Belo Garden. I promised it and as a man of my word (eventually) I will give forth.

Belo Garden is the second on four major parks planned for the downtown area. It opened in May 2012 to great fanfare. Paired with Main Street Garden, Belo bookended the Main Street District, the heart of urban Dallas. The idea was to extend the activity of the Main Street District out, provide urban greenspace and encourage redevelopment around the parks.

While Main Street Garden was designed to be a programmed park, chock full of activity possibilities and special events, Belo was intentionally designed to be passive and reflective. In many ways, they achieved their goal, and that is where a big problem with the park stems from. Downtown is not lacking of this.

 
In this Google maps above, aside from Pegasus Plaza, Main Street Garden and Klyde Warren Park (not pictured), all these parks have two common features: they were designed to be passive. Consequently, they have very few visitors.

One reason I waited to post until many months after its opening was I want to see how the space operates on a day-to-day basis. I had my suspicions but wanted to see in real time. Sadly with Belo, I wasn't wrong. Except for a few dog walkers, this park is empty most of the time. That is partly by design. A passive park that offers little activity possibilities will do this.

The most active portion of the park is a water feature that gets moderate use during the weekend mornings in summer and the Pegasus Charter School kids spend some afternoons here. It isn't uncommon to see kids running through and enjoying themselves. But otherwise, an empty, but pretty, Belo Garden is the norm.

The main active feature of Belo Gardens.

The other part of the park where activity is possible is the tables and chairs on a course dirt surface on the east end of Belo Garden. Designed as a picnic area, it succeeds in drawing some folks here. But as is often the case, the powers that be think many who are using it don't belong. This friction that exists between the homeless and downtown Dallas is evident here as well. Add in the fact that many folks already have a negative perception of the homeless, regardless whether they are actually doing something negative or not, and is another point of contention for the park.

I don't like that this animosity exists, but Dallas is a much more pretentious city than many of the true urban areas in the country. There exists a perception that Dallas' homeless population is also a bigger nuisance than these other cities and it has all the ingredients for a recipe in conflict.

Unlike the grassy section in Main Street Garden, all the grassy areas in Belo are tree covered. While shade is almost a universally a good idea in public spaces in Dallas, in Belo Garden, it makes the space useless for anyone who isn't dog walking. Picnicking would be a possibility, but in summer, the ammonia smell can be overwhelming in parts of Belo. The trees are too young for hide and seek, too thin to climb, too clustered for throwing or kicking a ball and there are no benches in the immediate vicinity to enjoy the shade.

Note the one bench you see in this picture is not near a shade-providing tree.

All grassy areas are similar to these.

Halfway down the park on the Main Street side is a hill. The main point of the hill is too minimize traffic noise. That is an admirable quality. The issue I have is the hill is so small compared to the rest of the park that it doesn't really do the job. Add in the fact that the higher volume of cars as well as the faster ones are located on Commerce Street and it is little more than a way to vary the terrain of the park.

This hill is better as a park feature than noise reducer.

A true noise reducer, as well as pedestrian-comfort amenity, would have been to allow on-street parking on either side of the park along Main AND Commerce. Main is already a street with slower speeds. Coupled with the setback of One Main Place, the primary noise and echo effect are not the greatest from Main. It is Commerce, with its higher speeds, higher vehicle count and the Earle Cabell echo that really causes the noise. No hill or metered street parking on Commerce mean that noise hasn't been reduced by the hill.

The bike marker and no parking sign are the final pieces of evidence that on-street parking was nixed. The noise-reducing hill is on the right.

Ultimately, it was this aspect that delayed my post on Belo Garden for so long. I kept hoping for something, like a different city department that was just late in the installation (or really re-installation, since both Main and Commerce had parking meters prior to Belo construction) of the meters and this wasn't overlooked. I rationalized they were on their way, since Main Street Garden was careful to include them in its design. Since the bike markers occupy the middle lanes of Main Street before arriving at Belo and after leaving the park, it then became obvious, with them on the edge of the street here that on-street parking is out. Sigh.

I don't like this for several reasons. When I get to the bike lanes in downtown, I will say that switching lanes, which is what is happening on this stretch of Main, raises the risk for accidents. In this case, it also guarantees no on-street parking, one of the few things that benefit both car users and walkers.

At least on Main Street, there is enough other urban activity and amenities going for it that it still has the feel of an urban street. Commerce Street is much less so and really could have benefited from the presence of on-street parking.

Straight, narrow and fast, a bad combo for pedestrians. This Commerce Street view illustrates the lack of cover for anyone walking next to this speedway.

One of the biggest controversies during the planning phase of Belo Garden came between the park organizers and the Metropolitan condos, which are adjacent to the park within the same block. The Belo foundation didn't want a driveway, which borders the west side of the condo tower, to be directly adjacent to the park. Their solution was a wall, which the building then opposed.

The wall between the park and neighboring condos.

This is one of the few times where I see both sides and can agree with both too. On the one hand, I understand the condo owners wouldn't like the front view of their lobby to be a wall, when it could be greenspace. I also understand they wouldn't like to have to walk to the edge of the property to go around and enter the park. I also see why the Belo Foundation wouldn't want their intentionally-designed "peaceful" park to be next to a driveway.

The sad thing is, both violate good urban design practices, which is why I really didn't take one side or the other. An urban building shouldn't need a driveway, especially when the property has to garage entrances on the north and south side. Why does there need to be a driveway on the west? From the park's perspective, building a wall, by definition divides things. Good urban areas are seamless and transition well from one to the other. In the case of this park, well, there clearly is an end point. Since neither side presented a good urban solution, I just didn't care, and ultimately, it is downtown that suffers.

One of the main positives talking points of the park by the way it was designed is also a negative. The designers intentionally used native, drought-resistant grasses, which is a really good thing, but the placement segments the park. They are tall and dense enough to tell users don't pass through here (besides, there may be a present from a four-legged friend in here). And on top of it, they built it on the edges too and it segregates the park from the sidewalk, a major urban violation.

Here, the grasses separate the picnic area from the rest of Belo. It happens in way too much of the park.

At the very least, Belo has an intangible that no other park in downtown has, something of comedic value. I'll let the sign speak for itself.

I hate that I sound overly negative...again. But Dallas talks a good game about making downtown urban, or rather returning to its urban roots. But then produces what they have been doing for the last 50 years, which turned it from an urban area into an office park. Main Street Gardens is a good urban park, though it has flaws, its urban design, things like on-street parking, sidewalk width, pedestrian amenities, integration of sidewalk to park, etc., are really solid.

Belo is not. The design separates the park from the sidewalk, isolates the pedestrian and offers the pedestrian little urban activity. Yes, it is better than the parking lot that was there, but downtown Dallas, especially in the Main Street core, doesn't need incremental improvement. It needs to, if not a home run, at least get an extra base hit every time. Belo is a walk.

The Physical Importance of Walking

Planners, urbanists and those who advocate for walkable neighborhoods have done a really good job of giving overarching reasons why we need to increase the amount of walkable neighborhoods in our cities. One of the more obvious reasons why we need to increase them is health.

While it seems obvious, more walkability means more healthy citizens, where they haven't done a good job is getting into the whys, though it is beyond the scope of what they do. So I wanted to get into some detail on that, just why more walking is better for everyone.

Our bodies receive fuel from two sources, fat and carbohydrates. At its basic, the body converts fat into the energy it needs to operate. As I sit here and type this, as you sit here and read this, our bodies are burning fat, just to stay alive, as well as the small amounts of energy required to carry out those duties. Now, not very much fat is burned, so you can't claim to be working out by sitting.

The thing about fat is that it requires a lot of oxygen to convert to energy. That's why as we sit here, we breathe. It is also why as we exert ourselves more, we breathe faster and heavier.

It is at this point that our body switches to the second energy source. Carbs are a short-term energy source that do not require near as much oxygen to convert to energy. They are also not stored in any large quantities. If you have ever seen a bike race, the most popular being the Tour de France, they are constantly eating. The reason is to keep the carbs supply high enough to operate efficiently.

We most associate physical activity and muscle use with increased breathing, but it can be other parts of the body. If a person is sitting out in the mid-August sun with no shade, their body may switch to carbs to operate the cooling system because it is having to work a lot harder and also keep the vital organs going. At that point, they will start to breath faster, even though they aren't moving.

Unlike carbs, fat is able to be stored in very large quantities, in some cases beyond a reasonable health level. But the average person doesn't need large amounts of carbs, so the human body developed a system to store the energy we need. At some point, the body will convert carbs to fat and store the energy for future use.

Now the point at which the body begins the switching to carbs varies, but generally speaking, the better physical shape a person is in, the longer it takes. In other words, a person in good shape can run longer before the body switches. It is also important to note that just because you start to breath faster, doesn't mean the body has started the switch. It just means it needs more oxygen right now. Someone who is huffing and puffing is virtually guaranteed to be burning carbs, but one who is at a slightly elevated breathing level is likely to still be burning fat, just more of it than normal.

This is where walking comes in. The average person burns between 50 to 100 calories if they walk for 10 minutes and most people minus the exceptionally out-of-shape would burn fat to fuel that walk. If we lived in more walkable areas, going to run minor errands would not only accomplish the task, but burn fat, since that is likely the fuel source used at low levels of exertion.

An extra ten minutes of walking a day, taken out over the course of a year, using a conservative 65 calories per walk, would burn a total of 23,725 calories. One pound of fat equals 3,500 calories, so walking an extra ten minutes a day would equate to a loss of almost seven pounds a year.

Now imagine if that came out of doing day-to-day things, instead of having to find the time to walk. Replacing neighborhoods that require a car with one where it is one of many options has a huge health benefit. Just living in a more walkable neighborhood, and changing a lifestyle to match the neighborhood, would slim the waistline tremendously.

Park(ing) Day Dallas

This past Friday was Park(ing) Day, celebrated (or maybe exhibited) nationwide. Dallas participated. While I will post some pictures, the main point of the post isn't going to be about the event, but rather what lasting effects will the event have in Dallas.

Here was a cool little bonus. Unrelated to Park(ing) Day was a Green Expo at Main Street Gardens. It added a nice little bookend to Main Street.

Live music was a common theme for many of the parklets.

This is a shot down Main Street. I added this one to show the congestion on Main Street. This runs contrary to most public policy stances. The general idea is that places that are congested lose their desirability (think of the Yogi Berra saying, the place is so crowded, no one every goes there anymore). Yet, the reality shows the opposite. Yes, this is a one-time event, but it applies to permanent places.

Outside Pegasus Plaza. There is a lot of pedestrian activity here.

This was a live music-type parklet, but anyone on the street could join and do what they wanted. I liked this one a lot because it was representative of what a great urban areas should be.

This parklet was put together by the leasing office of the residential building I reside. They made a small croquet field.

I included this one, not because of any great idea or activity, but the poor urban design of the area. Notice how the others, taken up and down Main Street, are nice and shaded with pedestrian amenities. Going from east-to-west, when you cross Field St, you get to the One Main Place area. It is nice and concrete-ty, complete with a big setback, no shade and barren streetscape. I felt bad for the guys who got this space. Since it is hostile to pedestrians, none are here. Yet, all along Main, people were gathered in droves in the 90 degree heat. If you design it right, people will use it.

On Friday, Main Street was quite busy, but what about now? And what lasting effects will come of it? That is a little bit harder to answer. I was talking with the organizer of it a few days before and that was the question that came up. The more I got to thinking about it, the more I realized something.

Dallas is great at doing the temporary. The better block project that has been done in Oak Cliff, Deep Ellum and Ross, demonstration bike lanes and Park(ing) Day. But in the end, not much changes. Some things in Oak Cliff have, but that's because they are taking things in their own hands, not because of any systemic changes at City Hall.

In the end, I think these things serve one major lasting purpose. It does show that the younger generation is pushing for change in how our cities are built and operate. In the end, that may be the best thing of all.

The Basic Understanding of Walkability

When referencing Cedar Springs in this post, I noted how adding a median does nothing to address the urban deficiencies of the road itself.

Enter City of Ate, the food and restaurant blog of the Dallas Observer. The entry I link is not at all related to planning or urban design. However, in illustrating how much our cities indirectly affect us all, I quote this:

The roads around Kung Fu are awkward. Five different streets come together and there's construction in the middle of one. Sixth Street is another new bar just across the street and everyone plays Frogger trying to get back and forth between these spots. Not an ideal set up. We need some signs and stuff. Maybe a crossing guard with a whistle.

This problem does not exist in places lining streets that are urban, like McKinney St. in Uptown, Main St. in Downtown or Greenville Ave. in Lower Greenville.

It is this inate understanding that creates the either vibrant urban areas or dead spaces. If one were to ask the food critic what makes a street either a quality urban street or auto-oriented one, she may have a hard time verbalizing it. But instinctively, almost all of us knows what streets feel comfortable to be a pedestrian and which ones do not.

When I say almost, I have to wonder about a select few. Either Dallas City Officials do not understand, or they willfully put the desires of car drivers to go fast through the urban area over pedestrians to walk safely in their own neighborhood.

BTW, can I sue the writer for stealing my Frogger analogy?

Retail Targets for Downtown Dallas

There is a prevalent idea around these parts about just what kind of retail needs to exist in the urban core. The basic premise is that Downtown Dallas can't compete with the suburbs on a one-to-one basis. So, in order to attract customers, the retail and restaurant offerings have to be unique, and not available anywhere else in the region.

This line of thinking makes a lot of sense and I don't disagree with it entirely. The thinking is that someone won't pass by three Gap's to get to one located Downtown. However, I do believe this is an overly simplistic, and in some cases archaic, view.

First, this assumes that everyone lives far away from Downtown. As more and more people live in the urban core, this is less and less and issue. People who live in the core have similar desires and consumption habits as their affluent suburban counterparts.

The idea of only destination retail Downtown also suffers from a lack of context when it comes to urban design. Classic urban design areas have withstood the test of time, literally many millennia. Meanwhile, the typical shopping mall and strip center have a lifespan of only several decades. On top of that, preferences for building and patronizing these places has fallen over the years, in favor of...more urban style developments. So for some folks, they'd rather drive past all the other Old Navy's or Olive Garden's. So, if from that angle, is it reasonable to assume that "average" retail offerings would be appealing in Downtown?

An obvious flaw with destination retail is the price point. Urban areas are supposed to be all-inclusive. If the retail and restaurant products require a hefty penny, that excludes all lower-class folks and most middle-class people as well. If what we are encouraging actually encourages people to not patronize the area, reducing its vibrancy, isn't that fundamentally backwards?

This is one of the main reasons, especially outside of the urban design, that Victory struggled.

One of the biggest impediments, once again excluding current urban design, is the transportation system. There are three conflicting issues that make Downtown Dallas inconvenient.

1) The city's urban core was built prior to the automobile. This meant the urban area was based around walking and then transit (specifically the streetcar). Even after the automobile was introduced and into the first couple of decades of the 20th century, the design stayed steady. Therefore, most everything within a three mile radius of downtown is still based on this mode.

2) In an effort to modernize Downtown for the car, planners and traffic engineers shoehorned in a freeway system with wide roads to facilitate travel to the freeways, decimating parts of the urban environment. However, these additions did not make Downtown auto-friendly, further complicating the local transportation system. It is no longer as transit-friendly, the auto additions alienated the pedestrian and Downtown is still not as car-friendly as the suburbs, which were built with cars as the priority.

3) The transportation system helped foster in a transition from mixed-use to office park. This saw large scale evacuation of a varied retail landscape in Downtown.

So, as it stands right now, Downtown is inconvenient to drive to, taking transit is inconsistent and walking came be uncomfortable. Tell me why any business would locate here?

I initially started pondering this idea when I thought of just how many unique places that were opened in redeveloped buildings had closed: a wine-crafter in the Davis Building, several versions of a club in the old bank vault within the Davis, a furniture store in the Davis, a knick-knack shop in the Kirby, a clothier in DP&L, and numerous restaurants not found anywhere else. So if the thought is we can't do more common retail and unique retail can't stay open, what are we to do? The answer in just a moment.

But first, I don't want this to come off like I am pro-chain and anti-local, though in a region as large as this those labels aren't so concise. Some of my family's most common destinations are local. However, there are large amounts of people who don't prefer something that they don't know.

I think the answer, then, has to be that Downtown include some of everything, especially if we as a city can remedy the transit problem. If more of the retail locates along the transit mall in downtown, it becomes really convenient.

Think back to our modern shopping areas. There is usually a mix of destination and common retail. Downtown Dallas was the original outdoor shopping mall. If we can reintroduce that proper mix of retail, I believe can be again.

Dallas Freeway Division, a Pictorial Tour

Prior to the posts at the beginning of the month, I just assumed (you know what that means) that it was readily accepted that freeways were a divider. Certainly, even among the highway supporters, planners know this. And if you surround yourself with similar viewpoints, there is just no way of seeing the other side.

I was taken aback when Michael Lindenberger, the DMN transportation writer wrote the following on his blog page about my Trinity Parkway post:

2.  ”There are no counterpoints, no rebuttals, no yeah buts, freeways divide the urban landscape. There is a clear delineation between Downtown and Deep Ellum, Downtown and Uptown, Downtown and The Cedars, Downtown and the Industrial/Riverfront Blvd area. Even Knox-Henderson, a singularly defined neighborhood, is clearly divided between east (Henderson St) and west (Knox St).”

The toll road, he says will divide Dallas over again.

That’s a hard one to swallow if you ask me. I mean, the north and south fo the city are divided alright — but it’s the river and the vast, vacant floodway that does the dividing, not a new six-lane highway within that natural barrier.

Of course, the if his point is that the road will divide downtown from the recreational areas planned for the floodway, or from the river itself, he may be on firmer ground. (Turns out, that’s exactly the point he is making, as he makes clear in a more recent post. You can read it here to decide whether you buy it.)




Now he doesn't come right out and say I don't think that freeways divide Downtown from the rest of the urban core, but there is enough gray area in there that I decided to go out with my camera and snap photos of various angles and viewpoints to illuststrate why and how freeways divide urban areas.

The first batch of pictures are taken with an eye towards the macro-view. In the sky deck of Chase Tower, one can see until the horizons ends. It is a great way to see the freeways effects from the bird's eye view.

This bit of Central Expressway connects US-75 with I-45.

The wide swath of land needed for this freeway has negative effects on Deep Ellum on the left and Downtown on the right. This extended bit of land is not a pedestrian-friendly walk. Also notice how the much of the land directly next to the freeway is for parking, another attack on the comfort level of the pedestrian.

Woodall Rogers east of Pearl and north of the Arts District.

Once again, the freeway makes a clear delineation between both sides of its border. On the left is the Winspear Opera House. On the Woodall Rogers side of that building is a wall and loading dock. Next to the Winspear is the Booker T. Washington High School of the Performing Arts, where on Woodall Rogers side is another parking lot. Across the street from the school is a full block-sized parking lot, though it is in the development plan to be a tower I don't know the design or setbacks, but don't suspect it to open up to the freeway). On the Uptown side, it is more of the same.

Woodall Rogers and the new deck park.

I like this picture because it shows that at some level, someone in the City gets it. Why build such an expensive park, unless their is some extreme positive, or in this case, a positive to mitigate an negative?

I added this one to show the upclose view from above. It is hard to determine from a cursory glance that a freeway is under here. None of the other pictures can make that claim, because that is the first thing that is noticed when viewing them. Finding the freeway has been easy until this past one.

Knowing what I know, I could tell from the picture (the circular exit ramp at the lower right, the drive-through bank adjacent to the park in the middle toward the top, the blank wall of the Nasher Sculpture Center near the lower left and the garage entrance and surface devoted to the car at the DMA) that at the bare minimum, this spine was an auto-throughway of some kind. Design issues aside, this area doesn't "look" like something runs through it. Panning out a bit will reveal the end of the park and the resumption of the freeway, but at this point above, there are fewer negative spillovers.

At the pedestrian level, it is much worse. In some ways, having an identifier is human nature. One of the first places people look at in regional maps is Downtown, since it is the bullseye of the hub and spoke system or DFW airport, since it is so massive. How it is used from a personal perspective is much more important, though, while also much less identifiable. In some ways, this gets to one of my main critiques about Downtown Dallas. Is great from a distance, but once inside, there is a lot that is lacking, just a bunch of pieces shouting for attention without working with the other parts.

Under Central Expressway, just south of Elm Street looking north.

Were it not for Univision Center on the right or the Hart Furniture Building on the left, there would nothing even close to resembling an urban area from this viewpoint. All the columns, streets, overhead noise, etc. are pedestrian suppressors. Add the fact that this is only a pass through, since nothing here would actually generate any pedestrian activity, and it is no wonder pedestrians are a rare sight here.

Elm and Olive looking east.

A garage on the right, parking lots on the left and a freeway straight ahead. What is there to walk to? There are a smattering of one-two story buildings just past the garage, but nothing to compensate for the huge hole of nothing that the freeway, parking lots and garage generate. Therefore, pedestrians are not as common as they should be if this were a vibrant urban area.

Main Street just before Ceasar Chavez, looking east.

On this part of Main Street, the urban environment is a bit better than the previous picture. There are no huge swaths of open parking, the built environment goes to within a block of the freeway on both the Downtown and Deep Ellum sides and there is a good bit of on-street parking. So why is the area still devoid of human life? There is no critical mass of urban amenities like you will find further in (picture coming) on Main St. Instead, the freeway generates no pedestrian activity and the remaining sides don't have enough activity to overcome that difficiency.

Main Street just west of Central Expressway looking east.

If this picture doesn't make your feel uncomfortable, then you have nerves of steel. Both sides of Main Street have a freeway ramp, as opposed to one for both Elm and Commerce and none for Canton. I don't think I have to spend a lot of time on this topic because I don't think crossing freeway ramps is on any list of recreational activities.

Commerce and Ceasar Chavez looking east.

 Once again, there is development within a block of the freeway. But no people.

Also, have you noticed that in the last four pictures, it is hard to see the other side. That is crucial to a pedestrian experience. To the user, it is clear the end of the urban area is the freeway. To a user, it is clear that there are no people, signifying a do not enter sign to the brain.

Canton St looking east.

This one is more of the same. However, upon closer inspection, these buildings are built fairly close to the freeway. But, they aren't positive for the urban area, because...

Looking at the edge of the Camden Farmers Market, Canton and Good-Latimer looking west.

Camden Farmers Market, Canton and Good-Latimer looking southwest.

These pictures illustrate the back nature of designing by a freeway. Only one building looks inviting toward the street and from this corner. The rest are a blank walls, fences, garages or sparsely populated windows on the walls. Unless it is by car, very few would willingly approach this property from this vantage.

There was an attempt of some kind to mitigate some negatives of the freeway. A dog park was put under part of Central Expressway, hoping to help link Deep Ellum and Downtown.

Bark Park, under Central Expressway between Commerce and Canton.

If I take this one from the point of it is better than what was there and accept that this area will never be anything but a freeway, I like what was done. If I change that approach and say an urban area should be _____, then this area definately underwhelms.

Because the rest of the urban area still reflects being next to the freeway, this park is an island. The Camden apartments are right across, but as the pictures reflect, they don't open up to this area. Directly adjacent are streets on three sides and the back wall of a produce company.

Bark Park's west side.

Nothing says inviting like metal siding.

This park doesn't really link to its surroundings. Unlike what should happen in an urban area, this park and surrounding land uses feel like independent bits of their parts of the city, ignoring the other adjacent parts. This is directly attributable to the negative impacts of the freeway. Main and Market Streets are the exact opposite.

While this park is used, it is one of the lower attended dog parks in the City's park system. There are still negative aspects that freeways produce, noise, pollution and uneasiness the primary ones, that don't help boost use. The other sad fact is despite being in the middle of the Deep Ellum and Downtown border, very, very few actually walk here. Because the surrounding area is built more for the car, most drive, even those that live in the Camden property next door.

 Now take the pictures from above, showcasing the fragmented urban areas that the freeways spawned and compare them to the Main Street or Market Street corridors.

Main and St. Paul, looking west.

There is no obvious end to the Main Street District while inside it. In this picture, it seems to go on for a bit, while the end of the view corridor is bookended nicely by the Crowley/Sterrit complex at the far west side. For the first time in these pictures, we can actually see pedestrians. Here, unlike near the freeway, there is actually a reason for them to be here.

Market and Elm, looking north.

 Market Street shares many of the same pedestrian amenities as Main, which is also why they are the most walkable streets in downtown.

Now unlike the park scenario, there really is no building on either of these streets (at least the vibrant parts) that command attention. Each function well with the other, showcasing how the sun of the parts are really greater than the whole.

Now, I don't want this to sound like freeways are the only bad urban divider.

Dealey Plaza, looking west.

Here, the old rail bridge, which is currently used by DART trains, the Trinity Railway Express and Union Pacific freight trains, is clearly a divider between Downtown and the Riverfront area. I-35 is also in view in the picture, further dividing the areas. Dealey Plaza, thanks to a presidential assination, is the most visited spot in Dallas, but no spillover goes to Riverfront. The rail bridge and freeway see to that.

Ironically, it is fact that makes one of the negative aspects for the Trinity Parkway, dividing Downtown from the Trinity Park, a moot point. It is already divided. Anyone originating from Downtown going to the park is almost guaranteed to drive. Some may take transit in the form of a bus or future streetcar, but walking is all but guaranteed to be non-existent.

However, unlike freeways, other infrastructure investments, if designed right, don't have to be dividers.

West End Station at Market and Pacific, looking east.

I took this picture of West End Station because it is the most used station in the DART system. Roughly 20,000 trips are generated to and from this point. Yet, as the picture shows, both sides of the station work in concert with each other. The new residential building on the left opens up directly to the street and rail station, as well as Lamar and Ross Streets. On the right is a historic warehouse waiting to be renovated. But, unlike the transportation investments made toward freeways, this area is far from adversely affected. Instead of looking inward and putting their backs to the street, this area is the reverse.
I could have easily taken a picture of the streetcar line in Uptown and said the same thing. It helps unify both sides, which freeways by themselves can never do.

Urban Design at its Worst

Long-time readers know that I am an advocate of solid urban design that incorporates all users. Here is an example in Richardson, a prototypical suburb, of where there is no balance. Click play on the video in the link, which comes from Rodger Jones, who blogs about transportation issues for the Dallas Morning News.

Sadly, this is far more common than the exception. This is an example of of my saying that we don't love our cars, we are forced into subservience to them. There really is no option here for most people. Drive to the rail station or drive to your destination, but driving one way or another.

Planting Shrubs to Fix a Foundation

If I had began this blog several years before I actually started it, I would posted many blog entries critiquing and discussing the relatively new area of Victory Park.

Let me compress what could be several posts into the rest of this paragraph. Victory Park is a well-intentioned idea of mixing uses, but was executed so poorly that retail can not survive and the "streets" are empty of people, even when there is an event at the anchor of the area, the American Airlines Center (AAC). The basic premise is that instead of focusing the energy towards the main streets like Houston and Victory Avenue, they made those streets function like alleys and made a central "street", Victory Park Lane, the main retail spine when it should be the alley. Street design made Victory and Houston huge one-ways for transporting large amounts of cars and minimizing the pedestrian experience. The retail is destined to fail exactly because Victory Park Lane is isolated, and it was so by design. The intentions were to give the pedestrian a pleasant walk. But, by ignoring connectivity with the rest of the development AND neighborhood, even pedestrians don't go there, making retail foot traffic sparse if non-existent.

Victory Park Lane, complete with no people out and about.

All that to say this, according to Steve Brown, the Dallas Morning News' Real Estate Editor, Estein and Associates, the property manager of Victory, have hired Trademark Property to revamp the shopping area. From the article:

Critics of the project have lambasted the layout of the retail space and its original focus on high-end merchants and restaurants.

Trademark will immediately begin work on plans to remodel Victory Park’s storefronts along Victory Park Lane. 

The developer also will be looking at how to use undeveloped land in the project for additional retail.

About 130,000 square feet of retail space is contained in the lower floors of buildings in the 75-acre Victory Park project.

Preliminary plans call for a total redesign of the streetscape throughout the project.

...

Fair said with the economy turning the corner and retail sales picking up, the timing is right to redo Victory Park’s retail.

“We are getting more calls from prospective tenants and have been looking for the right retail partner,” he said. “There has to be some momentum for the retailers to get excited.

“We are going to try and make a great retail street where people will want to hang out.

...

Trademark Property has experience with both new projects and redeveloping old ones.

It built the popular Watters Creek shopping and apartment project in Allen. And Trademark is developing the Alliance Town Center regional shopping center in North Fort Worth.

Trademark also has redeveloped shopping malls in Corpus Christi, Santa Fe and Michigan.

I still lambast the layout. Without fixing this, the very fundamental flaw, everything else is lipstick. Until the docks for the buildings line Victory Park Lane and the retail fronts Houston, Victory Avenue, Lamar or Olive, no amount of revamp will be successful. It already hurts Victory enough that the office buildings, which are relatively full, are self-contained. You park inside the building, go up the elevator, work, go down the elevator and leave the building. In downtown, there is decent transit access and many workers who do drive have to park off-site, which at least facilitates some amount of pedestrian activity. That is not the case here.

Unless a total redesign of the streetscape means this fundamental swap from the interior lined by Victory Park Lane to the outside streets, then any other effort is going to fall short.

Finally, looking at the credentials of Trademark, I wonder if they are the right group to even understand what Victory needs. The last two paragraphs list their body of works, but none are in even semi-urban areas. All are suburban, and many of Victory's flaws originate in trying to combine elements of suburban design into the urban realm. The result is that you get neither. The positives of both are negated and the negatives standout. 

Here's an example of what I mean. Victory tried to take a suburban positive, ease of car use, and incorporate that into the development. To accomplish this, they made Houston Street four lanes, one-way with wide lanes, approached Victory Avenue, Lamar Street and Olive Street the same and built garages in every building. But, from an auto user standpoint, it still has the negative of a dense district. Drivers thrive in low density surroundings, while they feel uneasy in denser areas. Also, garages are not convenient, especially compared to on-street and surface parking. This means car-based users avoid Victory because of the hassle.

Also, in an attempt to keep the design on Houston, the original developers fought DART from running the first phase of the current Green Line along Houston. This pushed it on the edge of the neighborhood, where it currently is. What should have been an urban positive instead is now a negative, since the distance is inconvenient to anyone but event goers, as the AAC is the closest building. From downtown, some parts of Victory can be reached faster from the West End Station! This means pedestrians and transit-users avoid Victory because of the hassle.

The Rail Station serving Victory. Note in the distance the AAC.

If drivers don't go and transit users don't go, only those who have to be there go. That means only people who have to go (see workers and residents) are the ones that are there. Neither have sufficient mass to support the level of retail, especially if it is high end. Add in the fact that office is designed to be isolated and self-sufficient, it is easy to see why Victory has empty streets.

I hope an future development addresses the issue, but I don't believe the existing Victory area's street level will achieve any measure of vitality until a first-floor redo is completed. Some infrastructure improvements along the major streets would be beneficial too, but not as critically as the first.

The sad thing is, this is typical Dallas development in its core. You see this on Lower McKinney, parts of Downtown, the Design District and the Cedars. Until developers recognize the benefits of the urban area and work to maximize that, Victory results will continue to be repeated.

People will walk. Main Street and Deep Ellum are examples. Developers can get it right. West Village, One Arts Plaza and Third Rail are examples. But until the city requires this, rather than hope for the best, Victory will be the norm, not West Village.

Finding the Grey in the Black and White

In my previous post, I mentioned the idea, long considered valid, that kids belong in the suburbs. Being car oriented, they are breeding grounds for accidents, more kids die from cars than anything else, and being in a car doesn't allow the kids to feel a connection to their area, which has a whole host of negative effects.

A loyal reader commented:
Hmmm, I don't think I quite agree with some of your "facts". You have tons more cars driving down the street in front of your house in the city than I do in the suburbs. Plus, I have a back yard for a child to play in. I'm not trying to convince you that the 'burbs are best, but the vast majority of people in this beautiful country prefer where I live to where you live.

I answered a bit, but there is a bit more I want to say. I responded with this:

I don't think I accurately relayed what I or the study is saying.
First, cars on the street are not the inherent problem. Street design can be. However, the big problem is kids being stuck in a car for everything. Every errand you run is with the car. Kids don't die from being hit by car nowhere near as often as being in the car.

As for the street, more cars can actually be safer. On conventional, modern suburbs, streets are wider. This design gives drivers a certain comfort level. That usually means faster speeds. Design considerations aside, more cars can actually be safer. Speeds on I-30 are slower at 5pm than at 9 pm, even though more cars use the 5pm time.

I think a common mistake is evidenced here in that the common thought is either low-density single family or high density towers. Single family neighborhoods can be quite urban. For local examples, see the Bishop Arts District, Lower Greenville or even leftover pieces of Uptown. The difference is design. Modern suburbia is car-only. Pre-WWII suburbia is quite dense and walkable. I think I have a topic for a new post.

I think I sufficiently answered the car vs. kid point. While the hit-by-a-car to death ratio is greater in the developing world, in our fair country, it is being inside the car that is the problem. Those that do survive a wreck can often have injuries that stay with them the rest of their lives. We all know someone who has been at least injured or worse in a wreck.

Allow me to move on then to the second point of the first comment. How do we know that the vast majority of people prefer auto-oriented suburbs? I am not convinced.

A few numbers to consider. The residential rents in walkable areas (rents in economic terms do not refer to lease payments, but land value) primarily located in city centers have eclipsed pre-recession levels.  Meanwhile, residential properties in areas that rely solely on cars for transportation are still declining in value. Together, that tells me a bunch. It means that walkable areas are so scarce compared to demand, that even though the country itself hasn't achieved a full-scale recovery, urban area property managers use a little supply-and-demand theory and raise the prices to match the supply, forcing out the margins, which appear to be wide in this case.

Meanwhile, there was evidence before the housing crash that home builders had overbuilt the supply of single-family housing. After the banking crisis, it became severely evident. Single-family housing still hasn't recovered. Yet there needs to be an asterisk here.

Walkable single family housing has done remarkably better than their auto-oriented peers. Some of the neighborhoods I named above are examples, like Bishop Arts and Lower Greenville, but the M Streets, Winnetka Heights and parts of Lakewood are further examples. Most people don't realize, but even posh Highland Park is a highly walkable suburban enclave. All of these places have either declined slightly or gained in value. Even now, once outside Loop 12 and particularly LBJ freeway, price declines in double digits are quite common.

There is one final point I wish to make on this topic. One critique that planners receive in trying offer the fruitcart variety is that people don't want to live in anything other than single-family homes. I really struggle with that idea. Go to the grocery store and see how many types of bread sit on the shelves. Dozens of brands offer dozens of varieties. Go to a movie store and see how many types and genres of movies there are. Go to an electronics store and see the huge variety of TV's. Walk on to a car dealership and count the many types of different cars. Yet, all we want is one type of housing? It doesn't add up. A person will prefer different housing at different stages in their life. A similar person will prefer different types at those same stages. Cities that don't reflect that will suffer. Some already are.

The Key to Changing Transportation Preferences

In 2005, as part of the congressional transportation bill, four areas were selected for bike and walking improvements as a pilot program to monitor the results. The Department of Transportation has released the findings and it shows exactly what I have said from the get go.

First, here's the numbers.
•Over four years, people in these four communities alone walked or bicycled an estimated 32 million miles they would have otherwise driven;
•The communities saw an average increase of 49 percent in the number of bicyclists and a 22 percent increase in the number of pedestrians;
•The percentage of trips taken by bike instead of car increased 36 percent, and those taken on foot increased 14 percent;
•While each pilot community experienced increases in bicycling and walking, fatal bicycle and pedestrian crashes held steady or decreased in all of the communities; and
•The pilot communities saved an estimated 7,701 tons of CO2 in 2010.

So in essence, what I have said was that people will do what is convenient. We don't love our cars, we use them so much because it is convenient, usually at the expense of every other mode. Biking and walking increased in the communities involved in the pilot because it was convenient. Money was invested specifically to improve those modes and, unshockingly to me, they increased the amount of users traveling on those modes.

In essence, if you make anything convenient, people will use it. The opposite is also true. That maxim, even if somewhat simplistic, explains exactly why our cities are what they are.

The Street Versus the Created Walkway

Alas, another story behind the paywall from the Dallas Morning News' April 18, 2012 edition caught my eye. I would really like to discuss these in greater detail, but apparently the topics of this blog are pay worthy. Yet, not one of you has given me a dime for it.

Anyway, the headline reads Small spaces, big picture: City looks at converting their passages between skyscrapers into inviting pedestrian pathways. While it was more feature rather than news, the gist is buildings built some extra spaces that "are just pass-throughs, while in others there might be a place to sit or even eat. And then there are those spaces where few venture at all."

Karl Stundins, Area Redevelopment Manager for the Dallas Economic Development Department, is looking at making these spaces a bit more inviting. Successful examples in the article are Stone Street Gardens and Browder Street Mall (my take of Browder Street can be found here), while little used spaces listed include the "pathway" around Thanksgiving Tower and the west side of the Central Library.

A well used pedestrian walkway, Stone Street Gardens.




Believe it or not, the wall on the left borders a pedestrian walkway.


I want to hammer that point home for a moment. Why are the first two successful but the others aren't? Both Stone and Browder were former streets and most of the buildings there fronted them when they functioned as streets. The later two are really nothing more than useless setbacks. The article can call them walkways or pedestrian paths if they wish, but they aren't. These are setbacks filled with pretty but functionally-useless landscaping. Look at the library picture. Does that look like it was designed for pedestrians? No, there is no entry or exit from the building, no signs, no easy street access and because it is winding, it is not designed for pedestrians to use. In reality, the only people who use this space are the homeless population looking for a little isolation.

Same thing with the Thanksgiving Tower "walkway" that runs on both sides of the building. It is nothing more than meaningless setbacks and landscaping that serve no practical purpose for the urban environment. I touched on this idea in this post, and the article backs that point up. The design of the buildings around Stone Street cause it to be successful. The design around the library cause it to be vacant.

You have to give people a reason to be there. You can paint all the people you want in the rendering, but unless they have a function in that spot, they won't appear.

Stone works by design. Thanksgiving Tower "fails" by design. There would be some architects who say it works as it was designed. It is that isolationist design that permeated the architecture scene in the '70's and '80's. It is also the big reason why Downtown Dallas feels empty.

That said, is what they are discussing a bad idea? As a future post about Uptown will include, this is a contradictory thing for me.

One the one hand, the purist in me sees this as a failure. Poor design still works as designed, with negative consequences for the urban area. I also don't think these linkages will be beneficial for connectivity, since the street grid is already a grid and super-efficient for pedestrian travel. Pedestrians will likely need to get to the bordering street anyway, since the opposite block probably will not have the same pathway. I can see positive effects if two major destinations are a block or two away. But around the library, the Young Street median is on one side and the Interurban Building garage and a parking lot on the other. Unless one is exploring or loitering, there is no need or reason to be here or even to go anywhere else from here.

However, since the wholesale demolition of large parts of downtown is unrealistic, where do we go from here with what we have? Something needs to be done. If Thanksgiving Tower can be converted to make that space somewhat usable, is that a bad thing? For example, if that space was converted to an outdoor patio for a restaurant with a street entrance on Elm, we have solved that problem AND strengthened the street scene on Elm. Is it ideal? No, perfect has long left this site. Is it good? Yes, and certainly an upgrade over what was there.

In fact, in many ways, I see the conversion of the '80's office towers as paramount to turning downtown back into a populated area (this was wish eight in this post). If they do convert the lobbies of these buildings into a more pedestrian-friendly space and make these "leftover spaces," according to Stundins, functional, then it certainly is a win for urban Dallas.

I am a case study guy, and since this hasn't been done on any large scale anywhere, I will withhold judgements until they do their thing. Hopefully my concerns will be mitigated or unsubstantiated. However, I am pleased there is at least dialogue on this topic. That in and of itself is a win.

San Antonio, an urban oasis?

How timely that just a bit after my family and I visited San Antonio, Yahoo! Travel and Forbes but SA in their top 10 mid and small city downtown's, though how San Antonio with 1.3 million people, let alone Chicago, is considered mid-sized is beyond me.

Per the article:
For those who haven’t yet visited San Antonio, the city conjures up images of a tragic and bloody last stand at The Alamo. But for anyone who has visited, the city is more than just home to one of the most famous historical sites in the West. The San Antonio River Walk is perhaps the most beautiful part of the city, creating a verdant pathway lined with colorful café umbrellas that winds its way through downtown, offering up a bevy of shops, restaurants, and bars on the way. Tour downtown, follow the river by foot or tour it by boat, and save your visit to the Alamo for the late afternoon, when the sun is in retreat and you’ll have more to remember from your trip than just an historic and valiant defeat.

A bit brief, though what is there is accurate. San Antonio really has a lot of what folks like me, particularly in the Sunbelt cities, advocate.

We found it to be quite an active place, which begs the question of why. Though there is not one singular answer, and I will get into many shortly, the big answer is history. Obviously, the large scale historical framework is there with the Alamo and the Tower of the Americas. But there is also the smaller places that give it the historical feel. The difference between the Alamo and the other missionary sites is that the Texas soldiers choose that site as its fort. It isn't out of the question to think that the Alamo could be just another historical site in SA, but that a current missionary settlement building could have been where the battle was fought in 1836. These smaller missionary sites have been converted other uses, but their history remains. Often these uses are public, like a theater or performing arts venue.

But that isn't all the history. Six of the top 15 tallest buildings were completed before 1960. Five were built before WWII. To put it in perspective, Dallas has one before 1960 and none before WWII.

Aside from the parking garage on the left, this vibrant street scene is composed entirely of pre-WWII buildings. 

This is significant in two major ways. First, older buildings tend to be better urban buildings than those built between 1960 and 2000. There are ground floor retail locations and even those that aren't don't alienate those who are walking near the property. They are also better for the pedestrian scale. The materials are usually softer and the design is generally warmer to people up close. The second is that when a building built before WWII is demolished, the replacement is not of the same quality. More often than not, especially in the southern half of the U.S., that replacement is a parking lot, a known pedestrian adversary. By having large quantities of these buildings, San Antonio guarantees an active street scene.

Notice how this older building respects the street, and therefore enlivens it.

One of the most famous features of San Antonio is of course the River Walk. From a planning standpoint, this area fascinates me. Here was an area, several decades ago, that was a liability. When it flooded, there was damage and death. It was considered no more than a ditch at the turn of the century. The look and smell made the locals call it an eyesore. In the '20's, plans called for taming the river, including paving it, a la the Los Angeles River. The local Conservation Society took exception to the idea. They worked with the mayor and came up with a beautification project that would turn into the River Walk. The idea was very unpopular and it wasn't until the Works Progress Administration offered funds that the project got off the ground on a large scale.

Aside from paving and the actual completion, if I inserted the Trinity River here, would that sound familiar? What would SA look like today, had this area been paved over and become an open drainage ditch? This is a major tourist attraction because it is unique, beautiful and at the same time functional in flood control. SA took an asset, improved it and has been reaping the rewards since then.

Here's some pictures:

This is a great illustrator that the River Walk is both beautiful and functional. Instead of concrete tip to toe, stone work accents landscaping that fits the area, ie that is natural. If this were done today, one of two things would be the outcome. Either the area would be entirely concrete grey, to contain costs, or consist of imported granite and exotic vegetation that required extensive maintenance and died frequently.

I like this one as it illustrates the relationship between the street, the river and the built environment. I have heard that San Antonio is an example of how you can have a divided streetscape, basically debating that the tunnels can be successful within downtown Dallas. I feel differently. What you see above is the extension of the streetscape, not another entitly, like the tunnel system. On Friday night, we had dinner at Casa Rio, a restaurant with entrances at both the river and street level. While that can be achieved in the confines of a tunnel or skywalk, it is much harder, particularly when the buildings in question are post-modern office buildings.

This final shot also illustrates how well connected the two realms are.

It is hard NOT to find the street level in San Antonio. Stairs are plentiful and there are numerous times where it is easier to go to the other side of the river by going up the stairs, crossing the street and walking back down. While, as before, this may be possible in the tunnels, it is very hard to actually achieve.

The River Walk itself is wonderfully pedestrian-friendly. Yet, so were the streets above, which had just as much activity as below. It was easy to see how the design fed one to the other. Each would be less used were the other not there.

My main focus was what they did well in creating downtown SA. It is an area that is a bit odd compared to many cities. The tallest structure is the aforementioned Tower of the America's, it's tallest skyscraper is a hotel, the Marriott Rivercenter, and the tallest office, Weston Centre, is only the third tallest in the city. It is hard to find a city whose tallest structure is not an office tower. This represents downtown SA in a measurable way.

They don't focus on what other cities did or try to incorporate an off-the-shelf-planning idea. Instead, they took stock of what they had, and strengthened it. They didn't try to import a modern Times Square. They didn't try to build the tallest office building. They didn't call the latest and hottest architect to build a fancy civic building.

When compared to Dallas, they don't have a high downtown residential population. They don't have a huge amount of office space. They have more hotel rooms, but not that drastic a difference. Yet, despite that downtown Dallas should have a higher population within downtown at all times, but the streets don't reflect it. San Antonio has accomplished this by embracing what they are and what they were. Dallas has ran from it, trying hard to be more than it is.

Just to show this point, compare the two big historical sites, Dallas' Dealey Plaza to San Antonio's Alamo. Both were the location of a tragedy, though the Alamo was significant to Texas' independence, while JFK's assassination were black eyes to folks in Dallas. Both have museums dedicated to the event. After that, it is night and day.

There are lots of things to do around the Alamo after or before you go. The River Center Mall  and the River Walk allow for eating and shopping. As it stands now, all that is near Dealey Plaza in that regard is the Sixth Floor Museum's cafe (not open past 6pm and only on weekdays), a Subway and a western-themed gift shop. Not that far, but out of eyesight of the Plaza are a few more restaurants. If you want to visit and pay your county tax bill, that can be done at the Records Building. If you want to visit then join the army, you can accomplish that at 207 South Houston. If you want to visit Dealey Plaza before your county court date, the fortress-like George Allen Courts building is adjacent. Aside from the museum and and its cafe, the only directly adjacent building that caters to visitors would be Old Red Courthouse, though if you are at Dealey Plaza, it is only a building that looks neat. Otherwise, visitors have no idea what it is. If visitors know that the JFK Memorial is only a block away (some don't) it is highly underwhelming and only makes sense when you realize it is nothing more than a garage topper.

It is this scattering of parts that make downtown Dallas so lackadaisical in activity, particularly when compared with SA. Compactness plays a huge factor in urban street vibrancy. Dallas doesn't have it, San Antonio does.