Downtown Dallas Parks

[longhornfan]

www.dallasnews.com/localn...a3d4f.html (http://www.dallasnews.com/localnews/stories/112602dnmetloop.a3d4f.html)

I think the good of the park outweighs saving the old buildings but that's just my opinion. Looks like yet another potential case of everybody having an opinion and a complete lack of cooperation and compromise.

[aceplace]

I have a concern or two about building a downtown park.

Will it be occupied primarily by vagrants and panhandlers, like Pegasus Plaza is today? If so, what would that do to surrounding property values.

People live and work downtown because they want to be in a vibrant, pedestrian-filled urban neighborhood with lots of shops and facilities... not because it looks like the countryside. What good will acres of grassy lawns do for the downtown population?

If this park will be anything other than grass and trees (just like the suburbs) what is that? Or is it just an attempt to make our only real urban neighborhood look suburban?

Downtowns do need urban spaces other than sidewalks, but the space needs to be in scale with the neighborhood. Good examples of this are Stone Place, Dallas Alley, Thanksgiving Square, Dealey Plaza.

If the space is too big, however, it becomes a barrier instead of an amenity.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[GarrettCarey]

I AM in favor of urban park. However, ace has some good points. I would hate to have a great park that is filled with the homeless. This certainly would not encourage anyone else to hang out there. also, i do not in favor tearing down the Dallas grand hotel. surely something can be done with it.

There are plenty of parking lots on the south side as well as the east side of DT that are ripe for park development. It would be easy to put the parking below ground with a nice above it. In fact, i think putting the park on the south side would encourage more development on that side of town......which is needed desperately. just my thoughts

[jsoto3]

i share similar concerns/values to aceplace. firstly, i don't understand all of the cries for more parks downtown. there are many. for the most part, they just happen not to be where most people are most of the time. secondly, this site is an awkward place to put a park. i believe this simply to be a scheme, counter to what graham greene says, to raise values/income on adjacent parcels. why don't we just develop the countless parking lots that border the existing parks, i.e. near the convention center and city hall. not to mention the value of that building! that is a fantastic building. the so called "phenomenal technical challenges" just require a developer and architect with vision and balls (and perhaps alot of money). just my opinion . . . .

[jsoto3]

d'oh, garrett said it better than i.

[KelleyUSA]

I only hope that their visions of a downtown park would resemble something that many great European cities have. Something with vibrant fountains and true architecture! An ordinary park is not what Dallas needs- there is no doubt that an ordinary park would provide nothing more than another place for the homeless! It has to be a true destination- a park that could provide a place for tourist to visit!! I went to London several months ago and they have some amazing parks that are really inviting! I would love to see something of that sort! But if this is just an opportunity to plant some grass- I pass!!

[crescentboi]

I highly agree with KelleyUSA. If we had some large fountains, like Buckingham Fountain in Chicago with some small structures for shading and resting that would be amazing. That's also what I was thinking should go on top of Woodall Rogers if they put a cover on it.

[GarrettCarey]

i like that idea crescentboi.
Has anyone noticed the little park in front of union station? There is a fountain of some sort in the middle of the plaza...with some trees and benches. It could be so much nicer if they refurbished the fountain.....and maybe added some lighting to the area. It also sits in front of the DMN building......one would think that they might offer some money since they are such proponents of parks in DT.

[John T Roberts]

I share some of the same concerns that the rest of you have regarding the park space. I'm also a preservationist. All of the buildings on the block are great examples of 1950's architecture. We are tearing down too many of these types of buildings throughout the U.S. I do agree that some are ugly, but the Dallas Grand Hotel is a rather nice and elegant building. I don't see why it can't be reused as a hotel.

[GarrettCarey]

right on the money John T.....especially since everyone is talking about another hotel in DT!

[MustangMonkey]

Personally I wouldn't miss the Dallas Grand Hotel if it was torn down. It is interesting in its engineering, but it isn't attractive and it dosen't live up to its name. The structure is out of place and dosen't fit the environment that people wan't in that area. Dallas does have some nice examples of 50's architecture that work well with the look of downtown, but the grand can go.

I think this is a great place for a park, that would be of a good size and is a highly visible location. It would work well as a park square for surrounding developments.

[crescentboi]

I have mixed feelings about The Grand. The last time I was there was about two years ago and it looked like it had a lot of potential but someone would need to put so much into it. Like I mentioned earlier, I do think that they really need a park downtown, but what about over by Fountain Place and the Dallas Aquarium? That area is so ugly both in the daytime and at night! Plus all it is is just huge parking lots, I think someone mentioned earlier about doing a large parking lot underground and then building a park above it. That would be the best I think.

And with parking, does The Grand have a underground garage, or does it use the two garages across the street? Because if they did end up tearing down The Grand to put in a park, wouldn't they be able to salvage their parking garage and then put the park above it and use the parking for Main Street?

[MustangMonkey]

The plan is to develop parkS downtown not just one. Some might think I am a little overboard, but I think 10% of the land for parks would be a good number to shoot for. So put them in this place, that place, and the other places. Underground parking is a great additional use of the land.

[KelleyUSA]

Even though the Grand is ugly- I still think it has tremendous potential. If done right- it could be a really cool boutique type hotel. I think we all agree there needs to be more green space downtown- you could look at every corner of downtown and find a parking lot that needs to become a park. However, I think that for the first time in a long time- people are starting to talk about the subject and create plans for park space. This is more than we could have said just 5 years ago. At least it's a start!!

[metrosteve]

I couldn't agree more with John Roberts and the rest of you urging caution on this one. It wasn't too long ago there was a post here about the fact that the Grand Hotel was basically sound and awaiting new owners with more vision and purpose. I think I even commented that we should look at the building's re-use as residential. Other ideas have been floated but never befoe was demolition one of them. It is really hard for me to understand that there are not already sufficient numbers of parking lots downtown that could be converted to park use. If Dallas continues to tear down what's left the whole downtown is going to look like a museum up close! It's services we need--how many times does this have to be said in this city and why doesn't it finally happen? We need a sense of security downtown too and better lighting and the whole thing needs to be scrubbed down from one end to the other. Thousands of trees should be planted. Every friend of mine that visits here from somewhere else sees the potential downtown has but also comments that it is one of the ugliest, most dis-connected and FILTHY urban centers they've ever seen anywhere. And this, after so many improvements HAVE been made. We have much more work to do to change most peoples' perceptions it seems.

[aceplace]

On the question of downtown being an ocean of parking lots...

Doesen't the city charge less in taxes if an owner tears down a building for a parking lot? I think that this difference in tax liability for undeveloped property has contributed to the problem.

There is a different way to look at what is going on. The new theory would be that the city of Dallas is the ultimate owner of all property downtown, and the holder of a deed to a parcel of land is effectively LEASING it from the city, albeit a perpetual lease. According to this theory, the city can charge the deedholder a rental fee for OCCUPYING the land, instead of taxing a BUILDING.

The city would discourage surface parking lots and encourage building by raising the cost of holding onto the land to a point where the owner must build or forfeit the deed. Currently, the owner can hold the property, for 30 years or more, and minimize his tax burden by using it as a parking lot.

Those parking lots may look dirty and ragged, but the market has assigned them a high value... in the expectation that a highrise office building may someday be built there. This discourages more mundane uses of the land, like 3 story apartment buildings with shopping on the sidewalk.

Thus, the city will improve and develop the downtown by challenging and wiping out the artificially high market value of the land, in favor of its real value.

I know that in San Diego, there is a governmental entity that has condemnation power to assemble small parcels of property into a tract big enough for building, and then causes residential building to happen. Maybe that's what we need in Dallas.

[bloodandpopcorn]

That's a really good idea. But how to go about it?

[TamTagon]

"At lease people are taking an interest" plays as the most profound comment regarding "Dallas' avatar of chic" from the 50's.

One of the strongest cultural statements of a city is the variety of architecture, especially in the heart of the city. The curb appeal of a city is improved by variety, and this variety is an mark of civic responsibility and forethought.

If the building is a health hazard, tear it down and consider a park. If we simply must have a park and the building's location is the ONLY alternative, consider a trade-off analysis first. Otherwise, keep the building operational. This funky hotel from the 50's could contribute more to a vivid and varied downtown. I'm not positive of the locale, but isn't Deep Ellum very close, like walking distance? All of the sudden, this building becomes vintage and adds to the neighborhood rather than just being an older building on the street.

In regard to the need for a park in the area, vacant and/or open land is plentiful in the vicinity; this land could not be a cost effective considered. Existing surface parking lots are among the best targets for conversion for many many reasons.

And, come on, surely we should have different concerns for the homeless than how to keep them out of our parks.

[JaeTex]

I know we're not big fans of the burbs, but we do want to get their inhabitants downtown and a lot of them won't come because they are scared of the homeless.

They prefer the malls and the pseudo-urban environments (that they are re-creating because they killed the real thing that they had a long time ago) because there are no homeless there. There has to be a balance to be found.

[TamTagon]

The homeless, what a mess.

I hope Dallas gets to the point where a person can make a real choice between 'downtown' living and suburban living. As it is now, I'm not sure I really want my urban core to be over-run by the same type of weekend suburban tourists I complained about 15 years ago when I was trying to be all punk-rock in dangerous deep ellum. I would want to live around people who chose a downtown environment.

I suppose this only has to do with the hotel in question since old buildings have always been part of my experience in other urban centers. Is it nostalgia? Acceptance of status-quo? Something I should view differently? I'm always open to changing my mind.

[GarrettCarey]

When will the decision be made?

[GarrettCarey]

It struck me this morning, a good spot for a park. Across from the Pearl Street rail station sits an abandoned and boarded up Dallas High School.....on a fairly good sized piece of land........currently with grass on it. Why is this land not being considered for a park? Besides that, the old Dallas High School building could be beautiful again. any thoughts?

[KelleyUSA]

At some point in time- probably 3 years ago- there was a major debate about this piece of land. A developer had purchased the land and wanted to raze the school- but the Historic Society jumped in and claimed that the building had historic significance. After much debate- they agreed that the majority of the structure could be torn down because of asbestos problems but that the main building (which you still see now) had to remain. The original project was called Bryan Street Promenade which was to include retail and several white table cloth restaurants. I beleive that PF Changs was considering it at some point. Of course- this was several years ago and nothing has been done with the property since. It would be a great place for something to develop- park or otherwise!

[JaeTex]

Downtown Parks Master Plan
Public Meeting

Monday, March 10, 2003
7:00 – 8:30 pm
Dallas City Hall
1500 Marilla Street
Room L1FN
Conference Center Auditorium

Meeting Agenda

Introduction of Project and Overview
Introduction of Consultant Team
Citizen Feedback

Pedestrians may enter City Hall at the lobby level located near the City Hall Plaza fountain. Take the green elevators down to L1, where the Conference Center is located.

Free parking is available in the City Hall Parking garage. Enter the parking garage at the main entrance ramp located in the median of east-bound Young Street, on the north side of City Hall.

I hope some of y'all can make it, because I can't but am desperate to know what happens. Why are all these meeting (Trinity meeting scheduled for the day after this as noted in thread on Trinity River Project...check it out) happening when I am going to be confined to home on pain pills? I guess spring is meeting season.

[Columbus Civil]

Why are all these meeting (Trinity meeting scheduled for the day after this as noted in thread on Trinity River Project...check it out) happening when I am going to be confined to home on pain pills? I guess spring is meeting season.

They've probably read all of your posts here ;)

I hope to make this. If I remember, I'll take notes and post something.

[freewaytincan]

I can't make it.

[gc]

Here is some small proof that emailing the Mayor and the Dallas City Council (via the Dallas website) can prove to be an effective way to share ideas with the powers that be. A month or so ago, I sent them an email about the Dallas Grand Hotel and the 211 Ervay Building ("Worst Eyed Building"). In the email, I mentioned that rather than tearing down both buildings they should convert them to cheap office space, dorm rooms, faculty rooms for the UCD, etc. Some of those ideas were mine and others were taken from members of this board. Anyways, here is the response I got...finally. Let me know what you think.



Garrett - After some twists and turns, your idea found its way to my desk. I am sorry for the delay - I was out last week on a short vacation and returned to about 150 email messages.

There has been a lot of discussion about the Dallas Grand lately. There is a large outstanding tax lien on the property. It is likely that the building will be sold at a Sheriff's sale some time. The timing is major question. Within the last 60 days the City contracted with a consulting firm to do a comprehensive park plan for downtown Dallas. One of the sites that is being considered for a major park includes the Dallas Grand. That study is scheduled to take about a year. It is unlikely that the City will offer the building for sale to satisfy the tax liens until we determine if the site is needed for a public park.

Personally, I think the Dallas Grand is a great building. Your idea makes a lot of sense. I think the difficulty (outside of the tax lien) will be cash. I have worked with Brian Guitterrez at the Dallas County Community College District. From what I can tell, cash is short for this type of expansion - especially into an area where they are currently not doing - housing. Willis Winters is the City staff person working with the downtown park study.

With your interest in downtown you might want to contact Mr. Winters to be included in the public participation process for the park study.

Please let me know if you have other ideas or concerns.

Karl Stundins
Area Redevelopment Manager
214/670-1690


I highly recommend emailing your thoughts in the same manner I did. You can do so by clicking here (http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/forms/mcc/MCC_Mail_Form.htm)! You may not get a response, but it may be worth the effort since so many of us here have good ideas....and it cannot hurt :D ! Also, I got a voicemail last Monday from someone working with the Downtown Partnership wanting to talk about an idea I had emailed....not sure which one....but I have not had a chance to return that call yet.

[gc]

wow, i thought for sure that my previous post would have generated a response or ten!

[bloodandpopcorn]

I missed the post somehow! but WOW, that is VERY impressive! Looks like you're getting the connections that can be used to make a difference, eh?

[gc]

From the CDA residents council newsletter....


REPORT TO RESIDENTS:
DOWNTOWN PARKS MASTER PLAN
By Don Raines Jr. / V.P. Residents Council

Good News to report: the City of Dallas Parks and Recreation Department is currently conducting a Downtown Parks and Open Spaces Master Plan and residents have an opportunity to influence what we would like to see developed in our Downtown neighborhood.

The Parks and Recreation Department along with the Carter & Burgess consultant team have formed the Downtown Parks Master Plan Steering Committee. The first meeting was conducted on January 30th at City Hall. Downtown residents have expressed the importance of future parks and open spaces as their top priority of Downtown improvements through two CDA Downtown surveys, at a higher percentage of desirability even above their desire for more retail/restaurants. The time has come for Residents to consider themselves ‘stakeholders’ in this decision making process.

The Steering Committee meeting on January 30th was the overall introduction to the objectives of this year project. The Steering Committee was introduced as well as the Parks Department Key Staff and the consultant and design team of Carter & Burgess. The Overall scope was reviewed and the agenda following focused on four components to the overall process.

1) The Graphic Analysis: which is an inventory of existing conditions.
2) Committee / Stakeholder input: which is the collection of information to help with the Park programming efforts.
3) Site Selections: which is determining the Park and Open Space physical locations based on the projected needs from community input and earlier analysis.
4) Final Presentations: The final Downtown Parks Master Plan.

Open discussion: Brought up the issue that the Downtown Transit Study should be coordinated with the Downtown Parks Master Plan, verses the potential for conflicting study results. As a result of this discussion, the Parks Department agreed that
the Master Plan may need to extend its’ duration beyond one year to include that separate study as a factor to the overall decision making process. For my part, I brought up the point that Downtown Residents would likely be the primary users of the
Downtown Parks due to our strong input from those two CDA surveys. I also wanted to emphasize that downtown residents are a growing demographic and that our needs for green space is also growing and that we very much want to be involved in the development of our Parks and Open Space.

The Community Kick off Meeting, held on Monday March 10th at City Hall, mirrored the earlier steering committee meeting.
Some of the topics ranged from park sizes and locations, concerns over the preservation of the former Statler-Hilton Hotel (which has been identified as a potential park location), and other concerns were expressed such as homelessness, current economic climate and park maintenance. But in my opinion, one of the more important topics discussed was focused on the importance of finding the right ‘programming’ for the Downtown Parks. In other words, what would be the primary function of the parks? Should the Parks serve as prominent civic space, event space, primarily green space, active recreational space, play ground areas or are their other ideas?

It is important that Downtown Dallas Parks reflect the common spirit and aspirations of the community as a whole. However chances are downtown residents will interact with these public spaces to a larger degree as if they were our own back and front yards, because in a sense, they would be.

This is an exciting time to be downtown; we have the opportunity to help shape a vision of how and where our public spaces
can become. Our future parks and open spaces should ‘raise the bar’ for the quality of life environment we wish to achieve in
Downtown. Please take some time and reflect upon what you would like to see happen in downtown as far as future Parks and
Open Spaces are concerned and then let your voice be heard. As your Downtown Residents representative on the Steering Committee I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Please e-mail me at draines@da.wrtdesign.com.

[gc]

Here is an article from Planetizen about urban parks that I found to be relevant.



Urban Parks: Innovate Or Stagnate

If the majority of America's parks aren't going to stagnate, they're going to need to learn from those parks that are getting it right.
By Fred Kent - Apr 14, 2003

Massive budget cuts in U.S. cities, combined with a growing focus on urban revitalization and walkable cities, puts urban parks in the spotlight as never before. Effectiveness is the name of the game, and however you look at it, there's no doubt that the most effective parks are the ones that are best used.

But it's not just a matter of attracting lots of people; it's a matter of having a diversity of people, who are attracted by a range of things to do, throughout the year.

Which is why it is so remarkable that, although people profess to love parks, many parks are failing to attract people. Take a look for yourself in towns and cities across the country, and you'll see parks and plazas galore that have little happening in them at all.

The problem is that there's an art to successful park design and management -- an art that we seem to be losing. Basic elements -- such as comfort, sociability, access and activities -- seem to have slipped through the cracks as more and more parks fail to meet the mixed and varied needs of their visitors.

Even high-profile parks are showing signs of being in trouble. New York's Bryant Park -- famed for a renovation that brought crowds to a once-derelict hangout for drug dealers - is one example. While its lush lawns and convenient moveable chairs make it a heavily used place for much of the year, it is increasingly given over to private interests. At the main park entrance, Starbucks has taken the place of local coffee purveyors. And the park is virtually inaccessible to regular folk for up to a month each year, due to the semi-annual Mercedes-Benz New York Fashion Week (including set up and recovery). Despite its innovative history, Bryant Park has become a victim of its own success and is cutting itself off from the public it ought to be serving.

While Bryant Park suffers as a result of corporatization, Denver's Skyline Park has been condemned because of over-design and then abandonment. Described by Rocky Mountain News editor and publisher, John Temple as a "bold vision, but flawed", the 3.2-acre park was completed in 1973 with the aim of renewing a blighted area of the city. The problem is that the sole path through the park goes nowhere, offering only concrete walls and ledges for comfort. Overflowing garbage cans, cigarette butts and chipped wooden benches are a clear sign of a park that got left behind. (It's now slated for a controversial redesign.)

Granted, most parks are not at the epicenter of Midtown Manhattan, nor are they as dramatically neglected as Skyline Park. But it's not just the high-profile places that are at risk. Nibbled away for parking lots and office blocks, hijacked by single-issue recreational groups from dog owners to Little Leaguers, over-designed by the very people trying to save them - America's everyday parks are also facing challenges.

So which ones are getting it right? They are the ones that have dedicated people who are willing to think creatively, innovate and listen to their range of users.

It's always inspiring to look outside the U.S for examples, such as the Paris Plage, a smash hit last summer. With a ribbon of sand, umbrellas, cafes and volleyball courts, Mayor Bertrand Delanoë temporarily transformed 3.8 kilometers of inner-city expressway along the Seine River into an urban beach (displacing hundreds of thousands of motorists in the process). Seventeen city agencies worked together to create this temporary park, equipped with 80 imported palm trees, 22 changing tents, 150 parasols and 300 blue canvas deckchairs.

Besides all these accoutrements, there was plenty to do at Paris-Plage: a string of cafes, music and dance floors, climbing walls, volleyball, boules, and putting greens. Despite taking place during the dog-days of summer, when Paris empties… Three million people visited the Paris-Plage in its first week, 600,000 on the first day alone.

Vienna's Rathaus/City Hall Park is another good example. Surrounded by some of the city's most treasured buildings, the park is one of the city's most popular destinations for locals and tourists alike. It is used all year round for concerts, festivals, markets and even small-scale tennis tournaments. But the biggest draws are the Christmas markets, the ice rink in January, and the "classical music film festival" in summer.

Back in North America, Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square is another example of a park that has won the support of its public. Rather than opting for a passive green space, the Square is indeed a "pioneer" among a new generation of public spaces designed for a flexible range of uses and activities. It has a continuing tradition of citizen participation with thousands of community events held over the past decade, and ongoing experimentation with new seasonal uses.

On the other hand, Dufferin Grove Park in Toronto, Canada, provides plenty of green space, but is far from passive in its uses. Described as a "community center without a roof," the park rejected the stereotypical children's playground and opted instead for the kind of "equipment" that universally appeals to kids: water, sand, crafts and even old pots and pans. For older people, there's a community oven for baking pizza and bread, a theatre, ice rink, wading pool, baseball diamond, basketball court, chess, checkers, card playing ... all within a setting of beautiful and abundant old shady trees.

Great parks are the key to more livable towns and cities. The tragedy is that if they aren't well-designed and managed, then they aren't properly used -- and if they aren't used, then… they simply go away or cease to become public spaces.

So if the majority of America's parks aren't going to stagnate, they're going to need to learn a thing or two from those parks that are getting it right -- and get back to creating parks that are attractive and accessible to everyone who wishes to use them.

[gc]

44-acre park plan unveiled for downtown Dallas
3 smaller sites also proposed for downtown green spaces

07/11/2003 - By VICTORIA LOE HICKS / The Dallas Morning News

The notion of a downtown park as the "big idea" that can invigorate the center city took on flesh Thursday as urban planners unveiled sketches of a sweeping, multiblock greensward east of the Arts District.

At 44 acres, the park would be two-thirds the size of the Dallas Arboretum. Planners had been asked to identify sites of 10 acres or less.

The larger space, which they dubbed "Gateway Park," was among four potential sites identified as most promising among 17 considered. The planners will evaluate the four in greater detail and rank them according to desirability.

The other three, all in the historic downtown core, include a much-discussed block at Main and Harwood streets. It lies between the city's ornate municipal courts building – which until recently also housed the police headquarters – and the empty Mercantile Bank complex.

Preservationists had assailed earlier suggestions that a park there might encompass two blocks, resulting in demolition of the onetime Statler Hilton Hotel and the old central library.

The park consultants' plan targets only one block, occupied primarily by parking garages, and would leave the hotel and library untouched. Two small historic buildings are sandwiched between the parking garages; they would either be moved to another site or incorporated into the park.

The two other sites are occupied by surface parking lots. One is at Harwood and Pacific streets; the other is at Main and Griffin streets.

Mayor Laura Miller attended Thursday's presentation to a steering committee composed primarily of commercial property owners and downtown residents. The committee includes Robert Decherd, chairman, president and CEO of Belo Corp., which owns The Dallas Morning News.

The $365,000 master plan for downtown parks was funded half by the city and half by downtown landowners represented on the mayor's Inside the Loop Committee, chaired by Mr. Decherd.

The study involves a half dozen consulting firms. Thursday's presentation was led by representatives of Carter & Burgess and Hargreaves Associates.

Mary Margaret Jones, president of Hargreaves, said the so-called Gateway site has the potential to be a "signature park" – one that reshapes the image of downtown. In addition to lying at a major entrance point to downtown, she said, it should draw many users from burgeoning neighborhoods such as Uptown and near East Dallas.

The Main and Harwood site, dubbed "Main Street Garden," offers a rich mix of surrounding historic structures, including the old Titche-Goettinger department store – converted to lofts and the Universities Center at Dallas – as well as the municipal building, the Statler and the Mercantile.

"The Merc" comprises four buildings, with the most historic being the tower building at the end of the block farthest from the park site. No developer has yet found a feasible plan for redeveloping the complex.

If a developer proposed renovating only the tower building and demolishing the others, the park planners said, the park could leap St. Paul Street and take in much of the Mercantile block.

However, they said, the park would work just as well or perhaps better in the one-block configuration.

"One block is enough," Ms. Jones said.

The block at Pacific and Harwood, dubbed "Pacific Garden," has the advantage of lying in the midst of one of downtown's densest collections of office towers. It also abuts the Adam's Mark Hotel and the Majestic Theater.

The fourth site, identified as "Griffin Garden," also would serve many office workers. Unlike the other sites, it has a single owner, who also owns some of the adjacent properties and presumably would benefit from having a park at that spot.

Steering committee members greeted the consultants' work enthusiastically.

"This is very encouraging," Mr. Decherd said.

"These ideas have the potential to galvanize a great deal of support."

The bond package passed in May includes $5 million toward acquisition of a downtown park. The city hopes to use that money to attract grants and private money to help implement the consultants' recommendations.

Ms. Miller said the City Council, which does not meet in July, will be briefed by the consultants at the earliest opportunity.

[gc]

I personally like the idea for the "Gateway Park". I said it all along!

It does not decrease density in the CBD; It is a good use of land on the eastern side of the CBD (currently eyesore parking lots or empty lots); It will encourage residential/office development on this side of CBD (Who would not want a view of the "Gateway Park"); It is adjacent to a DART station; It is close to the Arts District; etc; etc

[psukhu]

The east side is also shaded from the afternoon sun by the skyscrapers .

[snooch]

Plus it would allow for a very cool view of downtown, especially at sunset.

[214]

this is great news!!!!
i hope they build all these parks

[jsoto3]

I am most pleased that the consultants recommend that the "Main Street Garden" only be one block, not requiring the demolition of the Grand Hotel.

[jsoto3]

I am very curious about this 44 acre "Gateway Park." The image below shows how it might be configured. Problem is, this cuts into much of the Arts District's land for proposed projects such has the new opera house, lyric theater, and natural history museum. Also, this leaves very limited oportunities for new adjacent development.

[dallashorn]

Actually, the land for the theaters and opera house is not shaded in that picture. That land is where the "notch" is on the picture. I think the park land does encompass where the museum of natural history was looking though. However, I don't believe land has been purchased for the museum yet. What I think will be interesting is the cost to buy that land. The Billingsley Company(Trammell Crow's daughter's company) owns quite a bit of that land. I would think they have been holding onto that land with the hopes of doing some serious developing after the arts district matured. There is always imminent domain, but it will be interesting what "market" value is determined to be.

[jsoto3]

Actually, I purposely shaded the park area in the map above to include the land for two of the new arts district projects. The buildings in the notch are the arts magnet school and the arts district theater. The new theater will replace the existing one and the opera house will be located on the block just south, where the 'a' in 'acres' is.

[chiboi]

I am all for anything that takes out another surface parking lot. My dream of downtown is void of all surface parking facilites. Any hope for a fountain at this new park?

[dallashorn]

jsoto3, your right, my mistake on where the opera house is to be located. Thanks of detailed map.

As for the previous post, I have really thought a fountain or reflecting pool would be a great addition to the arts district. If you have been the the Kimball in Fort Woth, the reflecting pool really gives a serene touch to the museum.

My idea is that a reflecting pool including a wall with water running down it (running as a barrier to Woodall Rogers) located in the parking lot between the Meyerson and the Nasher would be spectacular. Add in some lighting and you would have a spectacular core to the arts district.

[psukhu]

The new museum could always be in the park.

(like the Met is in NYC)

[jsoto3]

So if the proposed park is configured as I have assumed (educated guess) above:

-how contiguous could such a park be?
-what happens to the existing buildings?
-what happens to the existing streets?
-how well would such a park actually be utilized given its peripheral location?
-what 'type' of park would it be?
-what are the actual development opportunities afforded by such a configuration?
-etc.?



My thoughts:

This park would only be contiguous if most of the existing streets and buildings were removed; for obvious reasons, Ross and Routh would have to remain. I suspect the park would be under utilized by the public at large, depending on its program. There are very limited opportunities for adjacent development (not even 3 whole blocks). I think a smaller park surrounded by new high density mixed use development is in order here.

[gc]

psukhu, you are correct. A museum could always be in the park.

jsoto, those are excellent questions. Let's hope those are answered in the weeks/months to come as the parks plan mature.

I'll be honest. I'd like to see some high-rise residential development on the eastern side of I75. It would certainly offer an excellent view of the park and the skyline.

[aceplace]

I have another suggestion for what could be in the park.

How about a water park? Perhaps not as ambitious as the water park next to Six Flags, but one on the level of NrH2O in North Richland Hills.

Think of the visual impact such a park would have on people flying over the city. Dallas would look like FUN!

Also, the revenue stream from the water park would be able to fund park-like improvements outside of it, such as a small performance space for theatre groups.

Putting a water park there would provide a solution to the problem of funding... the city might conceivably raise a few million dollars for the land, assuming eminent domain is necessary, but wouldn't necessarily have the money to make improvements... the park would become nothing more than expensive front lawn.

Also, no Dallas businesses would object... there are no competing private water parks in the city... and Dallas doesn't have to listen to businesses in the suburbs.

The park would have an immense draw because it's accessible by DART... and much closer than the Arlington park ... and cheaper.

The economics of the park would probably allow for heated water in winter... think of the publicity Dallas would get when they broadcast the cotton bowl game in January... they usually show shots of downtown from a blimp, and they would definitely focus on something as picturesque as a downtown water park.

With ancillary concessions, the park would be a tremendous boost to downtown, and to even more downtown development.

[aceplace]

Now that I think about it, I think central Moscow has a heated public swimming pool, open in winter, as a morale booster to people who have to endure the cold.

I remember pictures in National Geographic about something like that. People in a hug pool, with enormous amounts of fog rising above them...

If a relatively impoverished country can do something like that, why not our wealthy city, with its billion dollar per year budget?

[jsoto3]

WFAA Report - Downtown Parks Masterplan Unveiled (http://www.wfaa.com/cgi-bin/bi/video/G2redirect.pl?title=4930489)

[bloodandpopcorn]

I'd love to see something like that! maybe not a water park, just a series of little swimming pools/hottubs/spas or whatever you want to callthem, where a family or group of friends can come in relax. In the winter it could be a big draw, and in summer it would be PACKED!! It could be something fairly cheap, like $10 for a whole day, or something like that. You could even maybe buy a Yearly pass for $35 or something... It'd be great.

[gc]

Well, I'd like to see the a series of parks around the city as well. This has been one of my biggest requests: Greenery! Aesthetics and perception are more important than most realize. This is certainly a step in the right direction.

B&C, I am not sure if I agree with your idea of "little swimming pools/hottubs/spas". Not here in downtown. I am out!