Dallascaper

So NYC had more commercial building starts than Miami, DFW, Chicago, Washington DC, LA, and Boston...combined. Well, that puts the Dallas-Houston rivalry in perspective.

42.5 million square feet is indeed bigger than the 30 or so million square feet that Downtown Dallas has.

This is square footage of buildings.

Is that so?!?  LOL!

Anyway, we have already derailed this thread enough, so maybe I will start a new thread in the TMC forum for further discussion.

Thanks!

Lol no that's an actual fact, but it's not a knock against dallas. I went there a few weeks ago, and I think the biggest thing that hurts downtown dallas is the lack of grid. It is so hard to get around.

It's a "fact" in the same way that it's a "fact" Terre Haute, Indiana is "bigger" than Manhattan.  The "fact" that the TMC covers slightly more acreage than Dallas' CBD (note, they always leave out the rest of downtown for their little comparison) is disingenuous at best. The TMC is a testament to Houston and Texas, but claiming that it is bigger than reality is silly and reinforces some of the worst stereotypes about Texas.

Don't forget the TMC is larger then Downtown Dallas that has 100,000 employees.  Please send some drone views of Dallas.  I would like to see all the buildings under construction.   

Seriously..nobody believes that.    

Yeah, it would cost a bit over 120 million in 2011 dollars I believe.. Still, we got a phenomenal deal on a much larger bridge which happens to be an interesting sculptural element as well.

The Hunt Hill bridge cost $69.6M - the rest was for land acquisition, design, inspections and ramps.  Since a bridge extending Woodall Rogers was going to be built anyway, Dallas decided to build a nice bridge, instead of yet another boring overpass.  Years from now, nobody is going to care how much the Margaret cost - it's a nice addition to the Dallas skyline paid for, in part, with private funds. 

Data source: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/margaret-hunt-hill-bridge/bridge-headlines/20120221-true-cost-of-dallas-margaret-hunt-hill-bridge-182-million.ece

Not to pick on you njeppeson, especially considering that you are one of the few constructive posters on Dallas area topics, but it looks like, of the 10 'projects' you've listed, 4 are plans or talk, 1 is a demo, 1 is a park, and 1 is a rather mundane renovation. It appears that there are 2 actual construction projects, in addition to a recently completed one. But, hey, in this climate, that's better than nothing.

You are right, a little development is better than nothing.

- Main Street Garden. $17 million

- Belo Garden. $6.5 million

- Woodall Rodgers Park. $60 million

- Omni Dallas Convention Center Hotel. $490 million

- The Perot Museum of Nature and Science. $180 million

- First Baptist Church Dallas. $130 million

- The downtown YMCA. $5 million

- AT&T Performing Arts Center. $354 million

Total: $1.24 billion. Thank you, njeppeson, for compiling the original list.

Of course, this post in no way bashes Houston; I am simply pointing out that Dallas recognizes the problems and potential of its downtown. In an economy where many cities have seen plans for downtown renovations put on hold, Dallas is doing what it can to move forward.

So your discounting one of the worlds greatest modern architects?

Instead of arguing like a 12 year old, please give me a more educated response.

I'm not discounting anyone; I thought this forum was supposed to be a joke.

The Emerald City, from the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, written by L. Frank Baum, represents an island of civilization in a mystic world dominated by enchanted forests and wicked witches. In the 1939 film adaptation of the story, the Emerald City - tall, modern, and a consistent hue of green - represents a comforting, yet powerful beacon of order and wealth for people of all sizes throughout the Land of Oz. In a way, the Emerald City shares its roll with its brethren not far from the star of Kansas, Houston, Texas.

Much like the Enchanted Forest, Houston

Thank you, Gary, for those photos; I know seen that skyline somewhere...

Here is another opinion. One I have heard repeated many times over the last 20 years or so.

The skyscrapers in DT Dallas seem to be disjointed and lack any type of cohesion as they relate to one another. Although there are some very nice skyscrapers in Dallas, they look completely randomly placed. It's as if the various architects and builders did not take the surrounding buildings into account as they were being designed. DT Dallas looks like a hodge podge of giant knick knacks on a shelf, all competing for attention and the result looks a bit junky. Add some blinking lights and neon to the mix and the word tacky comes to mind.

By contrast, I've always thought the buildings in DT Houston work together amazingly well. It may be a coincidence, but it is as if the buildings in DT Houston were actually arranged in a way so that they could be viewed as one master planned work of architecture, especially as viewed from the north. It looks like the architechs actually envisioned the entire Houston skyline as they were planning building heights, colors, and style.

I expect nothing less than full out war over these comments, but keep in mind its all only opinion. But honestly, I've never heard the skyscrapers in Dallas referred to as 'distinguished' before.

I like the height and density of the Houston skyline, but it does suffer a bit from sameness disease. Houston's skyline is helped, or hurt, by the appearance that it was all built by the same person over a span of a few years. That which is clean and neatly arranged to one is mundane and boring to another. The Dallas skyline is somewhat different - cluttered to some, but interesting to others - in that it lacks Houston's density and bulk, which allows some of the pre-80's towers to show through. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Dallas add some bulk and density; a few brash and tacky 2000's monstrosities clashing with the 80's towers would be nice.

I like your new cathedral, the design is clean and comforting - not jarring, like some others. As far as the architecture being too sedated to be featured in magazines, Sacred Heart is not built to glorify Houston, if you know what I mean.

When we built our church several years ago, the modern design was made simple in response to a papal edict. If I recall right, the pope wanted new churches to be free of ornamentation and ostentatious displays of wealth. When built, St Joseph's had no statues, stained-glass, or even a crucifix - it hardly looked Catholic. I suspect Sacred Heart is built with a similar mindset; keep it simple, even for a cathedral. Anyway, enjoy your new addition to the fabric of Houston.

Dallas