Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

User avatar
mcrdal15
Posts: 50
Joined: 27 Mar 2018 16:02

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby mcrdal15 » 26 Apr 2018 18:08

DPatel304 wrote:
I hope Uptown can still attract enough people so that it is not a complete dead zone though.


As an urban neighborhood and one that continues to become denser and more walkable, it shouldn't become a complete dead zone. You don't need a party scene to have vibrant street-life, but then again, this is Dallas. Dallasites really struggle with embracing the urban lifestyle. As a resident of Uptown, it still feels like walking as a means of getting somewhere is a foreign concept to most of the residents living here. And I'm strictly talking about other fellow Uptowners. Their mindset is no different from those living in a large subdivision in Plano.

I'll sometimes read up on new developments coming to Uptown or parks replacing surface lots in Downtown. It's shocking to read so many comments complaining about losing parking spaces for greenspace (Downtown) or that a denser high rise in Uptown means we have to widen Hall Street and bulldoze Breadwinners to accommodate more traffic. And these people are local residents, not suburbanites! They simply can't get out of this car-centric, drive to everything mindset. I just don't understand why someone would live in a place like Uptown and still be so dang car-focused.

User avatar
R1070
Posts: 494
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 21:00

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby R1070 » 26 Apr 2018 18:42

LoMac has so many semi-urban towers with fancy steakhouses with valet drive thrus out front. The city should have not allowed it start developing that way. It's not going to generate much walking unfortunately. I still cringe at the horrible suburban Truluck's plopped right down on that street. Who on Earth thought that would fit in with the neighborhood. The sections with very narrow sidewalks doesn't help either.

User avatar
mcrdal15
Posts: 50
Joined: 27 Mar 2018 16:02

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby mcrdal15 » 26 Apr 2018 19:34

R1070 wrote:LoMac has so many semi-urban towers with fancy steakhouses with valet drive thrus out front. The city should have not allowed it start developing that way. It's not going to generate much walking unfortunately. I still cringe at the horrible suburban Truluck's plopped right down on that street. Who on Earth thought that would fit in with the neighborhood. The sections with very narrow sidewalks doesn't help either.


That Truluck's is awful. It's not even limited to just Uptown. Take a look at the circular drive in front of the Statler and also the one behind the new Forty-Five Ten. Whenever it seems like we're taking a step forward, you have developments like this dragging us two steps back.

DPatel304
Posts: 966
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby DPatel304 » 26 Apr 2018 22:24

mcrdal15 wrote:but then again, this is Dallas. Dallasites really struggle with embracing the urban lifestyle.


That's my concern here. Honestly, I feel like Uptown has plenty of residents and office workers, yet the streets aren't exactly lively. It's not dead, but it should be way more lively than it currently is. As you pointed out, too many people who live in Uptown are still very much attached to their cars.

R1070 wrote:LoMac has so many semi-urban towers with fancy steakhouses with valet drive thrus out front. The city should have not allowed it start developing that way. It's not going to generate much walking unfortunately. I still cringe at the horrible suburban Truluck's plopped right down on that street. Who on Earth thought that would fit in with the neighborhood. The sections with very narrow sidewalks doesn't help either.


Semi-urban is the perfect way to describe a lot of Uptown. The density is there, and it's somewhat walkable, but there's also ample parking and tons of Valet, which doesn't encourage people to walk. I feel like, in this regard, Downtown is better. I know there are still semi-urban towers in Downtown, but the whole area just feels like it has a lot more potential.

I still think there is potential in Uptown. There are a number of older apartments that can be re-developed into something better, and a few suburban strip malls that could be redeveloped too. However, I think land in Uptown has probably gotten too pricey, so develop will likely slow while other, cheaper, areas will see more development.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 447
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby tanzoak » 27 Apr 2018 01:21

Uptown isn't really dense enough to guarantee a lot of activity. It's still going to be reliant on drawing people from outside the neighborhood to create a decent level of street activity, regardless of how auto-oriented it is or isn't.

Uptown is decently dense in terms of buildings and height, but not in terms of people. So much of the building space is dedicated to parking, and the buildings themselves typically take up a smaller fraction of the lot due to setbacks. The result is that the absolute densest high-rises in Dallas have the same density as a six- or seven-story midrise in Oakland (and most Dallas high-rises are quite a bit less dense than that). Similarly, a six-story midrise in Dallas may only be 1/4 as dense as its Oakland equivalent.

User avatar
mcrdal15
Posts: 50
Joined: 27 Mar 2018 16:02

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby mcrdal15 » 27 Apr 2018 12:06

tanzoak wrote:Uptown isn't really dense enough to guarantee a lot of activity. It's still going to be reliant on drawing people from outside the neighborhood to create a decent level of street activity, regardless of how auto-oriented it is or isn't.

Uptown is decently dense in terms of buildings and height, but not in terms of people. So much of the building space is dedicated to parking, and the buildings themselves typically take up a smaller fraction of the lot due to setbacks. The result is that the absolute densest high-rises in Dallas have the same density as a six- or seven-story midrise in Oakland (and most Dallas high-rises are quite a bit less dense than that). Similarly, a six-story midrise in Dallas may only be 1/4 as dense as its Oakland equivalent.


NIMBY's in Uptown are trying to destroy the neighborhood's vibrancy. I completely understand the issues regarding the party scene; however, chasing away visitors and traffic isn't good for ANY business, including the good establishments. There's simply not enough people living in the neighborhood to sustain that vibrancy. Also, do you know if the city has relaxed or eliminated minimum parking requirements in Uptown? If they have, then that would certainly help to increase the neighborhood's population density.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1269
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby tamtagon » 27 Apr 2018 12:19

The party scene is simply growing up. It's like graduating college or something.

User avatar
mcrdal15
Posts: 50
Joined: 27 Mar 2018 16:02

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby mcrdal15 » 27 Apr 2018 12:40

tamtagon wrote:The party scene is simply growing up. It's like graduating college or something.


Yes and it's great that it's transitioning away from Uptown. However, I'm not too confident about its replacement. Uptown doesn't have enough residents to support existing business nor is it a unique draw in comparison to places such as Lower Greenville, Deep Ellum, Bishop Arts, etc. Having a bunch of upscale chains that are found in many places throughout DFW isn't going to do much to attract visitors. And Uptown certainly needs outsiders to sustain it.

DPatel304
Posts: 966
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby DPatel304 » 27 Apr 2018 14:08

tanzoak wrote:Uptown is decently dense in terms of buildings and height, but not in terms of people. So much of the building space is dedicated to parking, and the buildings themselves typically take up a smaller fraction of the lot due to setbacks.


I did not actually know this, but I can't say I'm surprised. In that case, it'll be interesting to see how things play out.

I agree there is nothing unique about the area, so perhaps they could just embrace it that fact and continue to expand West Village. West Village, while a huge success, feels a lot like the Shops at Legacy or any of the other suburban/urban areas we have. I know it's very cookie-cutter and bland, but it's a hit, and perhaps there is potential for the area to grow.

Obviously, I'd prefer to see Uptown go with more developments that are unique and have character, which West Village does not, but, realistically, if Uptown tries to compete with Bishop Arts, Deep Ellum, and Lower Greenville at trying to be trendy, it will always lose. Might as well stand out by being more cookie-cutter/bland, as odd as that sounds.

In addition to that, our urban core desperately needs to work on connecting the different neighborhoods together. Maybe Uptown on its own doesn't have enough residents, but right next door you have Victory Park, Oak Lawn, and Knox, so just improve the connectivity amongst these neighborhoods and you drastically increase the potential traffic.

lakewoodhobo
Posts: 583
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 13:49
Location: Elmwood, Oak Cliff

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby lakewoodhobo » 27 Apr 2018 14:49

Without a master plan for Turtle Creek and development that actually engages that enormous and underused asset, Uptown will forever be known as the test kitchen for the Texas Donut.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 447
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby tanzoak » 28 Apr 2018 01:26

mcrdal15 wrote:NIMBY's in Uptown are trying to destroy the neighborhood's vibrancy. I completely understand the issues regarding the party scene; however, chasing away visitors and traffic isn't good for ANY business, including the good establishments. There's simply not enough people living in the neighborhood to sustain that vibrancy. Also, do you know if the city has relaxed or eliminated minimum parking requirements in Uptown? If they have, then that would certainly help to increase the neighborhood's population density.


Dallas zoning is unlike anywhere else and is really difficult to get a sold handle on because it's basically spot zoned into a million different PDs that all have their own rules. That said, roughly speaking, parking minimums in Uptown are 1.5/unit (though Skyhouse got ~1.34/unit), in Downtown, Deep Ellum, and Bishop Arts it's 1.0/unit, and elsewhere in Dallas it's 2.0/unit.

The 2.0/unit in most of Dallas is clearly a binding constraint, as developers always build to the exact minimum required. 2.0 is bad anywhere, but it's particularly egregious for places like Bryan/Baylor and West Dallas.

The couple of projects I've seen in Deep Ellum have like 1.2-1.4/unit, and I saw a downtown proposal with 1.1/unit. So the regulations in those neighborhoods aren't binding.

I'd bet Uptown has roughly the same parking demand as the low end of Deep Ellum, so maybe typically around 1.25/unit? Every household has a car, and 1/4 of them have two, which sounds about right. So the 1.5/unit requirements in Uptown seem like they're probably binding, but it's not a total game changer.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 447
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby tanzoak » 01 May 2018 22:25

I was curious about parking demand in these places, so I checked out some census data on the number of vehicles kept at home.

Uptown currently averages 1.42 cars per household. So the code requires providing more parking (1.5/unit) than Uptown residents actually use. Wasteful.

Old East Dallas currently averages 1.23 cars per household, while the code requires 2.0/unit. That's crazy.

The reason for the difference in the average number of cars between the neighborhoods is demographics ($45k median income in Old East Dallas v $100k in Uptown). That said, the new apartments being built in east Dallas are targeted at a less affluent demographic than those in Uptown.

To the extent that parking minimums have some validity, it's to ensure that the development provides as much parking as the residents would require if there was no parking provided, so that there's no spillover onto streets/garages. Requiring more than the average that is actually used is super dur.

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 413
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby Tucy » 02 May 2018 10:59

tanzoak wrote:I was curious about parking demand in these places, so I checked out some census data on the number of vehicles kept at home.

Uptown currently averages 1.42 cars per household. So the code requires providing more parking (1.5/unit) than Uptown residents actually use. Wasteful.

To the extent that parking minimums have some validity, it's to ensure that the development provides as much parking as the residents would require if there was no parking provided, so that there's no spillover onto streets/garages. Requiring more than the average that is actually used is super dur.


Looks like they are right on target with the Uptown requirement. It's probably a good idea to have a few spaces available for visitors.

User avatar
mcrdal15
Posts: 50
Joined: 27 Mar 2018 16:02

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby mcrdal15 » 02 May 2018 11:50

Tucy wrote:
tanzoak wrote:I was curious about parking demand in these places, so I checked out some census data on the number of vehicles kept at home.

Uptown currently averages 1.42 cars per household. So the code requires providing more parking (1.5/unit) than Uptown residents actually use. Wasteful.

To the extent that parking minimums have some validity, it's to ensure that the development provides as much parking as the residents would require if there was no parking provided, so that there's no spillover onto streets/garages. Requiring more than the average that is actually used is super dur.


Looks like they are right on target with the Uptown requirement. It's probably a good idea to have a few spaces available for visitors.


They are definitely not on target. What people fail to understand is that by making parking abundant and easy, it discourages other alternatives -- taking public transit or walking. If we want to make serious strides at reducing vehicular pollution, making our streets more vibrant, reducing traffic, reducing pedestrian fatalities, and increasing the attractiveness of public transit and other alternatives, we have to make driving/parking less convenient and more difficult.

Places like Uptown & Downtown should first and foremost be designed for sustainability and cater to the residents that live, work, AND play in those areas. That means pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users should be catered to FIRST over drivers, with the exception of the physically handicapped. It's better for businesses in urban areas, because potential customers tend to notice things more while walking vs. driving. They can smell the food from the street. Not so much when they're in a car.

There's also the additional cost burden to everyone's rent when your parking minimum is too high. For those units with 1 person/1 car, they're having to pay for an additional space. Likewise, those who don't have a car, are having the unnecessary cost added to their rent. What should be done instead, like in many other cities, is to charge residents for parking. That would be true freedom of choice. Right now, public transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists are treated like 2nd class citizens in Dallas.

DPatel304
Posts: 966
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby DPatel304 » 02 May 2018 12:03

^Agreed.

People can and will adapt if parking is reduced, and, in addition, we shouldn't be building for the parking demands of 2018, we should be thinking towards the future. The problem with this mindset is that any building that tries to charge for parking is going to struggle to find renters.

Perhaps, to start with, some newer buildings can offer a discount on monthly rent for people who want to opt out of a parking space. Essentially it still means everyone is paying for parking, but perhaps that might be more popular, especially if the non-discounted rate is pretty comparable to other units.

What we really need to be doing is building garages that can be later converted into something else. That way, whenever the city develops more and people are less reliant on their cars, we aren't stuck with these massive, useless parking garages.

User avatar
Benjamin
Posts: 7
Joined: 08 Nov 2016 23:34

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby Benjamin » 02 May 2018 13:46

The Economist had a great write-up on this very topic last year. Parking requirements are often poor public policy.

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing ... ban-sprawl

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 413
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby Tucy » 02 May 2018 16:14

mcrdal15 wrote:
Tucy wrote:
tanzoak wrote:I was curious about parking demand in these places, so I checked out some census data on the number of vehicles kept at home.

Uptown currently averages 1.42 cars per household. So the code requires providing more parking (1.5/unit) than Uptown residents actually use. Wasteful.

To the extent that parking minimums have some validity, it's to ensure that the development provides as much parking as the residents would require if there was no parking provided, so that there's no spillover onto streets/garages. Requiring more than the average that is actually used is super dur.


Looks like they are right on target with the Uptown requirement. It's probably a good idea to have a few spaces available for visitors.


They are definitely not on target. What people fail to understand is that by making parking abundant and easy, it discourages other alternatives -- taking public transit or walking. If we want to make serious strides at reducing vehicular pollution, making our streets more vibrant, reducing traffic, reducing pedestrian fatalities, and increasing the attractiveness of public transit and other alternatives, we have to make driving/parking less convenient and more difficult.

Places like Uptown & Downtown should first and foremost be designed for sustainability and cater to the residents that live, work, AND play in those areas. That means pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users should be catered to FIRST over drivers, with the exception of the physically handicapped. It's better for businesses in urban areas, because potential customers tend to notice things more while walking vs. driving. They can smell the food from the street. Not so much when they're in a car.

There's also the additional cost burden to everyone's rent when your parking minimum is too high. For those units with 1 person/1 car, they're having to pay for an additional space. Likewise, those who don't have a car, are having the unnecessary cost added to their rent. What should be done instead, like in many other cities, is to charge residents for parking. That would be true freedom of choice. Right now, public transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists are treated like 2nd class citizens in Dallas.


All very interesting, but it has little to do with your original inquiry of how closely the parking requirements align with demand. Using your numbers (which only counts the number of vehicles kept at home by the residents, does not count parking spaces used by visitors, etc. and therefore falls short of total demand), the demand is 95% of the supply required. That's pretty spot on.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 447
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby tanzoak » 05 May 2018 00:59

Tucy wrote:All very interesting, but it has little to do with your original inquiry of how closely the parking requirements align with demand. Using your numbers (which only counts the number of vehicles kept at home by the residents, does not count parking spaces used by visitors, etc. and therefore falls short of total demand), the demand is 95% of the supply required. That's pretty spot on.


You were responding to a different person (mcrdal15) than the person who posted the statistics (me).

Couple of comments:
1. It's generally a bad idea to set a regulatory minimum at an observed average. To illustrate with a simplified example, imagine you have a neighborhood with one Bleu Ceil and one all-1BR building. If BC households have 2 cars each, and the 1BR households have 1 car each, you'd observe an average of 1.5 per household. If you set the minimum at 1.5, a developer wanting to build a second BC would likely still build 2 (because they know that's what their buyers will demand), but the someone wanting to build a second 1BR building will be forced to build more parking than needed (and would therefore either kill or shrink the project). That's a waste of resources and will result in a suboptimal distribution of building types.

2. To assess what a proper minimum is, we first need to decide on what the goal is. Why should the city force a development to provide more than the profit-maximizing amount of parking? The most coherent answer is that if the development provides less parking than its residents want, they'll park on the street. That's a cost to existing residents (less parking available to them) and the City (maintenance) that isn't being accounted for in the developer's calculations (a negative externality, in econ speak), and they need to be forced to take on that cost. [Note that while this argument makes sense, I'm unsympathetic to it, as I don't think providing free car storage to existing residents is a legitimate City interest.]

3. Ok, so, granting #2, what should the minimum be? We typically talk about parking demand as the number of spaces demanded given an unlimited supply. But really, to address the problem stated in #2, we need to think about the number of spaces demanded given no supply. That's the number of cars people are willing to park on the street if they're not provided a space at home. That's a theoretical building, of course, but it's that thought experiment the City should have in mind.

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 413
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby Tucy » 05 May 2018 09:33

1. This is probably why the city of Dallas does not require a flat 1.5 parking spaces per unit. I believe the Code requires one space per bedroom, with a one space per apartment minimum.

My only point has been that according to your stats, the regulations look to be very much on target and do not indicate any wastefulness. The question of whether there should be parking requirements at all is quite a different question.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 447
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby tanzoak » 06 May 2018 12:15

Tucy wrote:1. This is probably why the city of Dallas does not require a flat 1.5 parking spaces per unit. I believe the Code requires one space per bedroom, with a one space per apartment minimum.

My only point has been that according to your stats, the regulations look to be very much on target and do not indicate any wastefulness. The question of whether there should be parking requirements at all is quite a different question.


Setting a minimum at the observed average does cause wastefulness because buildings are different. Re-read the example I gave. If you have one building with demand (given unlimited supply) for 2 and one with demand for 1, that'll show up as an average of 1.5. If you set the minimum at 1.5, though, future buildings of the latter type will be forced to build 0.5 more parking than residents will use. That's wasteful.

For PD 193 (Uptown and Oaklawn), it really is 1.5 per unit. Technically, it's 1 per 500 square feet + 0.25 per unit, up to 1.5 per unit for 4+ story buildings or up to 2.0 per unit for less than 4 stories. So unless you have less than a 625 average apartment size (hint: that wouldn't happen unless you have an all-studio building, which don't get built, smallest avgs in Dallas are still 775+), your minimum is 1.5 per unit.

Here is the link (pg 10): http://www.dallascityattorney.com/51P/A ... rt%20I.pdf

Elsewhere, I had been looking at an old version of the code, and you're right that it now is 1 per bedroom + 0.25 per unit. That's still a lot! For every 2BR unit you build, you have to build 2.25 spaces.

Ultimately, the real question isn't so much whether every space built is filled (because those spaces are "free" at the margin), but why we should force people to pay to build more parking than they actually value.

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 413
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby Tucy » 07 May 2018 03:47

tanzoak wrote:
Tucy wrote:1. This is probably why the city of Dallas does not require a flat 1.5 parking spaces per unit. I believe the Code requires one space per bedroom, with a one space per apartment minimum.

My only point has been that according to your stats, the regulations look to be very much on target and do not indicate any wastefulness. The question of whether there should be parking requirements at all is quite a different question.


Setting a minimum at the observed average does cause wastefulness because buildings are different. Re-read the example I gave. If you have one building with demand (given unlimited supply) for 2 and one with demand for 1, that'll show up as an average of 1.5. If you set the minimum at 1.5, though, future buildings of the latter type will be forced to build 0.5 more parking than residents will use. That's wasteful.

For PD 193 (Uptown and Oaklawn), it really is 1.5 per unit. Technically, it's 1 per 500 square feet + 0.25 per unit, up to 1.5 per unit for 4+ story buildings or up to 2.0 per unit for less than 4 stories. So unless you have less than a 625 average apartment size (hint: that wouldn't happen unless you have an all-studio building, which don't get built, smallest avgs in Dallas are still 775+), your minimum is 1.5 per unit.

Here is the link (pg 10): http://www.dallascityattorney.com/51P/A ... rt%20I.pdf

Elsewhere, I had been looking at an old version of the code, and you're right that it now is 1 per bedroom + 0.25 per unit. That's still a lot! For every 2BR unit you build, you have to build 2.25 spaces.

Ultimately, the real question isn't so much whether every space built is filled (because those spaces are "free" at the margin), but why we should force people to pay to build more parking than they actually value.


Setting the minimum at the observed average could theoretically produce wasteful results, but I don't believe you've shown us any evidence that it has done so in Uptown.

Thanks for the info on the PD 193 parking requirements.
Last edited by Tucy on 07 May 2018 03:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 413
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: Uptown Dallas: McKinney/Boll Tower - 2614 McKinney Ave - (18 ST)

Postby Tucy » 07 May 2018 03:48

nm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigD5349, Bing [Bot], Pinhi and 11 guests

Login