, the 16-story Praetorian Building and an Elm Street parking garage.


Interesting, ironic that the company about to spend millions to restore the Praetorian Building's original facade is also willing to spend millions(?) to remove and/or cover up the original facade on 311 N. Ervay.

That's fashion, I guess. Seems like a very temporary and impatient "fix" for a building which in a few years could easily be considered interesting instead of ugly. I would not chose to live in a highrise in downtown Dallas that did not have a balcony letting me have an outside space to enjoy the 9 months of great weather in North Texas. And the torquoise? there's probably enough customers who would enjoy the distinction, some even might like that so many think it's ugly.

The imminent facade damage can always be repaired, I'm glad another vacant building will be used again.

[texman]

**** happens.If they turned it into a much more modern look.. say, translucent, curvy blueish-clear glass (no paneling, at least no borders on the outside) wrapping the structure with limestone and steel. mmm.

You like the Grand Hotel, too. Have you seen Dark Water? We should stick you on Roosevelt Island.
Haha, how did I know I was gonna get a reply from you.

[freewaytincan]

Haha, how did I know I was gonna get a reply from you.

You're psychic.

[Milkman Dan]

Seems like a very temporary and impatient "fix" for a building which in a few years could easily be considered interesting instead of ugly.
How does it seem like a temporary fix? You have no idea what the developer plans to do with it. (neither does he) I just don't understand how you can even begin to criticize the facade redo before ANY plans or designs are presented or shown. Ridiculous.

Also, upon what do you base your thinking that in a few years it could be considered interesting? It's been called ugly for decades. I don't think a few more years is going to change anyone's opinion.


there's probably enough customers who would enjoy the distinction, some even might like that so many think it's ugly.
A developer is not going to spend millions redesigning the outer facade unless he's pretty confident that it needs it and the market desires it. If you don't know how this process works, alot of thought goes into a decision like this and there is no way he would EVER decide to go for the alternative design crowd (people hate it so I am going to love it). Those people don't buy condos / rent apartments in said buildings. They have those opinions while driving by or on message boards.

This whole argument is pretty silly to me: more people think it is ugly than otherwise. Developers cater to the market. The rest of this discussion is academic.

[tamtagon]

How does it seem like a temporary fix? You have no idea what the developer plans to do with it. (neither does he) I just don't understand how you can even begin to criticize the facade redo before ANY plans or designs are presented or shown. Ridiculous.

As with the Praetorian Building, it's my ridiculous opinion that the vintage style of this building (311 N. Ervay) will become more popular than it is today. Personally, I have always liked it and agree with the preservationists who praise the building.

I consider the color to be the single most defining attribute of the building, and whether the color is liked or disliked, it's very likely that an overwhelming majority of people would agree with me. So, I only need to read one basic plan/design directive from Jospeh Sapp to form an impression and criticize the facade redo:


"We are going to make the exterior look very nice," said Joseph Sapp, 3J Development president. "I don't know what it will be yet, but it won't be turquoise."


Also, upon what do you base your thinking that in a few years it could be considered interesting? It's been called ugly for decades. I don't think a few more years is going to change anyone's opinion.

When I said, "That's fashion, I guess." maybe I should have included more detail. My thinking is based on the constantly changing attitudes of what is considered pretty or ugly. In the late 19th century, rotound women were called attractive; by the mid 20th century, very thin women were called attractive. In the early 21th century, more robust yet not rotound women are attractive (thank goodness). Who thinks the Sears Tower is pretty? I think it's ugly, buy I'm still fascinated by it. Considering how rapidly the residential population of downtown is anticipated to grow, I think a building that stands out will change opinions.


A developer is not going to spend millions redesigning the outer facade unless he's pretty confident that it needs it and the market desires it. If you don't know how this process works, alot of thought goes into a decision like this and there is no way he would EVER decide to go for the alternative design crowd (people hate it so I am going to love it). Those people don't buy condos / rent apartments in said buildings. They have those opinions while driving by or on message boards.

It's academic that developers will cater to all markets, even those which are not popular. Just like any habitible building similar to the one at 311 N. Ervay, I also think people will buy or rent a residence in a converted public school building, converted factory, or converted warehouse. Most people dont like Big Red (carbonated beverage) buy someone still makes a profit selling it.

Really, though, I mean that I think it's ironic that the same company intending to spend millions to restore one original facade (Praetorian) is getting rid of another facade.

[clipper]

About 10 years ago some folks looked at turning this building into a hotel. The exterior would have received a beige paint job and the upper floors were to have been cut away stair step fashion to create a series of terraces a la the Centrum. The deal never got off the ground.

[Agnus Dei]

My point is that I think it's ironic that the same company intending to spend millions to restore one original facade (Praetorian) is getting rid of another facade.

I thought of that, too.
I hope that if/when they change the colour, they keep it somewhat eye-grabbing. I think it's too easy for downtown's to become drab with nothing but glass, brick, and cement. I bet just cleaning up the building's exterior would make it much more pleasing and bright. Especially if they fixed it up and ran with the concept of the era's style. I'm glad they didn't decide the Wilson building was too old-fashioned looking and mordernize the exterior.

I hardly think rank this building as among my favs, but I don't like the idea of covering over past styles. That gives the area some character.

[evdallas]

The last picture is of GSW Headquarters in Berlin, completed in 1999. It's a great building that is full of color... Color isn't always a bad thing. A new color scheme like this could work really well on Ervay, even keeping the current blue, but using various shades.

[BigD5349]

I agree. Color is a good thing. See the attachments. Compare the original color scheme of the Southland Center (circa 1960) to the current battleship gray appearance of the Adam's Mark (pic taken last week). Which do you prefer? I vote for the blue! It's not even close!

Same issue with 1505 Elm. God, that's an ugly building now. Can you architects out there explain why it's a good idea to paint a 1950s/60s square box a non-descript beige or battleship gray?

Any residents of 1505 Elm out there? Have you guys considered repainting the exterior of your building? I think it would greatly enhance both the appearance & appeal to return it to the original appearance. Think resale value.

So, my vote is to let 211 N. Ervay burst forth with some cool color!

[gc]

^ I agree with you. That is the beauty of architecture. You take your favorite with your least favorite.....and when they are all combined together....are beautiful.

[Tnekster]

I kind of agree too. I sort of miss the old turquoise blue tower.

[Texan#1]

I like how that building is so unique and there aren't very many cities that I know of that have buildings like that. Does anyone know if there is anything somewhat similar in the state?

[msutton]

i prefer the adam's mark's color scheme.

[rantanamo]

That blue used to look awesome. Especially when you took the Sherman exit north from I-30. It was right there infront of you and beautiful. Much cooler than the current drab scheme, and much more pleasing to the eye than any pics of it I've seen.

[tamtagon]

I hope they build balconies to look at that chapel. It doesnt need to be the same color to keep 50s kitch, right? Keep December decorations up all year, whatever.

Would 18 Floors be about 65 units, some with two bedrooms?

[texman]

See, this is what I'm talking about. The Southland LIfe building looked so cool in blue. I think theres a big misconception about what people think of in the 1960s.