Dallas: Form-based Zoning and Pedestrian-friendly Street Design

[FoUTASportscaster]

Now that I finally have the time, I can answer your quesion.


So what are your suggestions to make the Arts District pedestrian.

My suggestions range from the large and impossible, tearing it down and starting over, to the the relatively small. I will directly answer the question from the framework of make in better.

1) Shrink the size of Pearl, bulldoze the median and reduce a lane in each direction, or keep the lanes and use them for on street parking at all times. There is nothing like crossing six lanes of traffic with a median to get a pedestrian out of their comfort zone, particularly during rush hour or when cars are streaming in for concerts.

2) Reduce the size of Ross to 4 lanes, or five with a center turn lane. It doesn't get out of proportion until you hit Pearl going east, but since the predominant facilities of the Arts District are east of Pearl and north of Ross, this is a huge hinderance to pedestrian activity.

3) Create a public "square" near Flora/Pearl or Flora/Crockett. This would integrate the facilities into the Arts scene. A chance to dine out before a concert, shop after a performance or a place to get groceries after a stroll in the park are lacking. All those listed require a car to do currently, which then limits any activity in the immediate surroundings. One Arts is nice, but given its location at the corner of two freeways and on the edge of the District, it is not likely to become the center. (Unless #10 happens, but then it still wouldn't be the center of the arts activity) Best chance is ground floor retail at Stonehenge or the Museum Tower site, since neither are built up or completed.

4) The DMA is just horrible. I suggest several things, ranging from a mural or murals on the blank walls outside, to completely demoing the building and starting over. Another possibility is a vertical extension of the northern or southern half, demoing the other and extending Flora Street to Saint Paul, uniting it with Munger for a near seamless transition.

5) While the Nasher isn't as bad as the DMA, it is still useless at street level. No real suggestions here, as it is smaller in comparison and serves a functional purpose. Murals on the blank walls are the best I can come up with.

6) Improved transit access. My suggestion is a streetcar line in/near Bryan Place, down Ross, the south on Pearl to the Farmers Market. There is also the MATA extension on Olive, which will help. Also alternative transport, such as a biking, hiking trail would help, though I know of no place to put it that would have its own ROW.

7) Existing office towers need to move the interior retail/restaurant to the outside, which usually can be accomplished by adding a door to the exterior of the tower. It still amazes me how much is actually contained inside places like Trammell Crow Tower, 2100 Ross and Chase, though technically, the last two aren't in the Arts District. If there were access from the outside, pedestrian traffic begins to increase.

8) On a near-related note, demolish the skywalks adjacent to the Arts District. 2100 Ross has a Subway, Convenience Store and a Dentist on the second floor next to the skywalk. Chase has a Starbucks and Plaza of the Americas has a bunch. By doing 7 and 8 together, pedestrian traffic increases dramatically.

9) Allow no more fortress office towers, or for that matter, fortress towers regardless of their use. As we have debated ad nauseum, pedestrian friendly doesn't have mean ground floor retail. Places that encourage pedestrian activity, such as Fountain Place are needed.

10) Probably the most controversial, demolish Woodall Rogers and I-345. I saw a map of Dallas prior to WR and today's Uptown and DTD were united, creating a continuous pedestrian street grid. We are attempting to build a 60-70 million dollar deck park to mitigate the negative effects of the freeway and unite Uptown with the Arts District.

Also, according to the DMN, WR was constructed to relieve congestion on the mixmaster. Follow up traffic counts indicate that never happened, but rather the reverse, as traffic counts increased at a rate higher tha before and then WR also became congested. As has been noted in San Fransisco and New York, when a freeway is removed, the majority of traffic isn't rerouted, it simply disappears. It is time to right a wrong and enhance the urban environment.

By demoing WR, the West End and Victory would also have a chance to integrate the pedestrian seamlessly, as well as the Arts District and LoMac. I-345 would also unite the Arts District with Bryan Place and Deep Ellum with the Main Street District and Farmers Market.

The service roads in exsistence at WR would stay and the freeway would be converted to usable land. With I-345, demolish the freeway and replace it with a 5-6 lane blvd.

[txRNGr]

For lack of better words, I think we can revisit aygriffith's post...

And if this forum is Sportscasters own personal podium for opinion and "fact" and we are all supposed to agree or be shunned, they need to change the name of the forum. One man can not single handedly represent the thoughts minds and comments of this whole forum and the urban ideals dallas should live by. If this is the case then maybe he should change his name to HugoChavezSportscaster, its alittle too totalitarian for me... So pardon me if I disagree with the one and only.
Sportscaster, your ideas are creative and original but the way you market and package them in their smug boxes along with an intolerant viewpoint for any compromise is simply annoying and polarizing. Perhaps you should read the 1937 classic "How to Win Friends and Influence People" (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650) by Dale Carnegie. We all know that Dallas was built as a sunbelt city, designed around the automobile since the 1950s, in a state that has an agriculural history and more land than we know what to do with. Its going to take some time before we reach the urbanism that you desire and not every single project is going to fit your mold. However, progess is being made and I think we should support what we have, a great emerging Arts District in our downtown, while pushing for higher densities and more cohesive communities. And yes, in our world(the real one, not the one in your head) you do see things negatively. Its time to stop bitching about what's already been built and what you cant control, step down off your soap-box, and leave this thread to the Museum Tower. Be proud of your city and what its accomplished for once and lets get on with it..........

As has been noted in San Fransisco and New York, when a freeway is removed, the majority of traffic isn't rerouted, it simply disappears.
And how exactly does this traffic "simply disappear"? Pixie dust??

[FoUTASportscaster]

And yes, in our world(the real one, not the one in your head) you do see things negatively. Its time to stop bitching about what's already been built and what you cant control, step down off your soap-box, and leave this thread to the Museum Tower. Be proud of your city and what its accomplished for once and lets get on with it..........

By that logic, none of us should comment on anything, since it is out of our control. By that logic, all the forum should ever be is posting of news stories. Sorry to say if my reality is negative. But it is what it is. Sorry I don't do enough cheerleading for you guys. I only do it when it is warranted, such as the case of most every residential building in downtown. Other than that, Dallas has done a big goose egg.

And I don't buy that bit about having more land than we know what to do with. Somehow Fort Worth has done it more right than Dallas has. They have a lot more land in their corporate limits than Dallas does and has lots more space to expand their limits. They didn't bulldoze their history, they didn't build tunnels willy nilly or cut off their downtown from their waterfront. Just because it has been done before, doesn't mean it is off-limits for discussion.


And how exactly does this traffic "simply disappear"? Pixie dust??

If you work from the question of how are we going to move all these cars, the answer is simple. If you slightly modify your question to how are we going to move people efficiently, the answer drastically changes.

Suburban Nation offers a great explanation:

“The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic. The revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse. This paradox was suspected as early as 1942 by Robert Moses, who noticed that the highways he had built around New York City in 1939 were somehow generating greater traffic problems than had existed previously. Since then, the phenomenon has been well documented, most notably in 1989, when the Southern California Association of Governments concluded that traffic-assistance measures, be they adding lanes, or even double-decking the roadways, would have no more than a cosmetic effect on Los Angeles’ traffic problems. The best it could offer was to tell people to work closer to home, which is precisely what highway building mitigates against.

Across the Atlantic, the British government reached a similar conclusion. Its studies showed that increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more – a lot more – such that half of any driving time savings generated by new roadways are lost in the short run. In the Long run, potentially all savings are expected to be lost. In the words of the Transport Minister, “The fact of the matter is that we cannot tackle our traffic problems by buildings more roads.” While the British have responded to this discovery by drastically cutting their road-building budgets, no such thing can be said about Americans.

There is no shortage of hard data. A recent University of California at Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four year’s time. For anecdotal evidence, one need only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway systems: USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: “For years, Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City… As a result of the area’s sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than residents of any other city.” This phenomenon, which is now well known to those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has come to be called induced traffic.

The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: “Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.” Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible. ”

I also wish I had Asphalt Nation, but I lent it out. It disects the numbers. In the New York Case, a freeway brigde collapsed and much to traffic "experts" surprise, 93% of the trips over that bridge disappeared. Only 7% were rerouted. Meaning those others either carpooled, took the bus, Subway, walked, etc.

In the San Fransisco case, it was the Embarcadero Freeway collapse in the '89 earthquake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarcadero_Freeway

[cowboyeagle05]

And how exactly does this traffic "simply disappear"? Pixie dust??

I wrote this during the above explanation of the subject

I will tackle this one its called capacity. Reduce the capacity and people have to go someone where else. For instance the WR example Sportscaster mentioned above, one of the reasons it did not fix anything is because people simply felt that traffic would be fixed, so more people decided to drive farther and through the city center. By adding more capacity to a highway just means people will create the illusion in their head that now traffic is solved so more will feel comfortable with a job across the metroplex and so they will drive more creating more traffic filling the just added capacity. Businesses also use this state of mind expecting their workers to come from miles away adding to the traffic in the Metro which is crosstown traffic. Course removing a highway would require some more of the rearranging economically but we have already started that movement. The less capacity the less people think they can drive that way. The Blvd will still have lots of traffic but development patterns around this model require that jobs be located in quick proximity to the employees. You can still build those numerous 50 story towers without a highway nearby, that is also an illusion that has come with the drive mind. Removing highways will not eliminate people from Downtown and developers from getting to Dallas and building up its density as long as they build what people need into their projects like space for neighborhood service retailers. Also Office buildings can choose to do without a coffee shop in its base but it still needs to build wide sidewalks and use architecture that suggests movement down the street and create interactivity with people walking by the building. Thats what creates a mixed use neighborhood and economy. Use mass transit for distant travel like to the local airport so you can leave your car parked at home for free. This is not a change overnight and does take time considering how long it took to get us where we are now, miles away from a chance of walking to a job or corner store for milk. We have to remind ourselves of the ultimate goal which is not to yield to the car but to the pedestrian. We have and will make compromises on the way but I think Sportcaster is just reminding us of the structure of our goal walkable neighborhoods with less traffic/pollution, mixed use in some places where appropriate, and buildings that pay attention to the pedestrian design standards. The list could go on but here I will stop so we can start a drinking game for the word "Pedestrian".

[tamtagon]

Suburban Nation offers a great explanation

The analytical conclusions offered in Suburban Nation will stand the test of time about as well as conclusions that stated it's healthier for newborn babies to drink manufactured baby formula than mother's milk.

[gshelton91]

4) The DMA is just horrible. I suggest several things, ranging from a mural or murals on the blank walls outside, to completely demoing the building and starting over. Another possibility is a vertical extension of the northern or southern half, demoing the other and extending Flora Street to Saint Paul, uniting it with Munger for a near seamless transition.

5.

I think you could fix the DMA without it being so big a deal. If the DMA were to take the ground level parts of the building that face Hardwood and do a few things I think they could make a huge difference in area.

1 -- take the walls out of that court yard and open the museum shop and restaurant on to it. Add a sign on the outside of the building for both.

2 -- Make the restaurant a serious one... something like sambuca with Jazz that makes money and people want to go to.

3 -- Add a space where Gallerys in and around downtown can rent a small space and show some of their art for sale -- this would promote their gallerys and at the same time create Art related retail at the DMA with street signage

4 --- opening on to the new Flora street entrance on the north side of the entry courtyard add an artists supply store --- paints, canvas that kind of thing...

5 --- take sections of the wall surrounding the sculpture garden down and place glass windows like the Nasher has --- or better yet take down all the walls and open it up.

6 -- make an entrance/exit on the opposite side of the DMA from the Flora entrance/Exit so people could go through the building

[FoUTASportscaster]

^Fine ideas Gary. See what happens when you discuss things that are out of your control.


The analytical conclusions offered in Suburban Nation will stand the test of time about as well as conclusions that stated it's healthier for newborn babies to drink manufactured baby formula than mother's milk.

While there are a lot of things New Urbanist and the New Urbanism movement lack, the fact that their developments are centered around the pedestrian give it a sustainability that modern conventional development lacks. It has been almost 22 years since the first Andres Duany New Urbanist development opened and property values have far exceeded similar developments built at that time.

I don't know what your beef is with the New Urbanist movement, but you seem to baste them every chance you can get.

Also, it should be pointed out, Tamt, that despite your misgivings toward that book, others, such as Asphalt Nation, Sprawl Kills, The Death and Life of Great American Cities and How Cities Work all point in some form or fashion to the Induced Traffic Principle. Do you care to dispute these books as well?


We all know that Dallas was built as a sunbelt city, designed around the automobile since the 1950s, in a state that has an agriculural history and more land than we know what to do with. Its going to take some time before we reach the urbanism that you desire and not every single project is going to fit your mold.

The more I think about this, the more misguided it seems to me. Cities are shaped from two things. The first and primary is the ability to generate wealth. That is industry, commercial and jobs. In Dallas, it primarily was agricultural in the early years. Dallas became a trading place for agriculture. Then that led to goods, which then led to Mills and so on.

The second thing to effect the design and layout of a city is transportation. Dallas became a boomtown in 1873 when it became the first rail crossroads in Texas. It allowed goods to go to the national market and brought retailers such as the Sanger Bros. to the city.

Dallas densified, despite the availability of land, when streetcar companies such as the Dallas City Railroad Company, Belt Street Railway and Commerce and Ervay Railway, allowed people to concentrate in a small area. Despite the suburbanization in Oak Cliff, North Dallas, East Dallas, Munger Place and Highland Park, streetcars were still the primary and efficient means of transport. They were laid out in a pedestrian friendly design where everyday amenities were available by foot and downtown shopping destinations were a simple hop on the streetcar. Old DMN stories talk about the lines like they were common knowledge, something that doesn't happen today, even with the LRT system. Transit encourages density, regardless of its surroundings.

Freeways, however, do not encourage density. Going back to the second thing that shapes cities, when Dallas built a transportation alternative that encouraged sprawl, the city began to sprawl. As we shifted from a dense transportation system to one that encourages spread out development, downtown and the surroundings reflected that. It helped empty out downtown to nothing but a CBD.

In 1940, Dallas had a density of 7,259 people per square mile, the best of any census. In 1950, it was 3,879. In 1960, after most inner city freeways were completed, it was 2,428.

It is not a coincedence that prior to the LRT and MATA system, DTD and Uptown had little in the way of true urbanity. MATA came in 1989, and Uptown started building. The LRT came in 1996, when Dallas had less than 500 people living downtown.

It is also now coincidence that developers and Irving are doing all they can to get the Orange Line in on time, as numerous TOD's are dependent upon it.

[tamtagon]

I don't know what your beef is with the New Urbanist movement, but you seem to baste them every chance you can get.

If that's what you get out of my comments - that I baste the New Urbanist movement, then you are not understanding anything I say. Maybe the way I like to poke fun at some of the names and/or terminology used to advertise or describe a New Urbanist Mixed Use Towne Living Centre has you confused....


Also, it should be pointed out, Tamt, that despite your misgivings toward that book, others, such as Asphalt Nation, Sprawl Kills, The Death and Life of Great American Cities and How Cities Work all point in some form or fashion to the Induced Traffic Principle. Do you care to dispute these books as well?

Books of this ilk represent a point in time opportunity for some publishing industry participants to make a buck as our society responds to changes in living conditions. Axioms that suburban sprawl creates an unsustainable lifestyle are as preposterous in this generation as axioms that a very crowded city creates an unsustainable lifestyle from previous generations.

Run these books through the sociological thresher, and you'll get a whole lotta chaff and not a lotta grain.

[SkyLife]

^ All great comments, but I just shudder at the idea of "compromise." Greatness never comes from compromise.

I actually think Cities would do better with a King (a good one at least) that had the imagination and power to do something significant in short order. Or at least once person in charge to actually do something.

Our cities have unfortunately been "negotiated" to mediocrity. Who wants to be King or Queen? Sportscaster?

[jimbone]

And I don't buy that bit about having more land than we know what to do with. Somehow Fort Worth has done it more right than Dallas has. They have a lot more land in their corporate limits than Dallas does and has lots more space to expand their limits. They didn't bulldoze their history, they didn't build tunnels willy nilly or cut off their downtown from their waterfront. Just because it has been done before, doesn't mean it is off-limits for discussion

I find it funny that Fort Worth is always brought into these discussion some of your suggestion were O.K. others like WR and getting rid of the other highway are pipe dreams. DMA could get rebuilt in the future if someone funds it. Does Dallas do everything right no, but Fort Worth is not some nirvana to pedestrians they don't even have a LRT. I hear they are planning one but it hasn't got further than that. Dallas is becoming more pedestrian does this city have a long way to go, yes I think everyone here could agree on that. A friend of mine asked me a great question about this board he asked what are people on this forum (including me) doing to make Dallas better? He continued to say that nothing changes while people sit on their computers and type away.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Books of this ilk represent a point in time opportunity for some publishing industry participants to make a buck as our society responds to changes in living conditions. Axioms that suburban sprawl creates an unsustainable lifestyle are as preposterous in this generation as axioms that a very crowded city creates an unsustainable lifestyle from previous generations.

Run these books through the sociological thresher, and you'll get a whole lotta chaff and not a lotta grain.

To continue the hijack until a new thread is created, New Urbanism is a spin on city building principles that have existed since the first city building until 1940. While it has shortcomings, like shoehorning the development that is supposed to be pedestrian oriented into an auto-oriented area, it is still an improvement over standard suburbia.

Standard sprawl, unless we are talking Highland Park or Southlake is unsustainable because the taxes raised do not cover the cost of services and is absolutely dependent on growth to keep going. Of course, as cities like Arlington, Richardson and Garland will tell you, growth slows and when it does, budget deficits begin. Luckily for Richardson and Garland, they pay for DART through a sales tax, rather than a general fund and those rail stops are prime areas for dense, more sustainable redevelopment. Arlington, on the other hand is taking tax revenue off the rolls, while tax-exempting a self-suffcient stadium and pinning its hopes on redevelopment there, then giving tax breaks to a New Urbanist Town Centre (yea, I don't like the name either) to build.

To say the New Urbanism movement, as well as Traditional Urbanism is a fad is to say that New York, London and Tokyo are too, though they are more traditional than anything.

BTW, the previous generation never deemed the "crowded city" as unsustainable. It was more undesireable, but the services were generally started up by private investors and then bought by the government, meaning it was quite sustainable.

[Sky Time]

its fun to watch you guys go back and forth.

[tamtagon]

its fun to watch you guys go back and forth.

It's fun to be involved with substative comments, too. Hopefully the back and forth is at least informational, maybe even educational. That's kinda the point, right?

[msutton]

Unfortunately, it's neither.

[incrediculous]

Books of this ilk represent a point in time opportunity for some publishing industry participants to make a buck as our society responds to changes in living conditions.

Pop academia never had it so good.

[Fort Worthology]

Sportscaster, love reading your posts. Good to see proper urban design has an advocate here on the Dallas forum as I try to promote on the Fort Worth forum.

[Sky Time]

It's fun to be involved with substative comments, too. Hopefully the back and forth is at least informational, maybe even educational. That's kinda the point, right?

True, it is good to see what other people think. If everyone agreed with everything life would be so boring.

[sterling]

^ All great comments, but I just shudder at the idea of "compromise." Greatness never comes from compromise.

I actually think Cities would do better with a King (a good one at least) that had the imagination and power to do something significant in short order. Or at least once person in charge to actually do something.

Our cities have unfortunately been "negotiated" to mediocrity. Who wants to be King or Queen? Sportscaster?

Greatness? I'd settle for some small glint of mediocre light at the end of long dark alley. Being trapped in limbo doesn't have much appeal after 40 years of inaction. And oftentimes greatness does come from compromise, because the participants are forced to see beyond their own self-focused agendas and incorporate a larger more inclusive vision. Artists don't always have to compromise, but realists usually do. Greatness is not measured "before the fact", but afterward.

As for kings, that's the problem in a nutshell. It's Dallas' self-appointed monarchy that ties up everything from a convention center hotel to a few crucial sq. feet of downtown Dallas languishing in an unbreakable trust. It's been decades since Dallas' royals have held up their end of "the vision thing". They seem more interested in us learning to see the world through their cataracts. Kings and queens? Off with their heads!

[SkyLife]

Unfortunately, it's neither.

^ A great example of having nothing to contribute, but typing something anyway.

[tamtagon]

Sportscaster, love reading your posts. Good to see proper urban design has an advocate here on the Dallas forum as I try to promote on the Fort Worth forum.

FoUTASportcaster has a lot to say about how different destination-neighborhoods / districts / masterplanned developments in the Dallas - Fort Worth area can be better tuned for the pedestrian. Many forum participants have a lot to say about it.

So this thread has been split away from the Museum Tower thread to serve as a sort of catch-all thread covering the better design for pedestrians theories.

[Mballar]

^ A great example of having nothing to contribute, but typing something anyway.
Pot. . .meet kettle!

If the powers that be are smart, they'll program the Arts District with a number of events that will keep people walking from block to block. It shouldn't be hard to do.

[RobertB]

I'd be happy if the suburbs would make the "push for WALK signal" buttons work. Yes, I'm looking at you, Carrollton. If you're not going to hook up the button, don't put it on the $#!% pole.

[sterling]

I'd be happy if the suburbs would make the "push for WALK signal" buttons work. Yes, I'm looking at you, Carrollton. If you're not going to hook up the button, don't put it on the $#!% pole.

RobertB, as soon as electricity comes to Carrolton, the city will undertake a study pondering whether it is wise to put horseless carriages at further risk of pedestrians. As for the buttons working, won't that just bring more homeless people to crosswalks?
:drink:

[FoUTASportscaster]

Our cities have unfortunately been "negotiated" to mediocrity. Who wants to be King or Queen? Sportscaster?

I'm sure that would be very welcome with some folks around here.


I find it funny that Fort Worth is always brought into these discussion some of your suggestion were O.K. others like WR and getting rid of the other highway are pipe dreams. DMA could get rebuilt in the future if someone funds it. Does Dallas do everything right no, but Fort Worth is not some nirvana to pedestrians they don't even have a LRT. I hear they are planning one but it hasn't got further than that. Dallas is becoming more pedestrian does this city have a long way to go, yes I think everyone here could agree on that. A friend of mine asked me a great question about this board he asked what are people on this forum (including me) doing to make Dallas better? He continued to say that nothing changes while people sit on their computers and type away.

It is hard to differentiate some of your thoughts, as the grammatically incorrect run-on sentences are used, but I will try my best.

For most folks, FW is the easiest comparisons, due to its short distance away. Aside from LRT and a grocery store, they beat Dallas in several different ways. Luckily for Dallas, LRT is huge and things like the Mosaic and JPI's West End Station are developing because of it. That is making a huge impact. That said, as it stands right now, FW is ahead of Dallas. They have shops that Dallas does not, along with the ones Dallas has. Each has a selection of restaurants, but FW has a wider selection of different price ranges. They also have that elusive movie theater and bookstore. Give it time, I think things will swing differently, but as it stands right now, DTFW is better than DTD.

The freeway demolition may be a pipe dream, but I believe sometime in the next 50 years, Dallas will follow the likes of San Fransisco, Milwaukee and Portland and have a freeway demolished.

As for making Dallas better, it is hard for me to do much of anything else. I personally volunteered on the Trinity Vote referendum and coordinating most ever neighborhood walk, moved to downtown, intentionally got a job that benefits downtown, shop only locally downtown, gave up a car and live what I preach. Is there anything else I can do that would pass muster with you?


Sportscaster, love reading your posts. Good to see proper urban design has an advocate here on the Dallas forum as I try to promote on the Fort Worth forum.

Vice versa. I think a lot of the resistance that pro-pedestrian ideas get is that they many times come in conflict with other means that people are used to. I like this quote from Joel Hirschhorn in Sprawl Kills


America has settled for a lowered quality of life by surrendering to sprawl. After fifty years of sprawl dominance, few Americans appreciate what preceded sprawl and what can and should replace new sprawl. ... After fifty years of American housing and culture being dominanted by sprawl, many people do not know any other style of living. they have had no other choice, assuming they ruled out living in a city or old town. Can those who like sprawl see their world differently?

As the saying goes, people are afraid of change.

[palchik]

Changes would make city pedestrian-friendly, revitalize urban areas

By SHERYL JEAN / The Dallas Morning News

Later this year, Dallas hopes to have new zoning regulations in place to foster more pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development as part of a citywide vision.

City officials believe the changes will help revitalize certain urban areas, such as along the Trinity River Corridor, and create new neighborhoods, such as around DART light-rail stations, by offering more flexible zoning options that allow a variety of uses.

Development would follow urban design standards that promote attractive streetscapes, flexible parking provisions and density through taller buildings. The theory is that such standards are necessary to create places where people can walk and bike among home, work and recreational venues.

It's the first overhaul of city zoning codes in about 20 years, said the city's chief planner, Neva Dean. Planners – along with a consulting firm and a local advisory group – have been working on changes for more than a year.

The city's planning department hopes to take its zoning proposal to the Dallas City Council in April and, pending approval, adopt the regulations by summer, said Peer Chacko, the city's assistant director of long-range planning. The new codes would be added to the existing zoning regulations.

"The code is pretty darn complicated," Mr. Chacko said. "We're trying to really open up new opportunities for development and streetscape design. There already are areas like this, such as West Village, Mockingbird Station and the South Side on Lamar [apartments]. In many ways, Dallas is playing catch-up to the market."

The zoning changes stem from ForwardDallas, a comprehensive land-use plan adopted by the city in 2006. That plan provides a road map for consistent planning, zoning and design across the rapidly growing city.

North Texas is projected to grow by about 4 million residents to 9.1 million by 2030.

"Where does Dallas want to be 20 years out?" asked William H. Hudnut III, senior resident fellow at the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C. The former mayor of Indianapolis and Chevy Chase, Md., said he is seeing higher-density zoning and transit-oriented zoning nationwide as cities look to revitalize their urban cores around population changes.

Dallas' existing zoning focuses on the use of a building or land. The city is moving toward urban form-based zoning, which focuses on design and how buildings relate to the street and pedestrians.

For example, a new district might be called a "town center" or "urban neighborhood" instead of office, retail or residential.

New zoning districts will focus on large tracts of land in certain parts of the city: the Trinity River Corridor, the central business district, areas around DART light-rail stations (15 stations will be added in Dallas by 2010) and major employment areas such as the Stemmons medical district and the University of North Texas campus in South Dallas.

Form-based zoning won't be in use for a while, but at least two developers have integrated some of those principles into plans for land recently rezoned by the city.

"As we've brought things before the city over the last six to nine months, we would be foolish not to look at what's coming and not try to honor the concept and make our projects work in [the] context of the new plan," said Jud Pankey, chief executive of Dallas-based Prescott Realty Group.

Prescott's 70-acre Lake Highlands Town Center development in northeast Dallas includes a parking ramp, wider sidewalks, hiking and biking trails, and public access points to the nearby Walnut Hill DART station, he said.

In December, Irving-based developer JPI received city rezoning approval for 46 acres of industrial land just north of the Dallas County Justice Complex along the Trinity River levee. It, too, incorporated form-based zoning components for residential, retail and office space, including:

• Multifamily housing must be at least four stories tall with at least 60 units per acre.

• All buildings must be at least 30 feet tall.

• The narrowest side of towers must face the levee so they don't block river views.

• Buildings are set back farther from the street to provide more open space.

• Streetscapes are designed to be more pedestrian-friendly, with trees, benches, bicycle parking and trash bins on sidewalks and window awnings on building facades.

"It went very well," said Mark Bryant, president of JPI's mixed-use development division. "We were first in the downtown area for this. I think we got a lot of flexibility in the use – we can mix between office and residential."

Developments in the Trinity River Corridor Project are different because the city is establishing separate zoning standards under a planned development district. However, city planners are coordinating zoning along the river with the citywide zoning changes, said David Whitley, chief planner for the project.

"The Trinity River Corridor Project must have new zoning in place now. We can't wait until code amendments are adopted," Mr. Whitley said. "JPI is the test case."

Concerns have been raised about the length of time the city is taking, development constraints and neighborhood preservation.

Developers Mr. Pankey and Mr. Bryant said that the city needs to tweak its plans and that it should speed up the process, but they remain optimistic.

"As the city becomes more familiar with the form-based zoning process, it will get smoother and will evolve into a streamlined process," Mr. Bryant said.

"Because form-based zoning is focused on building form over the type of business uses allowed, we have to make sure that we're not permitting inappropriate uses, for example, in residential areas," said Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt, whose District 14 includes many older neighborhoods. "From the research I've seen, form-based zoning appears to be more appropriate for larger developments than single parcels."

In general, form-based zoning is positive because it can create "a sense of place" and a lively pedestrian environment to support retail, Ms. Hunt said.

[Sky Time]

Well its one step in bringing Dallas streets back to life.

[tamtagon]

Sweet!

It's so easy to moan about how slow moving Dallas city politics can be. It's just displaced frustration, really -- I know and understand that a directive like ForwardDallas takes a long time to put together, touch all bases, and I also know and understant that actionable guidelines in the form of new zoning requirements take a long time to put together etc etc, but almost always, a big decision like this needs to take a long time to make sure the decisions will be appropriate for a while.

"The code is pretty darn complicated," Mr. Peer Chacko said. ---- that kinda worries me, but maybe the city will have on staff experts or even better a computer tool for developers hoping to build in Dallas.

[Sky Time]

I know what you mean, its not like the city can just snap there fingers and its done. All the research they have to do and studies that have to be conducted have to take some time. In the end though, they will do what is best for the city. Like i say, dallas will be where we want it once its time for use to step up in the next decade.

[xen0blue]

Mod Edit: extensive article quote deleted

I have been thinking to myself this would be a good idea for a couple of years, but thought there was a good reason they never did it...I guess I was ahead of the curve. This should have been done a long time ago.

[LH_Newbie]

Definitely good news. I think all this work coming out of the Dallas Forward plan will certainly lay the foundation for even more (and better) development in Dallas over the next 20+ years. Heck, I just can't wait for the LHTC... and to see some additional dirt flying in the Vickery area (yup, want more options in my neck of the woods)

[Tnekster]

05:16 PM CST on Friday, February 22, 2008
By SHERYL JEAN / The Dallas Morning News
sjean@dallasnews.com

Dallas is a model city for future walkable urban centers, land use strategist Christopher B. Leinberger said Friday at the annual meeting of the DowntownDallas business group.

“No one is doing it as aggressively as you are,” he said, rattling off areas such as downtown, the Cedars and the Trinity River corridor that are seeing revitalization or slated for redevelopment.

Mr. Leinberger said he envisions the Dallas area eventually having 20 to 30 separate walkable districts, up from three today.

Mr. Leinberger’s mantra is “walkable urbanism” — or places designed for people to walk easily and safely from home to work to recreation.

His latest book, The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream, was published last year. He also is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Dallas already has some of the key drivers — a mass transit system— in place to create walkable urban centers, Leinberger said.

Next, the city must focus on adding housing, including affordable housing, and then retail and offices will follow, he said.

Walkable cities date back to ancient times. Think Pompeii. They were built in this country up until World War II, when the automobile and freeways changed how we develop cities, Mr. Leinberger said. That’s when “drivable suburban” was born, he said.

The pendulum began to swing back in the 1990s as younger people and older empty nesters wanted to live closer to where they work and play, Mr. Leinberger said.

Demographic trends combined with pent-up demand support a continuation of that trend, he said. For instance, the number of U.S. households without children is projected to rise to 88 percent (of new households) in the next 20 years, from 67 percent today and 50 percent in the 1950s, Mr. Leinberger said.

Today, walkable urbanism is occurring in traditional downtowns and adjacent areas, suburban town centers, suburban redevelopment areas and vacant land, Leinberger said.

Places such as Washington, D.C., have become walkable urban models based on neighborhoods developed around a mass transit system.

[tamtagon]

The sooner DART and Dallas upgrade the public transportation experience within downtown area neighborhoods the better. There's a whole lotta people anticipating to combine a big-city experience with suburban convenience in Dallas' Downtown/Uptown, and the ability of neighborhood residents to travel easily, conveniently and frequently within the area is essential - waiting for and riding the bus and trolley must not be an unpleasant experience.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Unless they're supplying dancing girls and free beer at the bus stop, waiting is pretty much always going to be an unpleasant experience.

[NThomas]

Unless they're supplying dancing girls and free beer at the bus stop, waiting is pretty much always going to be an unpleasant experience.

With the prices of condos/apts/office space, I don't think there will be alot of non-transplated Dallasites who would regularly use DART. There always will be an exception but this type of design or any interesting architecture will draw the eye.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Bus_Stops_1_curitiba_brasil.jpg/800px-Bus_Stops_1_curitiba_brasil.jpg

[aygriffith]

With the prices of condos/apts/office space, I don't think there will be alot of non-transplated Dallasites who would regularly use DART. There always will be an exception but this type of design or any interesting architecture will draw the eye.

...and bake pedestrians in summer months. Seriously, those look neat, but imagine standing in one on one of our infamous 100+ degree days in the summer.

[tamtagon]

...and bake pedestrians in summer months. Seriously, those look neat, but imagine standing in one on one of our infamous 100+ degree days in the summer.

That's exactly the point. The mostly enclosed tubes might not work in the Texas summer, but something will, probably including lots of shade and air movement.

Each transit waiting area must be tailored to minimize site specific discomfort due to 1) the extremes of seasonal weather - that may involve a structure capable of having different configuration for the summer and winter; 2) the precariously close proximity to high volumes of street and sidewalk traffic; and 3) the social and emotional exposure that comes with trading (or being forced to give up) the insulated bubble of vehicular convinience of a personal vehicle for waiting for the bus.

For a building the size and scope of use intended by Granite/Gables, the city might need to have zoning requirements that cal for permanant transit stops to be integrated into the structure - there will be offices, homes, shops and parking all bundled together in this thing, so the pedestrian traffic flow nexus should be directive to use public transportation for downtown area trips.

Maybe the best way to do this is have the streetcar routed right through the parking garage? Developers must be encouraged, or in some cases forced, to work into the designs of large mixed use structures transit waiting area pleasantries.

[JohnMcKee]

With the prices of condos/apts/office space, I don't think there will be alot of non-transplated Dallasites who would regularly use DART. There always will be an exception but this type of design or any interesting architecture will draw the eye.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Bus_Stops_1_curitiba_brasil.jpg/800px-Bus_Stops_1_curitiba_brasil.jpg

I think DART just has too much of a stigma for native Dallasites. I have no problem riding the MATA, or the Subway in New York or the L in Chicago but for some reason I can not bring myself to get on one of those yellow busses. I think it has to do with Dallas being such a car oriented city and in the past if you are riding the bus it's not because it is more convenient or enjoyable than driving a car, it's because you can't afford a car, and even though that has changed in the urban core a lot of us can't see DART as something that isn't "beneath us"

Honestly I think if DART was to buy some of those busses that look like trolleys, run them between Downtown, Victory, Oak Lawn and Uptown, and not have a hint of that tacky yellow and downplay the whole DART thing except for the fact that they accept DART passes ridership would skyrocket overnight. I would have no problem riding one of those but I just can't bring myself to get on one of those yellow busses.

[palchik]

Honestly I think if DART was to buy some of those busses that look like trolleys, run them between Downtown, Victory, Oak Lawn and Uptown, and not have a hint of that tacky yellow and downplay the whole DART thing except for the fact that they accept DART passes ridership would skyrocket overnight. I would have no problem riding one of those but I just can't bring myself to get on one of those yellow busses.

DART had those fake trolleys for a few years, but got rid of them for various reasons.

Those things were really horrible for passengers. The seats were wooden, and every time the bus made a turn, people slid off the seats. It makes no sense for anyone to prefer those to normal buses with comfortable seats.

[Kelley USA]

DART probably just went cheap... They actually make them with nice seats. I'm sure you can customize them as nice as you want- just depends on what you want to spend...

[palchik]

But why would anyone want those silly retro-trolly-looking-buses anyway? I can sort of understand the appeal of actual historic trollyies like MATA has, but what is the appeal of these bulky trolly bodies on garbage truck frames. Why not just ride a normal modern bus? Anyway, this is sort of a moot point, because DART did try these fake trolly circulators and they proved to be pretty unpopular with riders.

[TexasStar]

I think DART just has too much of a stigma for native Dallasites. I have no problem riding the MATA, or the Subway in New York or the L in Chicago but for some reason I can not bring myself to get on one of those yellow busses. I think it has to do with Dallas being such a car oriented city and in the past if you are riding the bus it's not because it is more convenient or enjoyable than driving a car, it's because you can't afford a car, and even though that has changed in the urban core a lot of us can't see DART as something that isn't "beneath us"

Honestly I think if DART was to buy some of those busses that look like trolleys, run them between Downtown, Victory, Oak Lawn and Uptown, and not have a hint of that tacky yellow and downplay the whole DART thing except for the fact that they accept DART passes ridership would skyrocket overnight. I would have no problem riding one of those but I just can't bring myself to get on one of those yellow busses.

Sounds like the problem isn't with DART. The problem is with your attitude.
I suspect as gas prices continue to skyrocket, many snobby Dallasites will be forced off their "high horses" and onto the yellow buses.
We'll all be better off as a result.

[boozo]

I actually rode a bus in a Saturday snowstorm a few years ago when I had to get to class and I thought it was surprisingly comfortable. And the driver was very polite as well.

I like the yellow. It looks clean and you can see them coming from afar.

[clipper]

I'm a big fan of the old trolley cars on McKinney. But in order for that system to become real mass transit it needs to be extended further downtown all the way to Main street and north to Knox. And along with the old trolley cars which they should by all means keep, they need some modern European-style street cars to run on that line. That would ramp up the ridership and relieve traffic. The tourists would ride the old cars and the commuters would take the new ones. If you could get out of your loft on Main Street and ride the street car to dinner and shopping on Knox that would help link up our urban core.

[JohnMcKee]

Sounds like the problem isn't with DART. The problem is with your attitude.
I suspect as gas prices continue to skyrocket, many snobby Dallasites will be forced off their "high horses" and onto the yellow buses.
We'll all be better off as a result.

Fair enough, but the attitude is real and shared by a lot of people. DART may be the future of urban transportation in Dallas but I'm not about to give up my Lexus to ride in a big yellow bus.

[grantboston]

I think DART just has too much of a stigma for native Dallasites. I have no problem riding the MATA, or the Subway in New York or the L in Chicago but for some reason I can not bring myself to get on one of those yellow busses. I think it has to do with Dallas being such a car oriented city and in the past if you are riding the bus it's not because it is more convenient or enjoyable than driving a car, it's because you can't afford a car, and even though that has changed in the urban core a lot of us can't see DART as something that isn't "beneath us"

Honestly I think if DART was to buy some of those busses that look like trolleys, run them between Downtown, Victory, Oak Lawn and Uptown, and not have a hint of that tacky yellow and downplay the whole DART thing except for the fact that they accept DART passes ridership would skyrocket overnight. I would have no problem riding one of those but I just can't bring myself to get on one of those yellow busses.

I think you're probably right here. Because public transit in general is not a necessity for most commuters, it's still seen as the second, less-desirable option. I think the best way to change this is for the city of Dallas to covert one lane on all major roads to a bus/bike lane. When people see that buses are essentially a built in HOV option, their ridership seems to rise. At least, that's the case here in London.

I'll take some pictures of the example here in London in the morning. Promoting buses as a cheaper AND faster means of transportation adds another dimension that might help some people get over their hesitancies about buses.

Of course, if that fails we could always have a congestion charge. :)

EDIT: I actually have some examples on my computer:

Knightsbridge:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2289/img1713ee3.th.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1713ee3.jpg)

and on the Southbank:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3452/img1803ey7.th.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1803ey7.jpg)

[cowboyeagle05]

Thats what we should get for those temporary trolley routes is the Double decker buses. That itself creates a obvious difference for riders than the standard bus and generally tourists do tend to enjoy the ride if their city does not have them, which a large portion do not. For the connection of temporary urban connector lines they need to be obviously different that just the regular old DART buses that seem to get in your way when you are driving your own car. People need to be able to separate them from the pack of regular daily commute buses with more than just a different route number. Plus DART can make the Double decker buses available for parties just like the MATA does with the Trolleys. Some people do feel the bus is beneath them and that does take time to change that attitude but you can more often get people to ride DART train because its has a totally different appeal to it and any temporary Trolley connector routes have to appeal differently than the everyday bus to make an impact. There is already a thread on this topic and and continued conversation should continue there even though it does involve this and many other properties in Dallas downtown, Uptown, and all around town. I think its the MATA thread where we have some more discussion like this.

[tamtagon]

.......<><><><><<>><<->><<>><><><><>.......
Just split from the Granite & Gables development at Akard Street & McKinney an afternoon's discussion about buses, trolleys, bus stations etc and merged into this thread....

Talking about how any new development is or is not pedestrian/transit friendly is a common and welcomed tangent, but whenever that tangent picks up a lot of participants taking on a life of its own enough to be a stand alone discussion, I'll move the string to this thread.

[RobertB]

Unless they're supplying dancing girls and free beer at the bus stop, waiting is pretty much always going to be an unpleasant experience.
Well, I've seen plenty of tramp-stamped women at the West Transfer Center, and sometimes there's a sip or two left at the bottom of the brown bag '40. Plus, you can roll your own cigarettes from discarded butts. Does that count? :)

[msutton]

Amen! If American cities could learn one lesson, I wish that could be it. Several blocks of midrise buildings is much more appealing to live, work, and walk around in than one block that stacks the equivalent space on top of it. And potentially healthier, too.

[drycreek]

I couldn't agree more with you guys. I don't think Dallas needs to be taller. I think Dallas needs to be denser. I just think a lot of the buildings I've seen going up, ala One Arts, are just very bland. I was just hoping for more interesting architecture like the kind of stuff you see going up in Santa Monica. Not tall, just cool and avant garde.