New Dallas Developments

[ArchFan]

I applaud Dallas and Dallasites for trying to do something beyond the bare minimum.  And ... well, while I don't care for this particular Calatrava design, I think that it is something that local people will feel proud of and will also be the subject of many postcard-type photos promoting the city to outsiders.  That is not a bad thing.  Aside from that, there is still the argument as to whether it was money well-spend, regardless of how much of it was funded from taxes vs. private philanthropy.  

 

As for the Hartman Bridge, I like it.  Unfortunately, very few residents and virtually no visitors ever see it.  So, while attractive, it does nothing to promote the city.

[D F W]

For those that prefer a little more nature environment there is trails below the bridges along the Trinty River that were recently built.

[cloud713]

For those that prefer a little more nature environment there is trails below the bridges along the Trinty River that were recently built.

Oh, so like the trails along all the bayous here in Houston?

[D F W]

Oh, so like the trails along all the bayous here in Houston?

[D F W]

Oh, so like the trails along all the bayous here in Houston?

[D F W]

You got that right, only here we don't have outlets you call bayous we got real rivers, lakes and creeks with trails.

[cloud713]

You got that right, only here we don't have outlets you call bayous we got real rivers, lakes and creeks with trails.

"real" rivers? i hope you arent referring to that tiny stream known as the Trinity.   

heres an online answer/excerpt to save me time..

 

 

 

The Trinity River passes to the east of Houston. 

The Brazos River passes to the west of Houston. 

Various creeks (many of which are locally called "bayous") flow through the city. Among them, Armand Bayou, Brays Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Clear Creek, Cypress Creek, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Sims Bayou and White Oak Bayou are the most widely-known

 

 

Lake Conroe, Lake Houston, Clear Lake, Lake Woodlands, Sheldon Lake, Smithers Lake, McGovern Lake, Kinder Lake, Lake Anahuac, Willow Waterhole, ect..

oh yeah, also Galveston Bay, West Bay, East Bay, Trinity Bay, and a handful of other smaller bays. along with that one body of water known as the Gulf of Mexico.

nope.. no water around here.

sounds like someone is a little jealous they dont have any of this...

[Montrose1100]

I just had a Vietnam flash back to skyscrapercity circa 2005.

[JasnoDTX]

Great pics. Are those areas part of Houston proper?(within city limits) If not what suburbs?

[cloud713]

Great pics. Are those areas part of Houston proper?(within city limits) If not what suburbs?

the first one is the Pleasure Pier in Galveston. the second is the Kemah Boardwalk in Kemah/next to Clear Lake (not sure if that one technically qualifies as "Houston" or not.. i think it does?), and the last two are on the East Beach in Galveston. so no, at least 3 out of 4 arent technically "Houston".. but they are included in the metro. not trying to start an argument here with the Dallas posters, most of you guys are civil and great posters. i just thought it was humorous D F W came in here as a brand new member and right off the bat started trying to slander Houston on a Houston website.

[arche_757]

I'm not sure of the need for people in Houston to constantly attack Dallas at any chance?  Its time we (as a city) grow up and be proud of what we have.  There are now 2 pages of this thread attacking (for the most part) the bridge over the Trinity River that was partly funded through private donations.  If something like this happened in Houston over any of the bayous we'd be so proud we would have pages upon pages dedicated to it.

 

And for those who are complaining about Dallasites fussing about Houston on here... its not like we've not come in and been great sports about it, in fact we've come in and bad-mouthed the Bridge to begin with.  Criticism is fine -this is an architectural forum- but to say its dumb, or allude to that is ridiculous.

[SMF]

That big bridge in Dallas is very very ugly and completely out of place. If they had built the same thing in Houston over Buffalo Bayou I would not be bragging about it at all. And if I went to a Dallas forum and bragged about all the new high rise construction going up in Houston right now which I honestly feel is far more impressive (as a whole) than what is going up in Dallas, I would expect the locals to rag on me and my city. Immature? No argument. But, if you think calling people immature is going to stop anyone from defending their city or their home or their car or their house, when provoked. Think again.

Is it o.k. if I think that a ball lit up in xmas lights sitting on top of a 500ft cement pole is tacky? Well, immature or not, it is. Deal with it.

Edited October 5, 2014 by SMF

[JasnoDTX]

I'm not sure of the need for people in Houston to constantly attack Dallas at any chance?  Its time we (as a city) grow up and be proud of what we have.  There are now 2 pages of this thread attacking (for the most part) the bridge over the Trinity River that was partly funded through private donations.  If something like this happened in Houston over any of the bayous we'd be so proud we would have pages upon pages dedicated to it.

 

And for those who are complaining about Dallasites fussing about Houston on here... its not like we've not come in and been great sports about it, in fact we've come in and bad-mouthed the Bridge to begin with.  Criticism is fine -this is an architectural forum- but to say its dumb, or allude to that is ridiculous.

 

I've noticed this too. First of all I come to HAIF because I like the format and the way it looks and also because I like Houston architecture as well. Why not join a site of your Texas bigger brother to bounce architectural ideas off of? I would'nt go and join an Atlanta or Philly forum obviously. Im sure other Texas cities have sites but why not join the biggest? I haven't come here to bash H-Town at all. I reserve my trolling for other sites.

 

I also think for the most part most of the Houstonians on here have been cool. There is nothing wrong constructive critique either and most have offered it without bashing.

 

I do think the reason some Houstonians still see a rivalry with Dallas is that we were *cough(still are)*cough** the 2nd largest city for so long. And face it as far as high-rise development we are its closest rival in Texas. Do you never hear Houstonians bashing SA? I dont.. Haha.

 

Oh by the way. How bout dem Cowboys??

[cloud713]

I'm not sure of the need for people in Houston to constantly attack Dallas at any chance?  Its time we (as a city) grow up and be proud of what we have.  There are now 2 pages of this thread attacking (for the most part) the bridge over the Trinity River that was partly funded through private donations.  If something like this happened in Houston over any of the bayous we'd be so proud we would have pages upon pages dedicated to it.

 

And for those who are complaining about Dallasites fussing about Houston on here... its not like we've not come in and been great sports about it, in fact we've come in and bad-mouthed the Bridge to begin with.  Criticism is fine -this is an architectural forum- but to say its dumb, or allude to that is ridiculous.

its called criticism.. the bridge was way too much money, and way too over the top for way too short of a span. who said anything about us not being proud of what we have? i think you are reading a little too far into some of this friendly rivalry.. i havent seen many people attacking the bridge, just talking about how ridiculous it is. and we do have something "like this" in Houston.. its called the Fred Hartman Bridge. taller than Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge, and almost 2 and a half miles longer.. it actually serves a useful purpose in crossing the second(?) busiest shipping channel in the US. not some silly stream you can throw a rock across...

the last part is clearly directed towards me... how have i not been a great sport about "it"? i have been civil with everyone until the D F W poster came in here. am i not allowed to criticize a bridge, designed by one of the most famous architects in the world, on an architecture forum? and am i not allowed to point out the irony of a Dallasite coming to a HOUSTON architecture forum to slander Houston? thats like me going over to Dallasmetropolis or w/e their website is, making an account, and instantly start posting pro Houston comments, while slandering Dallas..

[arche_757]

It wasn't directed towards anyone in particular on here.  If you feel I slighted you, then I apologize.  Message me if you want we can debate till we're blue in the face.

 

My only point was this:  People here in Houston have a need to belittle and look down upon Dallas.  People in Dallas love their flawed city the same way we love our flawed city.  No need to attack a project.  If you think its too expensive, so be it.  Say that, don't say its a waste of money.  I've yet to actually see anything that was purely a waste of money.  The bridge has a purpose.  And frankly I admire the idea that Dallas has an attitude of trying to engineer/build something more than just what it is.

 

That in and of itself is the whole idea behind architecture.  Why not explore and push boundaries when at all possible?  Why not build something better than just the idea of the needed space, or road, or object?  If we simply built what was needed then much of what makes cities spectacular places would be lost.

 

Anyway... can we get back to the actual presentation of the new Dallas developments?  Thanks.

[cloud713]

It wasn't directed towards anyone in particular on here.  If you feel I slighted you, then I apologize.  Message me if you want we can debate till we're blue in the face.

 

My only point was this:  People here in Houston have a need to belittle and look down upon Dallas.  People in Dallas love their flawed city the same way we love our flawed city.  No need to attack a project.  If you think its too expensive, so be it.  Say that, don't say its a waste of money.  I've yet to actually see anything that was purely a waste of money.  The bridge has a purpose.  And frankly I admire the idea that Dallas has an attitude of trying to engineer/build something more than just what it is.

 

That in and of itself is the whole idea behind architecture.  Why not explore and push boundaries when at all possible?  Why not build something better than just the idea of the needed space, or road, or object?  If we simply built what was needed then much of what makes cities spectacular places would be lost.

 

Anyway... can we get back to the actual presentation of the new Dallas developments?  Thanks.

alright, my bad. i happened to of just mentioned a "dallas poster coming into a Houston forum" that i thought you were referring to.

i agree. but look at the wonder TxDot architects/engineers have been able to do for our city.. the Fred Hartman Bridge is fantastic.. the Montrose bridges are very nice and will be even better once they redo the lighting. Dallas didnt need to pay 180 million for a bridge just because Calatrava designed it. they could of gotten something "signature" from a TxDot architect like Houston. but i understand their desire to make a bold statement with a big name, and im glad Calatravas only(?) N. American road bridge is in Texas.

[IronTiger]

alright, my bad. i happened to of just mentioned a "dallas poster coming into a Houston forum" that i thought you were referring to.

i agree. but look at the wonder TxDot architects/engineers have been able to do for our city.. the Fred Hartman Bridge is fantastic.. the Montrose bridges are very nice and will be even better once they redo the lighting. Dallas didnt need to pay 180 million for a bridge just because Calatrava designed it. they could of gotten something "signature" from a TxDot architect like Houston. but i understand their desire to make a bold statement with a big name, and im glad Calatravas only(?) N. American road bridge is in Texas.

The Montrose bridges aren't the only lit bridges where someone at TxDOT has been asleep at the switch--I-45 N and Beltway 8 got green neon trim along the bridges that hasn't worked beyond a short time, if any.

 

To have a nice city, it must be nicely maintained.

[SMF]

Is it o.k. to not like Dallas architecture if you are from Fort Worth? How about New York? Or is legitimate criticism of architecture that just happens to be from Dallas and is submitted on this thread for the point of critique only frowned upon if you are from Houston?

Which is it? I think if someone is going to post an image or opinion of anything related to architecture on any thread at this website, including this one, they need to be prepared to except the fact that not everyone is going to like it, and ought to be able point out it's flaws without being personally attacked. I don't understand what makes Dallas architecture immune from criticism. Just like in any city, there are some real monstrosities and just plain bad crap in Dallas too. I think the big bridge in Dallas is just awful for a lot of reasons and I'm certain there are many other people who also appreciate architecture who would agree with me no matter if they are from Hong Kong OR Houston OR Dallas.

No one seems to have any problem irresponsibly slamming architectural misfires, trashing developers or ripping on cities for the fun of ripping on cities on any other thread at the Haif. Why is this one any different?

Edited October 6, 2014 by SMF

[arche_757]

That big bridge in Dallas is very very ugly and completely out of place. If they had built the same thing in Houston over Buffalo Bayou I would not be bragging about it at all. And if I went to a Dallas forum and bragged about all the new high rise construction going up in Houston right now which I honestly feel is far more impressive (as a whole) than what is going up in Dallas, I would expect the locals to rag on me and my city. Immature? No argument. But, if you think calling people immature is going to stop anyone from defending their city or their home or their car or their house, when provoked. Think again.

Is it o.k. if I think that a ball lit up in xmas lights sitting on top of a 500ft cement pole is tacky? Well, immature or not, it is. Deal with it.

 

I understand your emotional response(s), I do.  And while I'd never say the bridge is ugly, it is a bit too large for its location and probably would have been better if built for a roadway that truly needed the added vehicular capacity.

 

The Dallas based posters on here aren't ragging on Houston.  This is a sub-forum inside the overal forum dedicated to whats going on in Dallas currently.  That's it.  Some people may egg others on?  I don't know?  I prefer the format of discussion over argument, as level heads tend to say things in a more elloquent manner.

 

You don't like the Bridge, I get it.  I wouldnt' call it ugly - really I wouldn't.  Out of place, sure.  Now, the Reunion Tower may be a bit odd, but it sure does represent Dallas.  First thing I think of when I think of Dallas is the skyline with the Renuion Tower at the forefront.

 

No one is attacking you personally - I just find it odd that the Dallas posts on this forum tend to migrate towards annimosity for one city or the other.

Edited October 6, 2014 by arche_757

[arche_757]

Is it o.k. to not like Dallas architecture if you are from Fort Worth? How about New York? Or is legitimate criticism of architecture that just happens to be from Dallas and is submitted on this thread for the point of critique only frowned upon if you are from Houston?

Which is it? I think if someone is going to post an image or opinion of anything related to architecture on any thread at this website, including this one, they need to be prepared to except the fact that not everyone is going to like it, and ought to be able point out it's flaws without being personally attacked. I don't understand what makes Dallas architecture immune from criticism. Just like in any city, there are some real monstrosities and just plain bad crap in Dallas too. I think the big bridge in Dallas is just awful for a lot of reasons and I'm certain there are many other people who also appreciate architecture who would agree with me no matter if they are from Hong Kong OR Houston OR Dallas.

No one seems to have any problem irresponsibly slamming architectural misfires, trashing developers or ripping on cities for the fun of ripping on cities on any other thread at the Haif. Why is this one any different?

 

Why do you dislike Dallas architecture?  I like quite a few buildings in Dallas, in fact I think that Dallas has some really great architecture.  I'm not saying Dallas it the greatest hotbed of architecture in the world, just that it certainly has nice areas and nice buildings.  I again applaud their ideas towards revitilizing the Trinity Floodway..er River and working to make that area attractive to the population.

 

Do you simply dislike all architecture in Dallas because its Dallas?  If you do, that's fine.  Though I would tend to wonder why you would bother reading up on the Dallas section?

 

Please explain.

Edited October 6, 2014 by arche_757

[SMF]

First off. I always go to the 'View New Post' link and read whatever the newest comments are on Haif, and when I see something of interest I just click the link. I don't scroll down into the DFW subforum and look for things in DFW because usually I'm a lot more interested in the new stuff going up in Houston. But I am mildly interested in what's going on in Dallas too since I'm there a lot. I almost never navigate this sight by subject.

Second, I never said I dislike Dallas or Dallas architecture. I said there are some real monstrosities and just plain bad crap there. There are in Houston too. New York and Chicago too. I could make a list of everything in Dallas or any other city that I like and that I don't like but that isn't the point. The point is that any architecture submitted for discussion is fair game for criticism and that Houstonians should have a right to make negative comments about Dallas architecture without being accused of being immature or reading a lecture about civility. God knows I've read enough Houston bashing from Dallasites lately. The Houston vs Dallas rivalry runs deep, but sometimes the distaste for whatever each city has or is - is legit. It isn't always about trash talk.

For example, I have no doubt that I could round up as many people in Dallas who aren't impressed with the big bridge as I could in Houston. Probably more. Dallas has a lot of rotten streets in disrepair that could have used some of that money that was spent on this gaudy bridge to nowhere and I've heard many people on Dallas forums that are plenty mad about it. Also, when you think about how much time, money and effort that went into building it and all they got was a one-tower replica of a bridge that many don't find particularly attractive in the first place. If they were going to this much trouble to build a landmark bridge the least they could have done was to get something original and more attractive and maybe a little more indigenous to it's environment.

I think it's just great that you like quite a few buildings in Dallas and for the record I do too, but ours is just one opinion. If you are bothered by the fact that some people in Houston hate things in Dallas just because it is in Dallas, I can understand why you might try to want to put a stop to it (well not really). But it works both ways. Dallas isn't immune from building lemons. One should be able to call them on their mistakes as freely as you call Houston on it's lemons - which I've noticed you (and many others) do a lot.

Edited October 6, 2014 by SMF

[arche_757]

Fair enough.  I also typically check to see what is new.  I am quite critical of many works in Houston - and other cities.  I feel like I've always been that way, and will always be that way.  I may call something bad architecture or even ugly, but I don't make a point to make it sound like I have it out for said project.

 

I've agreed on the idea that Dallas wasted some money to build a signature bridge where they did.  That is a fact.  I still applaud their civic vision for what is little more than (or was little more than) a glorified floodway.  I've seen the bridge from afar and didn't find it distateful.  Its quite abstract from a distance as you cannot see the roadway, and serves as a curious visual on the horizon.  It is possible that they could have built something for less money and achieved the same results - that I have little doubt of.  However it would not have been a Santiago Calatrava (I've always loved his bridges and not been too impressed with his buildings).

 

As for architectural lemons, Dallas certainly has its fair share!  I never said they didn't.

 

Again, my main concern in my previous posts when people started to really bash this bridge was that Houstonians felt the need to compare and contrast this thing with what's been done here in Houston.  I don't understand that?  I don't.  If this was a Compare Dallas to Houston thread, then that would be different; however, it is not.  And we don't just compare and contrast, people start to get their heckles up.  I'll never understand it?

[JasnoDTX]

Hines Victory Park 23 floors

 

Last updated in April. Not sure of the status but I really like the look of this bldg.. We need more Hines bldgs here!

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/commercial-real-estate/headlines/20140331-victory-park-project-sets-a-new-style-for-downtown-dallas.ece

 

[ZKB9]

Sad there hasnt been much news on this in a while, I do want this to get built

[cloud713]

what ever happened with the Pacific Plaza park redevelopment plans?

[JasnoDTX]

This is the latest thing I could find on that: 8-8-14

 

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2014/08/after-may-stalemate-over-fate-of-pacific-plaza-dallas-park-board-will-ask-developers-for-proposals.html/

 

Of the two existing proposals, following Shawn Todd’s withdrawal of his $100-million proposal earlier this week, only one, from former council member Ron Natinsky and 4P Partners, has below-ground parking — specifically, an automated parking garage. Mukemmel “Mike” Sarimsakci’s ambitious $600-million proposal features a number of structures on the proposed park, including two residential skyscrapers at least 70 stories tall.

 

Park idea and the towers sound great but that underground Japan-like automated parking garage sounds maybe a tad too ambitious and expensive probably holding the process back. Just forget the garage(make an overground). It's really kinda frustrating having to wait so long when it comes to projects like these.

 

Though for me the project I'm most excited about is the potential supertall Ross Perot Jr. is planning. At least with that one the developer has already been chosen though it will probably take awhile for the design. I know Ben Crawford and HOK are working hard on it as we type!

 

[cloud713]

This is the latest thing I could find on that: 8-8-14

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2014/08/after-may-stalemate-over-fate-of-pacific-plaza-dallas-park-board-will-ask-developers-for-proposals.html/

Of the two existing proposals, following Shawn Todd’s withdrawal of his $100-million proposal earlier this week, only one, from former council member Ron Natinsky and 4P Partners, has below-ground parking — specifically, an automated parking garage. Mukemmel “Mike” Sarimsakci’s ambitious $600-million proposal features a number of structures on the proposed park, including two residential skyscrapers at least 70 stories tall.

Park idea and the towers sound great but that underground Japan-like automated parking garage sounds maybe a tad too ambitious and expensive probably holding the process back. Just forget the garage(make an overground). It's really kinda frustrating having to wait so long when it comes to projects like these.

Though for me the project I'm most excited about is the potential supertall Ross Perot Jr. is planning. At least with that one the developer has already been chosen though it will probably take awhile for the design. I know Ben Crawford and HOK are working hard on it as we type!

So no twin 70 story residential towers? Yeah, the Ross Perot site has the most potential. I'll just be bummed to see it block Fountain Place

[JasnoDTX]

/So no twin 70 story residential towers?/

I dont know. Seems like its still up in the air. Now that I think about it I guess those could be supertalls too. They'll probably narrow it down to one. Demand for dwntwn residences has been decent in the past few months though. Leases are up apparently.

 

/Yeah, the Ross Perot site has the most potential. I'll just be bummed to see it block Fountain Place/

Never though about that. Hopefully it wont block too many angles. Agreed that is a signature building. Actually saw it in commercial today for a railroad company. National commercial too. Pretty cool

[Dallaz]

New skyscraper project will include residential and office towers overlooking Klyde Warren Park

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/new-skyscraper-project-will-include-residential-and-office-towers-overlooking-klyde-warren-park.html/

"Architect HKS Inc. is designing the 3-building project, which will have 513,000 square feet of office space, 275 luxury residential units and 20,900 square feet of restaurant space, Crow and MetLife said in the filings with the city."

[Rube88]

I know it was posted on a closed topic....but this is big for the Dallas skyline if it happens...

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2014/10/24/exclusive-turkish-developer-to-buy-land-near.html 

 

Roughly five acres of land behind Dallas City Hall is under contract by Turkish developer Mike Sarimsakci, who has started designing plans to build a $1.2 billion ground-up development to put four mixed-use towers in downtown Dallas.

The four towers include two 80-story towers and two 60-story towers originally conceived by Sarimsakci for the proposed redevelopment of Pacific Plaza Park(except he'd like to double the project). If the deal goes through, the project would be developed at 1701 Cadiz St. and 1502 Canton St., each valued at about $1 million by the Dallas Central Appraisal District.

Terms of the expected land sale were undisclosed.

"These towers would be the tallest west of the Mississippi," Sarimsakci told the Dallas Business Journal in an exclusive interview. "We are going to do it. We have the land under contract and Dallas needs to shine.

"We are under contract and we have the capital ready," he said, adding that he has a number of international capital backers eager to invest in downtown Dallas.