From dallasblog.com:
COUNCIL APPROVES TOWER PETROLEUM RESOLUTION
by Austin Kilgore Wed, May 2, 2007, 01:59 PM
The Dallas City Council approved a resolution directing the city manager’s office to negotiate a development agreement for the revitalization of downtown’s Tower Petroleum building at Wednesday’s briefing meeting.
The vote came after a continued discussion over the abilities and reputation of the property’s owner, Lawrence Sweeney. His Pacific 2004 Holdings Ltd. company is the developer of the project. Sweeney and his wife Rita were also responsible for the 2003 redevelopment of the Hart Furniture building in downtown Dallas, which is now home to office buildings and the Club Blue nightclub.
The Sweeneys are asking for $12 million in tax increment financing funding to offset the cost of the building. The proposal would give the money to the developers after the project is complete.
Mayor Laura Miller spoke out against the Sweeneys and the nightclub at the April 18 city council meeting, saying the landlords do not properly control their tenants and are not responsible developers. She said the nightclub is a hotbed for crime in downtown.
At Wednesday’s meeting, Miller again criticized the nightclub and said while it is “odd and rare” for her to reject plans to revitalize downtown, the Sweeneys’ inaction to curb problems at Club Blue did not give her the confidence to give them more tax money to develop another property.
Sweeney said his tenant has not broken any laws or city ordinances and if the mayor wanted to exert more control over the nightclub, the council should pass stricter regulations. He added if his tenants meet all of their legal and contractual obligations, he cannot force the nightclub to close. Regardless, Sweeney made a verbal commitment to the council to work with his tenant to alleviate problems with the club.
In the discussion, District 12 Councilmember Ron Natinsky urged the council to approve the resolution because it only permits negotiations for a deal, and the council would have the opportunity to vote on the proposed deal at a later date.
John Crawford, president of Downtown Dallas, a nonprofit trade organization of downtown businesses, was at the meeting and said his organization was in support of the proposal.
The resolution passed 9-3, with Miller and councilmembers Mitchell Rasansky and Linda Koop voting no. Councilmembers Bill Blaydes, Steve Salazar and James Fantroy were not present.
Comments (0)
The city is not going to loose out on a $200,000,000.00 investment into the city core. By blackmailing the poor Sweeny's for the club, they risk just that. I am confident smarter and more realist heads will prevail. The condo tower will be the tallest building in Dallas.
Rosewood.
Originally Posted by rosewood
Did I read that correctly? Tallest building in Dallas or tallest condo building in Dallas?
tallest condo building
Okay, so Club Blue is still open???
I wouldn't want to live next to a nightclub. But then again, I wouldn't want to live next to an office building either. Downtown isn't a purely residential neighborhood. That's what makes it special. It's a mix of commercial, residential and retail. Hopefully it will include more residential in the future.
Building downtown is an immense risk. These developers deserve financial compensation for taking that risk when few developers dare to do the same. I don't see how their condo building would bring the same problems as Club Blue. It's a condo building. People who own their own condo take care of it.
If anything, this new building will incentivize them to clean up Club Blue. After all, if it is the troublemaker that you guys claim it is, they wouldn't be able to sell one condo. And that would be truly stupid.
This condo tower would be a boon for downtown. With more of these things being built, the city won't have to dangle money in front of downtown developers. Instead, developers will build downtown because they can make the money on their own.
We have to see these buildings as two separate transactions. Club Blue was a retail space. The condo building is a -- condo building. Punishing downtown developers is silly. We need to have more people developing downtown, not punishing those who have already done so.
DAGNABBIT!
I doubt it, of course they could just be remolding. But just walk by it. You'll see permits for a restaurant, a dumpster full of trash, and they have put one of those chain/pad locks on the inside of the glass doors.
Often times in business deals don't get done because you don't like the person on the other side of the table. This seems to be the case here. I don't think she wanted to give an opportunity to someone she thinks is not a good person to do business with. I don't blame her stance, but I do think this tower needs to get done. Downtown seems to have blips where development has occured. This intersection currently is dark at night and ghostly. A residential tower would help brighten this area greatly and bring in some much needed development.
This building would become a boutique hotel, not a condo conversion, correct?
I understand the Mayor's position.
If these people who own Club Blue are not good business people with respect to the club...
ie. they couldn't reign in their clients (the club operators), they couldn't stop the violence that was brought onto their property by their clients' operation, and they just cast all blame and responsibility to the city and city council, then they will more than likely not be good business people with anything else.
Why trust them with your money? More so, why entrust them with the people's money if they have been bad stuards of their own money and property?
Yes, many people are anxious for (re)development in downtown and we would all like to see that happen, but sometimes it is better to wait than to waste and regret.
There are many issues involved with renovating and reviving a building like this and putting it to a new use.
I, for one, would rather see someone who could go through with the project, on time, on budget, within code, and someone who could make the building a success in every way possible, than to see someone with a bad history given several MILLION dollars after the city has had so many problems with him before, and then to have the possibility of having the money squandered, the building in who knows what shape, and the city stuck with the mess.
Yes, it is two buildings, and two projects, but it is one company with one not so good public history.
So, since Club Cirque is replacing Club Blue, is the city going to incent the Sweeneys replace the Corrigan Tower with a condo skyscraper and rennovate the Tower Petroleum bldg into a boutique hotel?
"So, since Club Cirque is replacing Club Blue" <<<<< Where did you hear this from?????
http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=6929 ,
<a href="http://www.marion.ohio-state.edu/fac/schul/drp/dr.html">Dr. Thunder</a>.
Dallas council OKs downtown hotel-condo project 11:01 AM CT
Subsidy comes with contingencies after battle over nightclub
11:06 AM CDT on Wednesday, June 13, 2007
By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
dlevinthal@dallasnews.com
After months of argument, the Dallas City Council voted Wednesday to grant a downtown hotel and condominium project nearly $15 million in public subsidies, but not before attaching stringent development milestones to it.
The council's decision allows Dallas developers Lawrence and Rita Sweeney to move forward with constructing a more than 50-story condominium tower and renovating the existing Tower Petroleum Building into a high-end hotel. Many council members, led by Mayor Laura Miller, had long contended the Sweeneys shouldn't receive the money because they own a tax-subsidized downtown building that houses the former nightclub Blue, which city officials have decried as an epicenter for center city crime.
But in a 10-5 vote, the council agreed to publicly subsidizing the project, contingent on the Sweeneys accelerating their development schedule so that they announce their hotel brand by year’s end, obtain a building permit by 2009 and complete the effort by 2011.
Dallas’ economic development director Karl Zavitkovsky also explained that the project must include $90 million in private investment or risk its public funding deal, which includes $12 million in tax increment financing and a $2.9 million historic building tax abatement.
“This has been a marathon effort,” Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill said, turning to the Sweeneys and adding, “I appreciate how you’ve garnered a lot of your support for different places.”
But citing problems with Blue and a development resume he deemed inadequate, council member Mitchell Rasansky opposed the Sweeneys’ proposal.
“I just don’t have any confidence in this developer,” Mr. Rasansky said.
Earlier this year, the council agreed to no longer tie security concerns at Blue with the fate of the Sweeneys’ hotel/condominium project.
^ HUGE! It's been a long time since downtown's added a 50+ story skyscraper!
Somehow I still don't see this coming to fruition.
Rock On!!
Okay, everybody pray to the God of your choice that this will really happen.
DAGNABBIT!
Indeed, it will be a long time yet before downtown sees a new 50+ story skyscraper.
Perhaps the best part of this "marathon effort" is that the city council may be waking up to the fact that it is THE WORST POSSIBLE situation when developmental incentives are fouled by over reaching attempts to municipally micromanage venue occupants. Club Blue patrons caused problems, no doubt. But the real problem, to me, is that the police force did not meet the public safety challenge presented by a popular night club, and the city council IGNORED the problems that ALWAYS come from allowing minors to regularly hang out with drinking adults.
Futhermore, the city council needs to back away from incentive requirements of "upscale" anything. If the goal is make the CBD a vibrant community crossroads appealing to people from all over, most future incentives and/or tax breaks will go toward developments catering to the lower half of the socio-economic spectrum. Anyway....
I wonder if the previous proposal is unchanged.
Amazing! We still have so many naysayers and glass-half-empty people around here given the tremendous development that has occurred and continues to occur in central Dallas.
I believe this building will be built on schedule and it will prove to be a wonderful new addition to our already stellar skyline.
See, was that so hard?
In light of the lawsuit business with Craig Hall this is especially interesting. Why would you agree to incentives for people with no track record of doing this kind of deal and tell someone who does have a track record and the ability to take a hike? Or is this typical city hall MO?
Maybe the politicians can make one very important and very big decision - hire a City Manager who will run the city like it should be. Too many personal feeling are allowed to influence the business of business.
Indeed, that's why you need a development incentive policy attached to land use and project economic contribution and quit this backroom business that makes everyone look either stupid or crooked.
[QUOTE=tamtagon]
Futhermore, the city council needs to back away from incentive requirements of "upscale" anything. If the goal is make the CBD a vibrant community crossroads appealing to people from all over, most future incentives and/or tax breaks will go toward developments catering to the lower half of the socio-economic spectrum. [QUOTE]
Thank you for posting that. I am on the "lower half" myself, and I feel sometimes most of the good folks who post here are flush with money. I could never afford a dwelling more than 150K right now. And I bet thats true of a lot of people. I never see anything new in Dallas for less than 240K, and that is a crappy Cityville townhouse in East Dallas. I know that amount would but me an old, small house in South Dallas but honestly, I am too old to live in a "fixer-upper"
And I am especially offended that the city doles out tax money for developers to build homes for the rich, but no incentives for affordable housing. Even the communists housed their populations, even if the housing was lousy.
Didn't see that coming. Great news.
I agree its sounds wrong, but consider the level of subsidy that would be required to get middle class people into a downtown highrise. You would be competing with places like little old Forney Texas. There is just no way that you can build an affordable highrise that is competitve with suburban living right now, without immense subsidies.
Highrises for the rich however, are much more economical. You are competing with Highland Park in this case. Since these types of people will spend more, you don't have to subsidize as much.
Since the city doesn't have infinite money, they have to invest in things that the market has shown are realistic. Such as highrises for the rich. If they were commited to seriously subsidizing affordable housing in downtown, you would probably get 1 high rise for every 5 we do now, if even that much.
How tall would a middle class highrise have to be, to be profitable?
I am not sure. but I am just thinking that for a tower to be affordable to middle class folk, the units have to be bigger and they have to be cheaper. That is to say, cost per square foot has to be closer to a house in the burbs.
I am no expert here, and am pretty much guessing, but it seems that current DT condos go for rougly 4X the cost per square foot that a middle class house goes for. Now assuming that current DT condos are sold at an ok but not huge profit, basically if we were to subsidize affordable housing in the central city I am guessing we would be subsidizing around 1/2 to 3/4 of the total project cost to make the project actually make financial sense to developers. Thats alotta money.
Developers will likely always say that, but it seems mythical like the big oil excuses why they can't afford to build refineries anymore. I imagine they simply make quicker, larger profits with luxury units.
I really am interested in the cost of doing a middle class project. Even if it meant creating a large urban area in a place other than downtown. Perhaps surrounding in the Ft Worth Ave area where land is currently much much cheaper.
Isn't the Metropolitan an example of a middle class project?
Price-wise I would agree with that; however I think the apartments there are too small for a family. It's perfect for singles or young couples -no kids. I think we need all kinds of affordable housing Downtown.
How do people do it in NYC or downtown Chicago? I don't know but would suspect that anything that resembles affordable in the inner city would have to be a project like Metro. New construction seems out of reach these days.
[QUOTE=Tnekster]How do people do it in NYC or downtown Chicago?[QUOTE]
Remember, in these cities you don't need a car. By eliminating this cost, that's another $500-1000/month (minus public transportation) people have to spend on housing.
That is not entirely true. People that live in downtown Chicago do have cars and they use them to drive to their jobs in the suburbs. They live downtown because they want to live there but don't necessarily work downtown. Morning outbound commute times in Chicago have increased dramatically over the years as more people have moved to the city center. Same will happen here.
I never said they didn't but it's not a necessity. If they can afford to live d.t. and have a car to commute to the burbs daily then they above middle class and it really doesn't matter. All I was trying to get across is that you don't have to have a car and that money can be used on housing instead.
They lower their standard of living.
-Kids share rooms
-Street parking only
-One full bath for the entire residence, even houses
-Almost all people use public laundromat (or pay for laundry service)
-Almost nobody has central A/C
-You might not have an elevator on buildings up to 6 floors (and if you do it is broken half the time)
-Most people do not have automatic dishwashers
The current rental prices in downtown Dallas are still less than most parts of NYC for a basic dwelling.
Darlings! Penthouses have lots of room for families and live in staff. They are perfect for suburb relocations needing lots of space.
Rosewood.
So this begs the question. Are these lux towers useless? They really aren't doing anything for the urban environs of the city besides Tax rolls.
Well, rantanamo, you'd think more people would be asking that. But the emphasis is definitely on attracting attention and investment to downtown, then letting niggling considerations of real quality arise later if at all. Forumers have faith that density is the direct enabler of quality public environs - everyone talks about critical mass - but memories of urban pedestrian density hearken back to an era when people had to be out there to conduct the affairs of daily life. We consumers now need only be there if we want to be for recreational activity. The critical mass hypothesis, taken as fact for DTD, says that what's important is to have big enough demographic numbers that downtown streets will attract choosy retailers who won't bite so far. But even if they come, you are still looking at a neighborhood of high-rises catering to affluent workers without families. Each of these towers for moneyed professionals will at worst be a cul-de-sac, entered and exited primarily through the garage gate, and at best put leisure feet on the street for four or five hrs/day - from 6 or 7 to 11 or 12 in the evenings. In time the tax rolls will probably cover the initial public funds subsidizing their construction. The background subtext for all this effort seems not to be focused on the man on the street at all, though, rantanamo. It seems, instead, as usual, to be that the world will believe in Dallas if Dallas boasts enough things.
I think all cities in the US outside of New York are guilty of the same.
Absent a successful Trinity River project, new middle class homes will be in northern South Dallas and Eastern Deep Ellum. Deep Ellum will look like Uptown and might even have an older flavor. Don't forget the presence of Baylor: picture street after street of that elder housing like on north edge of NW Highway. If TRP works, you'll see more on the east side of TRP. Anywhere that you have light rail, expect groups of elder housing, all linked to Baylor, Presbyterian, or Medical City. Elders will have the credit scores and capital; 20-40 year olds will have debt, debt, and more debt. 20-40 year olds won't be able to compete.
It seems to be an axiom on this forum the that urban dwellers of 2015 or 2020 are going to be some creative, hip cocktail of the models in the Robb magazine. Look at the WSJ article about supposedly hip urban projects in NYC/Miami/Chicago being overwhelmed with un-hip, practical and boring middle agers that don't watch the skyline at 3 AM. It'll become clearer when you start looking at the demographics of the ownership in places like Beat, Buzz, and some of the more affordable urban projects that are just now starting to roll out. Don't look at the ads; see who is taking out the garbage and walking the dog.
You will get your surge in population, but I expect that Sustacal will outsell Red Bull in the very unhip retail.
I didn't look through the thread, but is there a rendering to the Corrigan?
Post 151 on page 4
I don't really like that design.
Probably the show concept just like some projects do to drum up support and more finances. I think once the know this gonna more likely happen like the recent talks between the city and the developer they start to finance some real working designs with input form the city on what won't and will work for city code and public opinion. Harvest Partners and Bass Pro got in trouble in Garland cause the concept drawing of the New Bass Pro was more extravagant than the land work cost would support. Voters were hot about changes that seemed to make the building look like a glorified Walmart. Developers regularly put on show as you all know to sway public opinion towards voting in favor and then later making changes that show what is actually feasible with their finances.
I bet if the concept is approved they will come back with newer better designs that the Planning Department has told them would make the building more slick to slide pass the council and planning commission. Sometimes this works and sometimes not!
Here it is again.
^Thanks Urban!
Any news on this project
I heard it's NOT dead. ;-)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks