^ Thanks, Tobyns. It's good to know this voice crying in the wilderness isn't totally unappreciated.
Hannibal, I just have to say that your posts are what this forum needs more of. I always find it funny when people on this forum attack developers for "trying to make a quick buck." I believe we live in a free market economy where the market drives development. No market for 650,000 sqft of retail, guess what, its not going to happen. Silverman believes the better market is for Condos, but it is years down the line, thus Phase 2. I guarantee he spent a lot of money on researching the market conditions, every developer does. If you want to blame anyone for the reduced size of the retail, blame Walmart. Their store stole the market for a major grocery store which killed the major anchor for the large-scale retail, thus that scheme died. I bet he tried his hardest to find another anchor, but the market wouldn't justify it. His expertise is in retail, he would have higher profits, and less headaches (lawsuits) with retail than with condos. He's probably done countless proformas and studies and believes that he has the best solution for the market conditions.Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
Anyway I just meant to compliment Hannibal, so keep 'em coming buddy, this forum would go downhill without you! Hijack over....
^ Thanks, Tobyns. It's good to know this voice crying in the wilderness isn't totally unappreciated.
it seems to me this contradicts the basis of malls.... I think the problem is that we don't build for walking anymore.Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
Take a look even at west village... the stores have no awnings to protect walkers from the sun or rain... if you look back at old downtowns they all had big broad awnings that would protect the customer and make walking more likely.
One problem with awnings is that if they extend over the public ROW, such as a sidewalk, the city charges you an arm and a leg for a permit. Our building on Commerce Street has to pay $1000 a year for the privilege of landscaping along the street and a small metal strip along the front of the building that extends slightly over the sidewalk. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...06565311704197Originally Posted by gshelton91
(yes, I know this doesn't apply in the case of West Village)
Well, we are not average here! We are above average!Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter
Well - It LOOKS like we are a GO .. The old 'FOR SALE' signs have been changed to "FOR INFORMATION RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL"
Sources say that everything is going forward, we may start seeing dirt move as early as April / May !!!!
Sweet. We're back to where we were a year ago.
I'm going to reserve my excitement for the groundbreaking.
Not that it means anything certain one way or the other, but the "For Sale" sign for the City's property is still up at the corner of Live Oak and Texas.
I think that sign will go when the city property sale is official, should be happening in process.Originally Posted by jsoto3
Heh, I am with Rob -- it just means he isn't *actively* trying to flip the property. (or trying to use the possibility as leverage)
Be nice to see a new layout too - really don't want to see x00 new condos and a little retail strip. At least with the requirements to get the tif money he has to put in a decent footprint and a parking structure.
anyone heard anything new on this lately?
^^Should know something in the next couple of weeks.
Sounds like a broken record at this point…
Originally Posted by Otis
Thank you. I live at the foot of Exall park, and kids playing soccer at night is pretty fair sign that it's not ghetto.
The area has improved a lot.
Concerning views. We purchased our townhome expecting something to eventually go up that would block downtown. I'm not happy about it, but it beats driving to Mockingbird or Northpark to buy stuff.
I've stayed out of this one for a little while, but I will say one thing, for those complaining that this will reduce their property values, site one example where a blank piece of land nearby was developed and nearby property values fell. People in Uptown were complaining about the same thing, yet their property values have risen. Another similar example would be the McMansion in East Dallas and the M Streets. The homeowners there are complaining that the new, taller and bigger houses are raising their property values, forcing them to move.
From a personal point of view, I would think this would be great for the area, since there is very little of any retail, grocery or restaurant within walking distance. This is like a suburban subdivion in the disguise of an urban street grid. I personally would never consider buying here, since a car is all but required. Should City Lights get built and a grocer and other neighborhood firendly retail came in, I ould consider it. I know I am not the majority view in this city, but I do believe the isolation of this area discourages other buyers too, thereby keeping property values lower.
Bryan Place may not be a ghetto by a “standard” definition, but it’s not the safest area around either. In the last year, one of my friends had his car stolen parked on San Jacinto St. The other one had his car broken into. The garage in my condo complex has been burglarized 4 times in the last year. And if you ever been to Exall Park in the morning, you’d surely notice that there are more homeless and just generally suspicious people there on every bench than normal people. Not complaining. Just stating the facts. For the location and the price, I’m still willing to put up with all this b.s.
Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster
Anything built in Florida in the past two years...
Also, do you think home values increase in Plano, Friclosure and Allen when a brand new idenetical development pops up in what used to be the farmland next door? I have some friends who sure don't think that has done them any favors.
Actually, you go on to agree the point of the BPNA. Retail=Good. More housing supply and blocking of views=bad. That is why the BPNA has been working so hard to get as much retail as possible. It's just that City Lights is not really a retail project anymore....I think it will end up being less than 10% of it. That might be a little kind.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that the 'good' retail won't survive without more 'bad' housing.
Five years ago, the City Lights people thought the current housing in the area was adequate to support a 650K sq foot retail project. The amount of land is finite. Would rather see it go to retail vs housing.
True, but haven't we sort of established that they might not have known exactly what they were doing 5 years ago?Originally Posted by Otis
Is the consensus also that they have had an enlightenment sometime in the past couple of years?
not at all, but one would expect that working on something for a prolonged period of time would lead to at least marginal increases in ability and know-how.
To site anything in Florida is invalid, since just about everything there has decreased in value, and single-family homes in Frisco is an invalid comparison as well, since we are dealing with exurban greenfield development versus urban in-fill.Originally Posted by Otis
The specific examples I was looking for were in the uptown/Turtle Creek area, since just everything that has gone up has blocked somebody's view of something, yet those values have not declined. In East Dallas, again an urban infill situation, where the new homes don't even fit in the neighborhood, property values have gone up. Plain fact of the matter, a quality development, regardless of size, would increase values. I would suggest you stop fighting the development and instead work to make it better.
so let me get this straight, you beef is that the land is finite, therefore more housing is bad. You have heard of ground floor retail, haven't you? What is the difference if I build a one-story structure covering the entire block, than if I built a mixed-use tower with ground floor retail covering the entire block?Actually, you go on to agree the point of the BPNA. Retail=Good. More housing supply and blocking of views=bad. That is why the BPNA has been working so hard to get as much retail as possible. It's just that City Lights is not really a retail project anymore....I think it will end up being less than 10% of it. That might be a little kind.
Bottomline is it is silly to move so close to downtown, then get all bent out of shape when you "view" changes. If it won't know, it will in the next decade by something else. This is the same thing as moving to Frisco on old farmland that was developed into a subdivision, next to another old farm, then getting all bent out of shape when the same thing happens to that farm.
It'd be one thing if the city sold parkland to a developer, but this is a blank piece of land and sooner or later it will be developed and likely will be dense in nature. That's what happens to areas next to downtowns.
The only way to ensure a high concentration with maximum variety of sustainable retail focusing on the household needs of East Dallas residents comes from high concentrations of residential inventory.Originally Posted by Rob
Continued expansion of the relatively low population density found in Bryan Place throughout East Dallas will not sustain the full spectrum of retail venues necessary to meet the day-to-day needs of urban residents. Bryan Place residents who want to be able to walk down the street and get all the stuff they need for their kitchen, bathroom, flowerbed etc must begin to try to understand that will only happen through developments which maximize the residential potential of any property.
Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster
You are using the same logic in reverse for Uptown. The value of the entire area has increased. One block didn't increase because empty land next to it became something.
On the retail front...I have heard of ground level retail. Although, if you remember, this was to be four floors of retail. It was a MAJOR RETAIL project. I would much prefer that to condos. Plus, in the most current plans, there is only about 100K sq ft of retail (40K of that is a gym)...which seems to me like this project will not have retail on the ground floor of many of its structures.
That would have required the retail lineup of a regional mall drawing from a large geographic catchment area, and would not have satisfied household needs. The patterns of retail expansion in this urban neighborhood cannot follow a similar path as did Colin Creek Mall 20 years ago or Stonebriar mall 10 years ago or most recently Southlake Town Center.Originally Posted by Otis
This particular project needs to bring more people to the immediate neighborhood.
Are all of the other vacant condos in the area not doing that?Originally Posted by tamtagon
I agree. I just think more retail will bring people, not more housing supply.
I’m with you on this one. I think the reason West Village is so successful is not because of 3-4 floors of residences above the retail, but because of all the visitors. On any given day, I’m willing to bet that more than 90% of the retail sales are due to visitors and not the residents.
^90% of West Village visitation from non-area residents sounds way too high to me. There's got to be a reliable source that tracks this information....
15 years ago, there may have been 1,000 CityPlace West Village area residents, now there's probably more than 20,000. Much of the West Village retail started out being scaled and marketed much like a regional mall would be.... and when it was first getting going, that's exactly what the area needed - because there wasn't anywhere in the downtown area anymore to host Banana Republic, Tommy Bahama, other similar nice clothes stores, beauty parlors, upscalish restaurants etc. Deep Ellum was finally rejecting the hords of suburban tourist looking for a no-strings attached downtown party.
The regional appeal of a the West Village's cluster of niche clothing stores, home design/furnishing, trendy (but not quite tony) restaurants & restaurant bars all packaged with the point in time novelty of an open air setting still pulls customers from beyond the immediate neighborhood, but a line up of attractions like that is not unique anymore. Nowadays, non-local visitation to CityPlace West Village is more likely linked to the atmosphere that comes from a densely populated residential neighborhood - Uptown - than from the once unique staging of an open air mall.
City Lights should not under any circumstance attempt to create a similar retail scene to what may thrive in the West Village. If the developer is bound to attempt any sort of retail/entertainment clustering that targets the shoping, dining and night-on-the-town habits of any particular demographic, it would be the Latin community - and I've always thought that was a good idea. With The Latino Cultural Center is across the street, a Latin City Lights would be perfect.
Four floors of retail - shops, restaurants, nightclubs all the wonders of a Mixed Used Town Center - designed and built with a symbiotic relationship to the regional draw of The Latino Cultural Center events and programs would be an almost sure bet. Mercado de Ciudad Deep Ellum. People from around Dallas County would probably be much more likely to take the train to something like this, too.
Are all of the other vacant condos in the area drawn from a lower density suburban template?Originally Posted by Otis
What kind of retail would you want in CityLights? I want to see a grocery store (not a giant supermarket), a hardware store, a gym, pet supply store, liquor store, couple restaurants, drug store, beauty supply store/music store.... I do not want to see anything that resembles The Gap/Aeropostle/Abercrombie/Journey's, Restoration Hardware/Crate 'n Barrel ect
Clearly building more housing will bring in more people. Building, say 100 condos on the site has the potential to bring in 100 families (whatever your definition of that is). Those "families" have friends that visit them. Both of those things directly influence the number of people that come into our neighborhood.Originally Posted by Otis
Building 100 condos, with supporting retail, helps to ensure that those 100 new condos.. and all of our surrounding vacant town homes... will sell faster. It also increases quality of life.
Building only retail on the lot will bring people, but we then miss the opportunity to maximize the potential of the land. IMO the neighborhood still needs a large influx of residents, not just retail, to reach its true potential. There is also the more minor loss of potential property tax that the city would collect to fund all of the other projects so many of us want to see happen.
If I had to take one over the other, I would chose retail. But to get the most out of that piece of land I think we need a mix use development. I think that would do the most to increase my quality of life, as well as increase my property value.
From this month's Bryan Place Newsletter .. here's something for those with the 'calling 911 problem' ...
A rash of break-ins (home and auto) have
occurred in Bryan Place lately. These include
home invasions, auto vandalism and
theft. Sgt. Dennis Craig and Cpl.Tracy
Smith met with the board and provided a
lot of valuable information which we are
sharing with you. Sgt. Craig suggested
that since the police have been targeting
crime in the Gaston/Munger area that the
perpetrators may have moved into our
area. This of course is supposition.
Sgt. Craig highly recommended that if anyone
looks suspicious in our area, including
cars cruising the area with no particular
destination in mind, that we immediately
call 911. He further stated that people seem afraid to call 911 for fear of it being a nuisance and that this is a bad misunderstanding since, in many instances, the police are just waiting to be dispatched when a call is received.
CALL 911 at any time you see a suspicious person wandering the streets, in Exall Park or when
you feel it propitious. Sgt. Craig further noted that people knock on doors with phony reasons in
mind to determine if anyone is home before breaking in. He suggested that if you are home and
don't know who is at the door to respond that you don't recognize the person and are not going to
open the door. After which, you should CALL 911and report the incident.
Why are people talking about condos?
Why are people talking about 100?
The last time I knew, the plan was for 600-800 apartments (as in rental). Then there is the concept of highrise towers along central which would be condoed as a future phase of the development.
Unfortunately, a major grocery store is no longer in the picture, but it is beyond me how anyone can suggest that major retail at this location would do anything other than make the surrounding area really accelerate in value since that is the complaint that has persisted for the 28 years of the area's development - NO RETAIL. A pedestrian community with no place to walk to!
I question the logic that 600 apartments will increase any property values. The construction of the JPI and AMLI apartments didn't increase property values. In fact it made the closest neighbors feel less safe with the transient nature of apartment dwellers, periodic drug traffic, etc.
I would be interested in any empirical information that apartments increase surrounding property values. Or, for that matter, empirical information that apartments decrease surrounding property values.
Also what I find interesting is the City's Economic Development Department's making a presentation justifying the city's millions in assistance using sales tax figures for the retail square footage when 40,000 to 60,000 of that square footage is proposed to be a health club. Since when does a health club generate substantial sales taxes? I don't know who is trying to bamboozle whom. Staff the council? The developer the staff? The developer everyone? Look at the staff's briefing on the project to the council's Economic Development Committee and see the projected sales tax revenue computations based on retail square footage.
Last edited by ameripro; 16 March 2008 at 07:42 AM.
That's exactlt how it works. Vacant land that becomes occupied by st ructure increases the values of land all around. That is the case in a stable market from coast-to-coast.Originally Posted by Otis
There aren't many instances of multiple levels of retail. All a neighborhood needs at its center is a cluster of retail, nothing huge and over the top.On the retail front...I have heard of ground level retail. Although, if you remember, this was to be four floors of retail. It was a MAJOR RETAIL project. I would much prefer that to condos. Plus, in the most current plans, there is only about 100K sq ft of retail (40K of that is a gym)...which seems to me like this project will not have retail on the ground floor of many of its structures.
Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster
By that reasoning, the surrounding values would have gone down as all the old buildings were torn down. The values haven't decreased. So much for that logic. I think the request was for empirical information, not a blind statement without factual substantiation.
The entire vacant lot & property value deal is completely mutable and specific to site and situation.
Anyway, another reason I would prefer City Lights to heavy-up on residents and stay light on retail is that the historic downtown Dallas aka Elm-Main-Commerce corridor - whatever you want to call it - is a far superior location for a huge concentration and variety of retail operations. Retail in City Lights should exist primarily to serve the residential population within a 15 minute walk.
The greater East Dallas / Downtown Dallas area does not lack large scale shopping/dining/entertainment destination developments, but the area does lack neighborhood oriented clusters of household needs retail services.
Someone in our building sent out the following today:
I'm hoping that this person just has a misinformed Realtor (or maybe a Realtor who's trying to steer someone towards another property), as the last info we've heard is that the sale and plan were approved and things would become official in April.Does anyone have an update on the City Light Project? Last I heard the
developer gave a presentation to the City of Dallas (last 60 days or
so) and I thought everything was going to proceed.
But, today I heard from a friend of mine, who is considering the
purchase of one of the lofts, that the listing agent believes that the
project has been cancelled (yet, again).
Anyone have an update and/or better information?
Has anyone heard any more gloom and doom or should we dismiss this latest rumor?
Last edited by Rob; 21 March 2008 at 09:55 PM.
Originally Posted by Rob
Totally not true - I spoke with City Reps this past week and they confirmed that official vote will take place during the April 9 city council meeting. The vote is expected to be 100% in favor of City Lights now that the Latino CC has signed off on their parking concerns.
There are several people (realtor's) who Google "City Lights Dallas" and the first article they see is the 'Developer turns off City Lights project | Dallas Morning News" Article, so.. Viola .. there's your cause for the "it's being canceled" BS.
I am going to be a new resident of the neighborhood (closing Friday)... and here is my hope
- CityLights HAPPENS. I don't have an opinon on the retail/residential sq feet. The more development in the area - the better. Either (a) there will be lots of retail at CityLights... or (b) the more people living in the area will spur retail/dining options up and down Ross and Live Oak
- Ross Ave truly develops into a pedestrian friendly street
- Day workers are "removed" from Ross
- Ross has 7-9 non-chain restaurants
- In addition, would love to see retail similar to Snider Plaza, Bishop Arts, etc + utilitarian places like dry cleaners/barber shop/etc
- The few remaining - decent - buildings on Ross are not torn down (that Oriental rug cleaner building is one of my favs)
- I want the area to have a non-suburbia, non-chain restaurant feel
- The walkway under 75 being cleaned up - making a natural/safe walkway from the area to the Arts District
On that note - with the redevelopment of Ross, has there been any talk of a "Ross Ave Merchant Group"? Similar to the Greenville Ave or Bishop Arts group. Someone to help promote the area + lobby city gov't?
I'm pretty certain just about everything you listed will become a reality, at least those are the plans. Ross cleanup has already started, the Arts District is on its way, City Lights is pretty much a GO, and the immediate area (LOL,3030 bryan, gallery homes town homes, bryan street station, future Cielo condos, and BP) is great .. I've lived here for several years and it has never been so nice as lately.Originally Posted by tstein7240
I'm sure you'll be happy here.
I just wished I closed a few weeks earlier. The weather the past few weeks is perfect to hang with the wife and dog at Exall ParkOriginally Posted by urbanite07
Today's weather isn't the best, but the rest of the week should be nice .. upper 70's, so great weather for hanging out at Exall park ;->Originally Posted by tstein7240
PS> There have been some recent petty crime reported at Bryan Place, I think it prudent to tell you to be cautious of people walking around, either in the day or at night, who obviously have no business being in the neighborhood. The Dallas PD advised ALL Bryan Place residents to call 9-1-1 when you see people loitering around..
There are some on this board who think crime, drugs, and bums is what urban living means ... NOT ME, and I seriously doubt someone like you.
Personally, I think the biggest barrier to refine a comfortable, convenient, smart, admired and sought after quality and variety of city living in Dallas is the abundant provincial ignorance among the current population excited to be urban pioneers. Wildly successful to avoid and ignore the subtle and esoteric yet vast differences between urban and suburban modes of life, the provincial ignorance clamors inefficiency onto the efforts to allay problems of a city's urban environment by treating the social symptoms rather than the social causes.
Probably not the right thread, but some positive changes in store for Live Oak - Check out the new Cielo Condo's coming .. Wouldn't mind picking up one of the top floors with DT views just blocks away from City Lights ;->
Uh, Isn't this a picture of Uptown? Maybe the corner of State and Allen...Originally Posted by DFWCRE8TIVE
Originally Posted by UniversityMeadows
No, it's an artists rendering what what the City Lights project will look like. The City final vote is on April 9th, from there the project is expected to begin.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008
ORDER OF BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED ACTIONS
1:00 p.m. Items 29 - 41
ITEM #41 - A resolution authorizing the sale of approximately 83,478 square feet of unneeded and unwanted City-owned land located near the intersection of Live Oak and Cantegral Streets (northeast corner - Block 289) to Margaux City Lights.
I encourage everyone in favor of this great development for our area to come to the meeting to show your support for the City Lights development! This development will revitalize our area and finally put an end to those horrid empty lots.
I sincerely hope we can all come together and help make this project a great success!
LOL take a look at this...
if this was taken at the same time as the rest of the google streetview areas, this picture was made around may or june of last year:
Too funny .. from there the trailer disappeared then FOR SALE signs went up. Now those FOR SALE signs have been replaced by FOR INFORMATION signs. Kind of makes you wonder where we'll be in JUNE of '09 ..Originally Posted by xen0blue
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)