DefenDallas

touche.

The developer needed a zoning change so that affordable housing would be allowable on the site.

I see. I digress from this thread topic, but I would like to know more about why Houston has no zoning laws, and if developers have carte blanche to build say, a 40 story office tower near a residential neighborhood (e.g. Ashby high rise). What about traffic concerns? Crime potential? Storm water runoff? How does Houston navigate the minutiae of development, and end up on its feet (which it has, time and time again)? I haven't taken the time yet to peruse this board for a 'history of Houston development' thread, or the like. Maybe one of you fine people could point the way?

Yeah, not my best quip. I don't remember saying it like that. I'm going to withdraw the comment on city size. The legacy issues are obvious enough to stand on their own.

You need not remind a Dallasite of the implications of legacy (11/22/1963)

It's nice (I suppose) that you support that, however I submit to you that this development looks like a strip mall compared to Masdar in the UAE. Do you disagree?

No, I just suggested that. I would be dreaming if I thought Dallas development could compare to anything in the Emirates.

In recent times, yes. Dallas is more open to deviation from zoning norms than it has ever been provided that the bribes are of sufficient value. No, seriously. I use Dallas' incarcerated city councilman as an example of the futility and unintended consequences of zoning every time someone advocates it for Houston. And that's only the guy that was dumb enough to double-cross the developer that bribed him in the first place. Don't think that it hasn't happened with other city councilmembers.

Ha, you're talking about the illustrious Don Hill. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. I don't presume our city council is comprised of saints. But to my understanding, the developers needed political support for their projects because they were affordable housing, not because of zoning.

However...Dallas being such a relatively small city compared to Houston, it has to content with legacy issues. And it's legacy is that for a long time, it was very strictly zoned.

Hmmm. I don't get how smaller cities have to contend(?) with legacy issues more than larger ones. Please explain.

Boring. Looks like something that might've been programmed into the original Sim City.

Maybe not his best work, but the asymmetry is hardly boring. Besides, Sim City was awesome.

That's nice and all, but we don't live in the year 1992.

It's still ahead of its time, eighteen years later.

The Crescent is horribly boring and derivative. It's even more boring than Houston's One Park Place, which is saying a lot.

Wha?? The Beaux arts landmark gives the block a nice Paris feel. Definitely livelier than One Park.

Houston absolutely has the 'feel' of a bigger city (surprise, it is!) Maybe if you squished Dallas and Fort Worth together, urbanization would be comparable to Houston. As for the drive up I-45 into town, the corridor parallels the Trinity River, and the Great Trinity Forest, until you reach downtown. The River is flanked by levees and creates a huge gash of nothingness, bisecting the city. Its easy to see if you look at a nighttime satellite image of the city. This creates a perception that you're not in the city, until you're downtown. Also, south Dallas has been neglected in every way for ages, and it simply hasn't seen the development of the north over the decades. I suppose the corridor with the longest stretch of continuous development would be I-35E from Sanger on down to south of Waxahachie. Development in Fort Worth is highly sporadic, but it gives the city a 'western' feel, with 'wide open spaces', and for me is a positive. But I want Dallas to grow inward, and I feel the tide may be turning, as builders scale back the seemingly constant sprawl (not because people want to live in the city, admittedly), and urbanism slowly gains favor as inner neighborhoods gentrify. Wishful thinking, I know, but I wouldn't trade my apartment and daily train commute for a McMansion in Frisco and gridlock, no way.

I was about to go that direction and point out that 1.1 million square feet of any permutation of land uses, standing alone (as it will, in hyper-zoned Dallas), is not very sustainable. Then...I realized that that is fairly typical of these kinds of projects, that Dallas is this kind of project's natural habitat, and that A&M likes to study realistic, practical, and achievable phenomenon, which this is. For academic purposes, this is perfect. It'll probably reveal some fairly predictable things about 'green' technologies and disappoint the tens of thousands of architects that sell sociological wet dreams to the public in the form of New Urbanism. That's useful, so I say 'Go for it!'

Are you suggesting that some of the technology that might exist in this development won't generate a positive consumer response? OK, but this isn't a Segway proving ground, or a jet-pack test site. It will, I hope, prove that many 'green' technologies are viable and sustainable, not in 2080, but today. New Urbanism isn't a wet dream, either, and I support any effort to pry Americans away from their sedentary, car-centric lifestyle, however pie-n-the-sky, Dubai-like such efforts may seem. Have you seen the plans for Masdar, in the UAE? Makes this development look like a strip mall.

Also, any city looks "hyper-zoned" compared to Houston. I'll bet Dallas zoning is decidedly laissez-faire compared to coastal cities.

Ah yes I did misunderstand. But yes. It is nothing more than bland, boxy, safe, architecture.

You're goin to make that judgement based on one picture? Keep in mind there's I.M. Pei's Meyerson Symphony Center at bottom-right. Your Federal Reserve Bank building, built in 1992, is ahead of its time. It appears to have been designed in part by a Houston firm, Sikes Jennings Kelly & Brewer. I certainly wouldn't describe the Crescent as "bland, boxy, safe."

Med Center, hands down. I don't know raw numbers but I do know they throw up 30+ story towers at TMC like they're playing with Legos. Was it the city of Houston or UT that had the idea to consolidate all that medical in one area, or was it something else entirely?? Whoever it was, they made a brilliant move. Dallas's medical centers are spread all over the place, much like everything else in this city.

As for Uptown, the lower end (Victory Park) got some height in the last decade, but it was all spec building based on the belief that an arena plus high-end retail would make people flock at all hours. They flocked, but only for basketball or hockey, and immediately scattered after games. They sure weren't going to drop $60 for a steak. Then the recession hit, and you know the rest of the story... Epic fail. But the other end of Uptown, west village/state-thomas, has been a success for the most part. There's a lively scene along McKinney ave. with new resaurants and bars opening up all the time, and the trolley is eye-pleasing, if nothing else. State-Thomas is a successful urban infill project, with wide sidewalks and tons of townhouses and apts. (and yes, they're occupied). But TMC is just massive. I don't see Uptown Dallas, or any neighborhood up here for that matter, ever catching up.

Exxon has a MUCH larger presence in Houston than it does in DFW. The headquarters would have been a nice feather in our cap, but unless Exxon releases that its 27,000 Houston employees (out of 82,000 employees worldwide) from the Upstream Division Headquarters (provides about 70% of operating revenue per year for the company) are moving out of town, then this is no big deal.

Absolutely. I'll trade you Rex Tillerson and his 300 flying monkeys for 27,000 jobs.

I don't see how this benefits anyone. Most of the routes and cities overlap. At least Continental-United was somewhat complimentary.

I used to fly AirTran a lot until it started cutting cities. I think I flew Chicago to Newark six times or more. But the writing was on the wall when AirTran pulled out of Indianapolis.

I mean, seriously -- How do you run an respectable airline and not serve your home city?

Southwest and AirTran only share 19 nonstop destinations, out of 100. AirTran customers get the West (plus no bag fees), Southwest customers get ATL, many east coast/Midwest stops, and the Caribbean.

Also, AirTran was based in Orlando: My link

It's never over loverboy. I'll see your Ellerbe's and raise you a Fearing's, or Charlie Palmer, or a bunch of other kick butt restaurants.

C2H, here's an analogy: Cowboys Stadium:Astrodome (or Reliant, whichever you're referring to)::F-22 Raptor:Spirit of St. Louis

And Tory, FW has plenty of hassles: Massive budget gap!.

What's with the 'Children of the Corn' references?

No idea. As far as I know south Dallas is not exactly a corn mecca. A cotton theme would make more sense, since Texas produces 40% of U.S. cotton.

Forbes just released a flattering article on Houston, credit Joel Kotkin. Kotkin is the author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. Highlights: "Over the past decade Houston's population has grown by 24%--five times the rate of San Francisco, Boston and New York." "Between 2000 and 2009 Houston's employment grew by 260,000." He goes on to mention "smug coastal places getting smoked by Texas", and compares H-town to Descartes's Amsterdam--"an inventory of the possible." Whoa... I'm getting the book.

I found a no-excuses guide to biking to work via Infrastucturist. Pretty much common sense pointers.

There's also an amazing time-lapse of "bicycle rush hour" in The Netherlands. Sadly, I can only provide a link, for my posting skills are n00bish, and I can't figure out how to embed a freaking YouTube vid onto my posts. A penny for your PM?

A round of applause for Sarge! Eschewing the auto in one of America's most notorious car-opolises is no small task, but it's one small step toward a consensus against auto-dependence. I'll bet it's easy getting a bike in/out of those completely-low-floor rail cars. I like to take DART rail to school at UTD, but that involves driving to the station, parking, taking the train for about 12-15 min., getting off, then waiting for the shuttle that takes me to campus; a process that takes at least 45 minutes (if I get to the station just ahead of my northbound train, which runs only every twenty minutes off-peak), opposed to simply driving, which takes only twenty minutes. I could leave my car and walk to a bus stop, which would eventually get me to the station, but this would add another thirty+ minutes to my travels. So I usually drive. Utilizing mass transit in Texas involves buses, trains, and automobiles (but not John Candy...zing!).

..."the place to see and be seen". To me, that ad is a metaphor for what is wrong with Dallas. Far too many people up there seem to be into "image". In my opinion, you don't see near as much of that fakery in Houston.

It will be interesting to see whether the younger generation in Dallas move away from that attitude.

pfffft. In MY opinion, you shouldn't use clichéd marketing slogans as metaphors for the collective attitude of a city's people. I consider myself a member of the younger Dallas generation and I have been working to dismantle that misconception for a while now. I'll continue to do so with a positive contribution to this board, which is admittedly superior to the DFWUrban forum, and I pledge not to drag threads into "flame war" status.

That being said, add a DAIF site, or DFWAIF, or NTAIF (if you don't want to exclude all the many fiefdoms that constitute the North Texas region, they can get cranky when the whole area is referred to as Dallas). I would contribute.