I think downtown already has a mirror image of your description, its called West End... It worked for about ten years max and now its pretty dead, even being right next to victory.Originally Posted by tamtagon
So the theory here is that is that if we resurrected West End Marketplace, moved it across town even further from office lunch time traffic, then it would be a success in the Convention District while it failed miserably in the West End? And we get to throw $30-50 million of our money in as a sweetener for a hotel that private hotel owners will not risk their money?
I think downtown already has a mirror image of your description, its called West End... It worked for about ten years max and now its pretty dead, even being right next to victory.
It was mismanaged to try to carry the point in time appeal of a multi-themed party stop for more than a couple years. Drinking, dancing entertaining at Dallas Alley was a party fad.
Despite the area's biggest tourist attractions being right there, the location of the West End Marketplace provides an almost ideal site for retail and entertainment venues that address the wants and needs of people living in the immediate area. The economic flotsom and jetsom from convention crowds should be contained to the Convention Center area....
Ya. But the 'Convention Center Marketplace' will not try to be anything but a visitor and convention goer destination. The Trinity River Park Gateway & Promenade will be next door to the conv ctr, so I dont think there's no better location to centralize souviner shops, tourist supplies and the entertainment/dining venues geared to the activities of the Convention Ctr. The West End has a sustainable future as a Metroplex cultural mixing bowl, but not as a tourist trap.
I agree and add the fact that the West End was failing before Victory park had anything but an arena so to say it didn't work even next to is not really valid. The West End was a transitional entertainment district in the new age of work on rebuilding Downtown. As new areas have been built that offered better experiences past a suburban experience the West End lost its attraction. Now the West End is evolving into its own place of distinction as it will cater to residents who are not moved in like the new residents in the West End station project and the already residents in 1001 Ross. The West End was stale compared to some of Dallas newest attractions and had no neighborhoods to sustain its continued growth. I do not really know what will end up in the West End but some of the touristy businesses would be better placed closer to the Convention Center with less walking distance for there targeted audience.
The following is taken from the City's Request For Qualification:
SITE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:
Hotel Basic Program:
o Minimum 1,000 hotel rooms
o Minimum 70,000 square feet of multi-purpose spaces for meeting rooms and ballrooms
o Restaurants, exercise facilities and other amenities typically included in hotels with 4 star ratings
o Sufficient parking for minimum 1,000 guest rooms
o Located within 1,000 feet of DCC Building
o Climate controlled pedestrian connection to the DCC
o Seek development of LEEDS Silver Certified project
SITE HOTEL PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS:
Additions to Hotel Basic Program
o Residential component
o Expanded meeting, retail and entertainment
o Streetscape, lighting and graphics improvements
SITE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES:
Key Site Selection Factors:
o Convenient, climate controlled, pedestrian connection to the DCC
o Adequate property for convention center hotel program requirements
o Efficient hotel program design not adversely affected by constraints of site
o Ideal site would accommodate 160,000 square feet footprint or approximately 4 acres
o Proper traffic control accommodating taxi, shuttle buses and personal vehicles
o Service entrances separate from front door
Hotel Development Site Should be located to:
o Improve the destination visitor experience
o Enhance DCC connection to the center city through improved pedestrian amenities, streetscape and way-finding tools
o Foster economic development in the downtown core through retail and entertainment establishments
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
I will be curious to see what kind of retail and entertainment venues they come up with.
Since before the failed Billy Bobs Lot E proposal, I've thought a massive Country & Western dance hall, bar & grill would be perfect.
If the Gaylord is any indication anything quintessentially Texas would work out just great. People come here to see Texas and Big D so give them what they want.
I think Woodbine could and would do a fantastic job partenering with the City to create a retail and entertainment masterplanned pedestrian-oriented promenade connecting Reunion Hotel & Tower, Union Station, Reunion Arena, Trinity River Park Gateway, the Convention Center and the new 1,000+ room hotel.
Hunt missed the target 20 years ago, but things are different now, and there's plenty of wildly successful New Urbanist mixed use masterplans in the downtown area to draw from. The money is there and the city pride lines up perfectly with philanthropic motivation for Hunt to make this part of downtown as accommodating to tourism as possible. Maybe they old boys havent found a way to free Reunion Arena from the deathgrip of the AAC, but there's no question in my mind the fortress stadium can be retooled and outfitted with a giant honkytonk that opens into the Next Generation (read New Urbanist Mixed Use) Multi purpose Sports, Concert and special event Stadium.
Wow! A LEED Silver Certified? That will not be easy. Are there any LEED Silver buildings in Dallas?
According to USGBC's project directory, the following projects have achieved Silver Certification:
Jack Evans Police Headquarters
McCommas ECO Training Center
Herman Miller National Design Center
I imagine there are many more in the pipeline.
Hasn't the City of Dallas made the LEED certifications a priority (or maybe even a mandate) in new city-owned or finance construction?
I seem to remember the Council ducks quacking about that a while back.
THe new Homeless assitance shelter is LEED silver and the new corgan office is LEED even though that is private. Looks like the city of Dallas was serious about wanting all new buildings to be LEED certified.
So you're saying that Dallas intends to be a LEEDer in sustainable building?
Consumers are not [the same as] citizens, and when a system pretends that they are, peculiar and even perverse things happen to decision making and democracy... - Benjamin Barber
Last edited by jsoto3; 13 January 2008 at 03:28 PM.
Anyone know what the latest subsidy is for this project. It's supposed to cost more than $200 million. How much is taxpayer funded? Does anyone know?
I think it will be a mistake if this hotel is built solely to service the convention center. It should be a destination that will draw people to it even when no convention is taking place. Conventions are here and their and seems like to me it would be hard to build a business plan off of that.
Anyone know what convention is going on right now? I was walking in the area around 7:30 last night and there were swarms of men walking toward the Hyatt, plus several buses that were full taking people from the convention center to other downtown hotels.
Doesn't that direction really challenge the idea of why the city is subsidizing this effort. It's one thing to say we need a subsidy to fix the city's investment in the convention center. We own it and no one else seems to want to improve its utilization. It's quite another and much more dubious for the city to subsidize a general use destination center that competes directly with non-subsidized hotels for general tourist business. Can the city really say we know how to handle this market better?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Dallas Convention Center hotel should go on buildings south side
By Shawn Williams of Dallas South
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008...-go-buildings/
The problem is that our downtown is all business and though i agree the new hotel would bring new conventions to town... when no convention is in town it would only serve to cannibalize the existing business travel market. If we are going to increase the supply of rooms it seems to me we need to use this the raise the tide of people staying in downtown any way we can. A raising tide floats all boats but when the tide is out all the boats are sitting high and dry. If we can use this hotel to create a destination beyond just conventions then when the convention tide goes out their is still enough hotel guests to go around.
Agree 100%, but for different reasons.
Last edited by FoUTASportscaster; 15 January 2008 at 09:27 PM.
Pray tell.
Tighten the female dog!
The Convention Center is already a black hole in the urban environment, no activity, no vibrancy. That is the case from coast-to-coast. In cities that have built attached hotel, that black hole has been enlarged, as the hotel's have generated little pedestrian traffic, and is already working against the current being next to a CC. On the backside, it is actually closer to a LRT station, actually making it easier on the guests, seeing as how they would have to take the train to get to anywhere in particular.
/\ on the Downtown side it would enhance pedestrian connectivity to the Hyatt, JFK, and Main Street on the south side it is isolated except for the rail station under the convention center... and if i were their i would feel very insecure about using that station it is not inviting at all.
I made a map... :-)
http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ntermapml7.png
How about if we legalize gambling in the state of Texas so that we can have this convention center hotel draw people to our casino in Reunion Arena. This also gives conventioners something to do. Besides, everyone who wants to gamble is taking their money across the border to Louisiana or Oklahoma. If only there weren't 'short bus' faction who think that by legislating out gambling, they were helping their state. What a joke.
Ain't gonna happen for several years. An Indian gaming bill died on the House Floor on 66-66 in the Lege. That even wouldn't have allowed for full-blown gaming, just poker and bingo. The gaming you want would take 100 votes in the House and 21 in the Senate, and a majority of Texas voters.
Tighten the female dog!
It needs to be on the north side of the convention center. Putting it on the south side would solidify the convention center as an island unto itself. We have too many of those already.
This hotel will certainly help street life. No, it won't be Times Square. But it will certainly bring more pedestrians than the current parking lot provides.
If it is placed on the south side conventioneers will just complain that they have nothing to walk to. If it is built on the north side, there is at least a chance that downtown's current revival will eventually connect to the hotel, and thereby to the rest of the convention center. Conversely, if it is built on the south side, the convention center will always be an island unto itself. We need fewer islands in downtown. Not more.
Build north, young man.
DAGNABBIT!
I agree with the northside, one primary reason is to protect the Cedars from a similar character homogenization that is being forced onto Deep Ellum. Put the hotel on the southside with the intention to direct tourists and convention goers into The Cedars neighborhood would be cultural disaster.
The hotel must give event planners the direct conv ctr facilities access they're demanding, but just as important, the hotel must also extend the pedestrian environment of the TRP Reunion Overlook into the CBD.
Yeah, the north side should be the preferred location, IMHO. It makes the most sense. I couldn't figure out for the life of me why the council would push for a location south of the CC. At first I thought they're trying to create a connection to the Cedars, as you alluded to tam. However, I30 is in the way. So I don't see that being a good option. A completed Project Pegasus may help with the connectivity between the Cedars and a hotel positioned south of the CC, but that's a looooooooooooooong way off. Your last point about connectivity to TRP/Reunion/Overlook is right on the money, IMO.
UrbanHope, I know you're on the planning commission. Maybe, you can help us out with the thinking on this one.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
Those of you that say to build it on the north to enhance pedestrian life haven't looked around the country at other examples.
Chicago, a city full of pedestraisn is dead around its convention center and attached hotel. The same can be said for just about every city that has built an attached hotel, though I haven't looked into them all. This will do nothing for street life.
Ditto for New Orleans, and its convention center is near Harrah's, the Riverwalk, the Aquarium, the Quarter, Canal Street, ect. All of those places have lots of pedestrian activity but the convention center is rather dull.
San Antonio's convention center has a little more pedestrian activity and I think is a model of how to interface a convention center with a downtown pedestrian environment...and they have no attached hotel to my knowledge.
I think the ideal convention set up for Dallas is to continue promoting regular businesses especially apartments, hotels, restaurants and bars to move downtown. If I were going to a convention I would not care about staying in an attached hotel as much as being able to walk or take convenient transit to restaurants and bars. Most of the San Antonio hotels are not attached to the convention center, but they are within walking distances of a billion places to get a margarita. This is why Fort Worth and San Antonio have better convention scenes and why, IMO, building an attached convention center will not help Dallas one bit.
As a Cedars resident, I doubt we'd have any problems with the C Hotel on the south side of CC.
- Personally don't think it'll have much impact, one way or the other, except another hole in our public purse.
- we are actively pushing the Hamilton's renovation of the boutique hotel that would stand between us and the C Hotel. What's the difference?
- It's doubtful the hotel would push people south across 30. Visitors will be naturally drawn north by the convention center itself and the skyline. I still see people hoofing their way north from just south of city hall when Cedars station is a quick and now very safe 5 minute walk south.
People continue to ignore the simple reality that without an attached hotel there just won't be any conventions coming to Dallas!
Convention planners have make it abundantly clear that an attached hotel is a prerequisite for landing any meetings going forward. So why is this even still being discussed as if there was a choice?
We have to either build this hotel or just go ahead and bulldoze the building. OK, there are your choices.
We already have a fine new convention hotel and a new convention center. Unfortunately it's on the shores of Grapevine Lake and not in downtown Dallas. Drive out there and take a look at all the meetings they are having. It will amaze you.
Grapevine? That's really sad that a downtown of a major american city cannot compete with Grapevine.
Well then let's contact Caterpillar and see if we can get a package deal with Reunion, Cotton Bowl, and the Convention Center. Maybe we could get Gaylord to pay for the dozers. All share a link in that they go head to head against sizable private investment and other public entities's sizable subsidies.
Houston, San Diego and St. Louis all have hotels not far from the central city or in it. New Orleans is a different situation they have a big tourist draw in the French quarter they don't need to center to create pedestrian traffic... in stead they are using it to stretch the pedestrian traffic outside of the French quarter. one interesting thing with New Orleans center... it has a shopping mall connected to it and a trolley that connects it to the French quarter.
Here is another idea... what if we put the hotel on the north side and put a Championship level Par 3 golf course on the south side... it could even wrap around over near the Hyatt. Seems like a good draw for our hotels... could even be lighted for playing at night in the summer. I played one in Tahoe and it was great. --- if popular a second course could be built on the other side of I 30
It will absolutely enhance street life. A surface parking lot is north of the Convention Center right now. Ten people on that sidewalk would be an improvement.
The hotel needs to be on the north side so we can link the rest of downtown to the Convention Center. The hotel is certainly not going to decrease pedestrians. We need to get rid of more parking lots in downtown. This is one way to do it. On the south side of the Convention Center, nobody would notice a missing parking lot.
On the north side, the hotel would fill in the gap between the Convention Center and the Courts. I know for sure that there would be a lot of lawyers and legal assistants staying in that hotel if it is on the north side. It's just a short block to the federal buildings or the state courthouse from there. If we build it on the south side, only convetiononeers will stay there. If we build it on the north side, there is at least a chance that non-conventioneers will stay. It's really a no-brainer.
DAGNABBIT!
Saying this will enhance pedestrian life because it replaces a parking lot is like buying a Super Nintendo for a PS3 price. It is a video game system, but far standard of what it can be. If I built a West Village style development fronting Young Street, I can make 150 pedestrians to your ten.
Saying this building will enhance street life is like saying One Main Place enhances street life on Main Street because a person every so often goes out on the street. You can settle, I want better. I tired of Dallas half-assing stuff because it is the quick fix now.
I know that's right!
That's also why I would not want the hotel hemmed in on the South side of the complex - with much less potential to be anything more than a specific use hotel.
So, like, is Woodbine in the running to do the hotel? I've always just kinda figured they were....
There is a whole lot of nothing in between the convention center and the nearest decent restaurant, coffee shop, or anything substantial that would draw a visitor out on the street. Not to mention that most services available close at 2 or 3 pm.
Unfortunately, there are several substantial buffers - city park, federal bldg, and a grave yard that work against the location of the c center and anything one would HOPE to develop around it.
Maybe the city should concentrate on a more realistic goal strengthing the connections between more vibrant parts of downtown and the c center and stop beating this dead horse of a hotel.
Take a walk down Griffin Street or Lamar or ANY street that leads to the c center. Please tell me what you see.
I completely agree.
Would it be possible to build a smaller hotel (500 rooms as opposed to 1,000) to see what that does for the CC and use some of the left over funds to improve the area and create incentive for developers? I don't see how it's relevant that the CCs in Chicago and so forth are dead zones for pedestrians. Poor planning put this thing next to a highway, limiting the surrounding developments, but building the area up around it to be self-sufficient instead of dependent on the CC should be the goal.
Last edited by berryhill; 19 January 2008 at 03:44 AM.
Youre right on target. Agree 100%. I've been tired of it for 40 years.
But the Hotel should be built on the north side to fill in the city and get away from the easy highway accessl. I'd prefer better connections (trolleys) to the existing hotels, retail mixed use between the CC and Main and a final expansion of the convention center. But that isnt happening anytime soon.
so i guess the city will have to compromise/bribe/bargain if it wants anything done at all and hope others will provide some filler development after this catalyst is built.
I want people walking between the CC and Main, we need filler to make that more viable. The Hotel on the north side would take out a sizeable chunk of bland intimidating non walkable Dallas sprawl.
Last edited by Mephis Gooseberry; 17 January 2008 at 11:40 PM.
From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world, but only these two - the "race" of the decent man and the "race" of the indecent man. Viktor E. Frankl
Why not build a multi-building project if we really want to help pedestrian life.
A few buildings like the new one at West End Station would be perfect northeast of the Belo Tower.
Fwiw, we need something like Park Lane Place there.
From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world, but only these two - the "race" of the decent man and the "race" of the indecent man. Viktor E. Frankl
You know, even if they put a simple bookstore, a cafe that stayed open later than 6pm and like just a couple of retail shops that sold reasonably priced clothes or just a movie theater in the middle of downtown... would be enough to get people to walk past the surface lots and into downtown. Is this really too much to ask for?
Yeah. Like Victory Park. Just imagine what the Victory Park project could have done for downtown Dallas if only they had built it in downtown Dallas. That area north of the convention center would have been perfect. Oh well.
I'm also for putting it on the north side, for the same connectivety reasons that have been mentioned. Just because it'd be a giant hotel doesn't have to mean 100% of the building is devoted to hotel uses. Theoretically you could add some condos and ground level retail too.
Consumers are not [the same as] citizens, and when a system pretends that they are, peculiar and even perverse things happen to decision making and democracy... - Benjamin Barber
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks