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.

My Ideas for Uptown (long)

If you were to peruse my previous 90+ posts, there would be a consistent topic or model. Downtown Dallas is the most used example to make many of my points. It is the center of the local urban area and the neighborhood where I call home. But, adjacent to Downtown is Uptown, which is more urban than Downtown in almost every way. So today, I am going to look at Downtown's northern neighbor.

This is going to be hard for me because I have conflicting thoughts here. The first is that I recognize Uptown is the most urban neighborhood in Dallas, and probably the region. The only area that comes close is Downtown Fort Worth. Each is better than the other in some categories, so it is hard to say which one is the best, which is also somewhat of a subjective measure anyway.

However, here's the conflicting thoughts. I have often wondered if I let the idea of a perfect or great get in the way of good. There is a lot going for Uptown. But, it could be better. It does encourage people to walk, which is close to the epitome of what an urban area should be. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it is better than 99% of the region.

Am I an optimist who sees how things can be better, or am I the pessimist who sees what is wrong?

That said, here's what I think of Uptown., whose boundaries are Woodall Rogers on the south, U.S. 75 on the east, Blackburn on the northeast, the Katy Trail on the northwest and I-35 at the Katy Trail bend.

First, the balance of activity in Uptown is on the east side around McKinney. In the lower half of Uptown, Cedar Springs runs down the middle. So why the disparity? Why does the wstern half of Uptown feel like a sleepy burg while the eastern side feels like a city.

The answer lies with the street grid, primarily the two main streets of the area. McKinney on the east is narrow and exhibits many pedestrian-friendly designs. Cedar Springs is wide, made for getting as many cars through as possible and conjures feelings of playing a live Frogger game for anyone not driving.



McKinney and Boll St looking north



McKinney and Fairmount St looking north


The two photographs illustrate a lot of what is right about McKinney Street. There is the obvious with the streetcar tracks. These are known to slow traffic. Also notice how the street is narrow. There are still four lanes of traffic, but because they aren't so wide, drivers don't feel as comfortable at higher speeds and behavorially slow down.

There are also several design features that favor pedestrians over vehicles. Notice the trees and poles so very close to the curb. That, in lieu of on-street parking, creates a barrier between moving traffic and the pedestrian. Those trees are also an amenity during warm summer months. There are also things like benches, trash cans and signage that make life as a pedestrian more comfortable and easier to navigate. While the sidewalks aren't great, they are at least wide enough in most places to accommodate more than two people shoulder-to-shoulder.

Now compare the above with Cedar Springs.





Cedar Springs and Routh St, looking north.



Cedar Springs and Routh St, looking west. Would you want to get to the other side?

Notice how wide this street is. Despite having the same amount of through lanes, Cedar Springs is roughly 50 percent wider. Each lane is one-two feet wider and there is also a center turning lane. Since the street is made for automobiles, there are no trees near the curb, primarily because traffic engineers deem them a hazard (more on that point in a moment). The sidewalks are narrow. There are no amenities like shade or benches. Buffer zones like on-street parking, poles or the aforementioned trees aren't anywhere to be seen. There isn't even local transit service.

Now take that second picture. This is an intersection. By state law, at an unsigned intersection or in a marked pedestrian crossing, the pedestrian always has the right-of-way. In the real world, this feels like playing chicken just to cross the road. There are no people in the pictures, because this road isn't designed for them.

That's a point I want to make when it comes to transportation in urban areas. McKinney and Cedar Springs have similar traffic counts. So that begs the question, why do we design our streets for cars. In the first set of pictures, there are cars, just like the second. However, there are no pedestrians, cyclists or transit users in the second. So if we can design the streets for everyone by making ifocusing the design towards a pedestrian-oriented feel, why do we continue to allow streets that are car designed that exclude everything else in the urban area?

Part of the reason, is that traffic engineers, who control street design regardless of location, have an inordinate amount of influence. So for example, to them, trees next to the curb represents a hazard for cars. Yet, they don't or can't realize that 1) it is an amenity to pedestrians and 2) that gives drivers a greater sense of danger at higher speeds and they therefore slow down, mitigating much of the danger they represent. In fact, some digging of actual traffic accidents and fatalities stats would reveal that the "safer" streets and intersections preached in the traffic manuals are actually the unsafe ones. They give drivers a sense safety and when that happens, we as humans naturally go fast and start to go through the motions. The "unsafe" examples actually have fewer accidents. Why this isn't more known or a bigger issue in city and urban design is beyond me.

That example is seen in these two streets. There are more accidents on Cedar Springs than McKinney. There have also been multiple pedestrian fatalities on Cedar Springs this year.

Interestingly enough, in the late '70's and early '80's, the traffic engineers wanted to expand McKinney and make it three lanes in each direction. Thankfully, there was enough push back from stakeholders that instead the streetcar line was pursued. I shudder to think of what Uptown would be like today if McKinney resembled Cedar Springs.

My recommendations to fix Cedar Springs would be to remove the center turn lane, narrow the lanes, widen the sidewalk and add on-street metered parking. Other than widen sidewalks, I like McKinney as it is.

On a similar, infrastructure note, it is amazing to me how even in Uptown, some streets do not have sidewalks.


This part of Howland Street has no sidewalk.

I think the recommendation is clear. Even though Howland in not a major street, there should be no street in any urban area that has no sidewalk.

The next issue that I think is holding the area back even further may be the hardest to remediate. Like much of Downtown, the building stock of the 70's and 80's (what an awful time for urbanity) hold back the walkability of the area. Part of the reason that Uptown doesn't suffer the malaise that Downtown does is twofold: the lack of empty spaces (like parking lots) resulting from demolition of existing buildings for spec office buildings and that the buildings not built during the booms were usually built pre-car. The buildings built in the last 10-20 years have generally had respect for the street. But, there are still large parts of Uptown that contribute nothing to the urban environment.

Sadly, the exception to the newer buildings respecting the street can be seen in the Lower McKinney portion of Uptown. Starting at Maple and heading south, each building is like Downtown's urban area. Great individual buildings from afar that are empty at the street, by design. The trend was started in the '80's with the Crescent Complex. The architecture critic for The Dallas Morning News, David Dillon, called this block an attempt to combine the best of both the urban and suburban realms and fails in both.


The huge setbacks and ample parking out front make this complex a ghost town for pedestrians.

Continuing that trend, in no particular order, were Ritz Carlton, 1999 McKinney, Uptown Plaza, 2000 McKinney, Texas Capital Bank, Advancial Tower, 2200 McKinney, Granite and so on. Crossing Maple Street is like crossing into a totally different city neighborhood.

Thankfully, there are only a smattering of these buildings further north and the area is dominated by low-rise urban buildings. West Village has contributed to a positive street scene in the north part of the area. Other parts aren't so successful. The Quadrangle is active, but not vibrant, a throwback to all the poor planning ideas of the time: parking out front, landscaped setbacks and single-use zoning.



Is this in an urban area or a strip shopping center near a freeway?



The namesake office building; unless one offices here, there is no reason to be here.

The office building may be a little harder to retrofit, given the topography and current configuration, but the retail building may be more cost effective to demo and start over. Market pressures alone may make that happen. One positive I can say is I like the retail variety in the Quadrangle. There is a variety of restaurants, a liquor store, wine maker and theater. Hopefully any redevelopment could reincorporate these establishments, or maintain the variety.

The poor design can be seen in sporadically throughout the rest of neighborhood, but this smattering suppresses many of its negative qualities. There is no critical mass of urban vacuum here like there is in a "newer" development like Las Colinas. However, reflecting the transportation system, the Cedar Springs corridor has the highest concentration of these building.

Nothing for the pedestrian, and so few parking spaces that a only a select few can benefit. This building effectively isolates the building user and the passing pedestrian, getting no benefit for either.

While a remodel isn't impossible, getting these buildings, with large lobbies and ample setback, to respect the street is an expensive proposition.

An example of a good urban building along Cedar Springs, doors opening onto the street with a minimum setback.

This is the two working against each other. The two-story doesn't generate enough foot traffic on its own and the larger commercial building generates next to nothing. In the end, the bad urban building is bringing down the good.

It is important to note that this coming recommendation will not solve the problem, only prevent future ones from appearing. Most cities are reactive in their zoning, saying what will be allowed. I would argue for a form-based code for most or all of the area. This is important because this is the zoning code that most accurately reflects organic city building. This dictates what is not allowed, usually in the form of the building. You can build office, retail, residential, entertainment as long as it looks like X. It can not have Y setback, be Z feet tall or have W feet of blank sidewalk space, but others, do what you want. If done right, it can ensure proper urban-design guidelines while giving the private sector developers the freedom to build what they see fit.

As I said, this wouldn't fix the office examples above, but enacting it would make surethey will be the last ones with overtly negative effects.

Finally, as I was out and about, I noticed a scene that I had touched on before.

In a vacant lot off of Routh Street, we have a food truck court.

I am still undecided on how I feel. The same feelings I had before still exist. Had the area been done right before, these would be unneeded. However, since we are here and moving forward, they add a certain flair to an unused area of the neighborhood, even if just temporary. I will say, I am moving more towards being in favor of these, if for no other reason than the transient nature of food trucks allow for something better if it were to come along.

The last thing about Uptown is a bit redundant from a previous post I made. So instead of detailing the area's transit shortcomings and suggesting my ideas, I'll just give the link.

While the tone of this post is about what needs changing, let me devote the rest of this piece to what they do right. Upper McKinney Avenue reflects a wide range of architectural styles and transportation elements. There is a good combination of small, medium and large buildings of many uses that reflect a wide range of activities at all hours of the day and week. Cityplace Co. has demonstrated that Dallas developers do have the ability to design great urban spaces. The City needs to keep that going and make it a template for the rest of the area.

There is a great variety of retail and restaurant offerings. In large part because of West Village, but Gables managed properties have excelled at this too. Of course, the older buildings were already made that way and still function as such.

The mix of uses is close to, if not the best, of any urban area in the region. Aside from industrial, just about everything is represented. Overall, the approach to this neighborhood should be replicated that yielded these results. It is a great way to increase the tax base, lower the infrastructure costs and limit the environmental impact.

There, I can be positive, though I am still conflicted as to what I actually feel about this neighborhood.

Elm Place, better than before?

So all of a sudden, this week it was announced that plans are underway to convert the jewel of a 60's building built by George Dahl, Elm Place, once the tallest building west of the Mississippi River, into a mixed-use urban tower.

I chose that picture because it illustrates two key things about this building.

First, Elm Place has a respect for the street. There is some set back, and you can definitely see how this would lead to the setbacks of later generations of towers. But, it is more like an extension of the sidewalk. I am not a big fan if I have the option of none, but this is at least done in a way that doesn't harm the urban environment.

The second is the garden deck at the top of the base before the building tapers off into the tower. It is a lovely way to add to the building's amenities. Not many have something like this (I can think of two) and I am glad to see it is coming back.

Now onto the proposal. The developer is from Turkey, the architect from Dallas (coincidentally they office right across the street). It calls for a mix of retail, office, residential and public space. Click for the proposal.

Here's a snapshot of the use by level.

Red is residential, orange is office, yellow is retail, the green at the top of the base will be a public space (or rather, open to the public) while the observation deck at the top will reopen to the public (great views here if you get a chance to look someday). Parking will remain underground.

But here's the best part. This may be the first redevelopment of a vacant building that will completely shutter the tunnel system underneath it. The Merc closed access, so it may count, but from what I can tell, this will be a total closure, and unlike the Merc, it is in the middle of the system. The map for Elm Place's tunnel can be seen here.

They add retail to a dock bay fronting the Akard Station, giving it a better frontage, both for the building and for transit users. Akard Station is the third busiest rail station in the DART system.

I count 484 residential units and several floors of office. This is exactly what I have been thinking should have happened to the building a long time ago. The base is too large to be broken down into residential units, but the tower is nice and slender. It is ideal for a mix of office and residential.

Overall I am really excited about this project. It is scheduled to begin renovation in October and be completed the first part of 2014. TIF funding has already been approved, so this looks as promising as things can be given the current development climate.

Remember, I said downtown would need another 28,000 units this decade to match the growth rate of the past one. Coupled with what is underway or about to be, this means downtown only needs another 27,000. That number is slowly falling.