ForwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan

[TxDave]

The City of Dallas is about to approve its first ever comprehensive plan, developed by Fregonese Calthorpe Associates of Portland, OR. It included significant public input and is identified as "ForwardDallas!".

Since the City of Dallas is land-locked and can no longer take the "growth through expansion" approach, it is attempting to define its future through how its remaining undeveloped areas will be built-out; as well as how its existing neighborhoods and infrastructure will be transformed as the city becomes increasingly urban.

The details can be found here:

www.forwarddallas.org

I think, perhaps for political reasons, the actual plan has been buried away deep in the website (if still available at all). In any case, here is the latest version of the plan that I could find:

http://www.forwarddallas.org/files/up/comp...plan_draft.html

If this plan is fully realized, Dallas could become a classic example (good or bad) of the transformation from sprawling sunbelt city to a more urban entity.

[WesternGulf]

Great looking plan. I think this has a better chance of working in Dallas than here. Although we have had plans for every pocket of the innerloop, we still build shopping centers in the shadow of our central business district. Thanks to no zoning.

[tamtagon]

Since the City of Dallas is land-locked and can no longer take the "growth through expansion" approach, it is attempting to define its future through how its remaining undeveloped areas will be built-out; as well as how its existing neighborhoods and infrastructure will be transformed as the city becomes increasingly urban.

The city is not land-locked. Municipal boundaries can and should expand to the Southeast. The Agile Port may become one of the most influential economic "engines" and source of population growth for the Metroplex over the next 25-50 years. The cargo processing facility for the Port of Houston being developed in rural, mostly unincorporated SE Dallas County will supply the business and residential influx to justify broad annexation by the City of Dallas in Dallas, Kaufman and Ellis Counties.

[RedScare]

The city is not land-locked.

Then, I wonder why the planners at ForwardDallas! said this...

But it's not for a lack of land. While Dallas is landlocked, about 18 percent of the city is still vacant and primed for development, the report notes

[tamtagon]

Then, I wonder why the planners at ForwardDallas! said this...

Beats me. I havent read the whole thing, but several passages state that the city is essentially landlock, and obviously there are passages stating the city is landlacked. Perhaps context led the document preparers to use varying wording.

I think the annexation talk is some sort of wishful thinking on the part of some non-decision making types, who are concerned about the "Detroit effect" of being hemmed in. ForwardDallas! contemplates not needing to annex to avert the "Detroit effect", but instead intelligently developing its long-ignored southside.

As far as I'm aware, the Dallas City Council isnt talking about annexation around Balch Springs, Seagoville, Hutchins, Wilmer Lancaster or Sunnyvale. The City of Dallas has, however, approved the formation of municipal utility districts in Kaufman County.

\http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=522

...

Relatively rare in North Texas, MUDs are commonplace in southern Texas cities, including Austin and Houston, said Barry Knight, a shareholder with Winstead Sechrest & Minick and the lead zoning attorney for Travis Ranch.

"With a municipal utility district, the financing of the major infrastructure normally provided by a city, such as water and sewer, falls to the developer," he said. "He advances the funds and makes a reimbursement agreement whereby, once there is a sufficient tax base to justify the passage of bonds, the MUD issues the bonds and pays back the developer."

MUDs then collect the taxes normally paid to a city for basic utility services. Once the bonds are paid off, and if it makes sense from a tax standpoint, the city typically will annex the property, Knight said.

Travis Ranch will give Dallas one of the few chances it has to expand its city limits.

As a non-decision maker, I do wish Dallas would become more aggressive toward the annexation of developing residential areas.

The ForwardDallas!!! plan is the first of, like, a kagillion plans, which actually identifies the need to focus on the development of high density, residential, owner-occupied neighborhoods. That's a big step for the biggest suburban population center in Texas. I think the ForwardDallas!! encourages the city to promote high density residential ownership to increase the population of the downtown area (within a couple mile radius) by 180,000.

Without reading the whole chapter from which the quote was taken, it seems that there's a specific relationship between the 18% of Dallas that is vacant but landlocked either by fully developed areas OR entirely rural areas.

[TxDave]

The city is not land-locked. Municipal boundaries can and should expand to the Southeast. The Agile Port may become one of the most influential economic "engines" and source of population growth for the Metroplex over the next 25-50 years. The cargo processing facility for the Port of Houston being developed in rural, mostly unincorporated SE Dallas County will supply the business and residential influx to justify broad annexation by the City of Dallas in Dallas, Kaufman and Ellis Counties.

True, there is a small opening to the southeast where the Dallas city limits are not completely blocked. However closer review of Mapsco maps show that Wilmer, Hutchins, and Seagoville all have "fingers" of annexation throughout this area that would require a snake-like boundary for Dallas to expand at all - mostly through unusable Trinity floodplains. These cities will likely capture most of the agile port facilities, but all of southeast Dallas (county and city) would benefit from such development.

The only other possibility for Dallas city expansion is within the disconnected land to the far southeast of Lake Ray Hubbard; although I seem to recall an agreement by the city to limit expansion plans in this area (anyone else know about this?).

Dallas could, in fact, zig-zag through these areas to develop land much farther southeast than its current boundaries, but I question whether or not this far removed territory would be good for the city. Sure, it might provide "new dirt" for future tax revenue, but its disconnect from the rest of the city would likely create a distraction from higher priority issues.

I think that Dallas really needs to be focused on optimizing its current territory (i.e. Forward Dallas or other such planning), rather than looking for desperate attempts to expand into new areas (the few options that do exist are very limited).

This approach may be unpopular with those who would like to see Dallas try to continue to compete with other sunbelt peers who can continue to grow through unabated expansion (e.g. Fort Worth, San Antonio, or to an increasingly lesser extent Houston). But I think accepting the fact that Dallas will not expand anymore is healthy to focus on developing a great city within its current boundaries.