Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Lower Greenville Development

Tnexster
Posts: 1287
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 16:33
Location: Dallas

Lower Greenville Development

Postby Tnexster » 12 Nov 2016 13:49

Dallas' Lower Greenville will get first major development in more than a decade

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/real ... ent-decade

The only large development site in Dallas' popular Lower Greenville district has a new owner.

And developer Trammell Crow Residential isn't wasting any time moving ahead with construction plans.

The more than eight acre vacant property at Greenville Avenue and Belmont was previously the site of the Vickery Towers retirement community. Built in 1964 as a luxury apartment community, Victory Towers had almost 400 rental units in four 5-story buildings.

Seattle-based investment company Columbia Pacific Advisors tore down the old multifamily buildings and planned to construct an apartment community.

But Dallas-based apartment builder Trammell Crow Residential has purchased the high-profile development site and is getting ready for a ground breaking.

User avatar
gshelton91
Posts: 65
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 11:01

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby gshelton91 » 14 Nov 2016 08:34

I was by here this weekend and have not seen much work being done in the past couple of weeks. The street improvements are coming along great though and looks like they will be adding landscaping this week or next.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 14 Nov 2016 09:23

How long is the old Blockbuster, Whole Foods, Walmart store going to sit there empty?

DPatel304
Posts: 911
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby DPatel304 » 17 Apr 2017 23:26

In what can only be called the end of an era, the original Daddy Jack's on Greenville Avenue is closing. Its closure comes on the heels of similar news about the Crown & the Harp next door, which is also closing, due to the building they're in being sold.

http://dallas.culturemap.com/news/resta ... k-chaplin/

I'm not sure what to make of LG these days. Not too long ago, the bottle shop closed and now Crown & Harp and Daddy Jack's are closing as well, but it sounds like the latter two are closing because their building was sold, and not due to business slowing down for them.

This area seems to be in a bit of a weird spot. While it is a walkable area, it's not easy to walk TO the area unless you live nearby, but there aren't enough nearby residents to support the local businesses. Which means those businesses must rely on people outside the neighborhood, however, the parking situation isn't great, and it doesn't help that there is no DART rail, DLink, or streetcar access. I'm sure there are buses that will get you there, but people in DFW are barely riding rail, DLink and streetcar, so doubtful people will use the bus to go there.

In the short run, I think this area will struggle with this conundrum for a while. In the long run, I'm sure we'll see the area become more dense and eventually Henderson Ave, Ross Ave, and Greenville Ave will all blend together and feel more connected. In the short run, I'd love to see all of these areas become way more bike friendly.

User avatar
rantanamo
Posts: 60
Joined: 18 Oct 2016 20:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby rantanamo » 18 Apr 2017 03:37

As someone that lives fairly close to LG, i think you're seeing the evolution from regional destination(it will always be that somewhat) to local destination. The population in its immediate vicinity is booming. Yes,it is still somewhat of nightspot, but its much more like Bishop Arts now, vs formerly being more like a smaller Deep Ellum. Easy place to park unless you just don't like free valet as well as pretty much every place having an assigned lot somewhwere. Went from a daytime ghost town to one of the nicer places to wander around outside in Dallas. If they can just do something about the old Wal-Mart.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 18 Apr 2017 08:25

The neighborhoods really ought to loosen the restrictions a little to allow a larger population. Let much of the single family home real estate get rebuilt as townhomes with twice the population, and some midrises with 10 times the population.

User avatar
exelone31
Posts: 278
Joined: 31 Oct 2016 11:35

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby exelone31 » 18 Apr 2017 08:55

I wonder what the development on the old retirement home site at Belmont and Greenville will do. Tie that together with a McKinney Whole Foods-esque development on the old Walmart (aka the old Whole Foods, ironically) site, and you could have some nice residential bookends.

I was out to dinner down there recently and am amazed that certain places can't sustain business when the area is so lively. I know foot traffic doesn't guarantee success, but there sure is a ton of it down there.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1151
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 18 Apr 2017 09:21

Yeah I am tired of hearing about HG Supply but everyone wants to be there...honestly I avoid Lowest Greenville because of the parking problem but that's just it I don't mind. I agree Lowest Greenville should be more about residents than DFW coming out to drink. When I go to Lowest Greenville cause I live on Cedar Springs Rd, I take an Uber. Don't tell a business owner that though they blame everything on a lack of car parking or a lack of high-speed travel lanes!!!

Sometimes a business isn't a good match for an area, or their marketing is sub par etc. Many places see success in a given area because of the cities failure in infrastructure or transit relocation etc. The point is I will gladly ignore parking as the prime argument of failed business because it's easy for a business to rest on and everyone will just go sure and nod their heads sure that must be it. I get removing hurdles for business to succeed believe me I do but removing excuses based on myths is a more worthy cause.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 18 Apr 2017 10:20

Study the hired car usage and model better bus routes between downtown area neighborhoods; I have never been convinced a large public parking garage would be a negative.

The opportunity to improve the destination within the neighborhood while expanding/maintaining a region-wide appeal is right in front of our face, strategic public parking garage and major mixed use re-development where Henderson and Greenville are converge:

User avatar
rantanamo
Posts: 60
Joined: 18 Oct 2016 20:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby rantanamo » 18 Apr 2017 19:01

Lowest Greenville has free valet. Doesn't get much easier than that. Besides each venue having assigned lots as well, wouldn't mind seeing anything built the Wal-Mart site have some kind of garage. Surprised they don't use that site for paid parking or something to make some extra money on while the structure sits. Either way, parking seems to be much easier in the last half year or so. Used to be a mad house, but is much more organized now.

lakewoodhobo
Posts: 542
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 13:49
Location: Elmwood, Oak Cliff

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby lakewoodhobo » 11 Apr 2018 09:22

Lower Greenville's still trying to fill in the giant blank space left by Walmart
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... ft-walmart

This is just an update on the Walmart property and how big boxes are evil, but I don't think the landowners take enough of the blame. In this case, Mitchell Rasansky is happy to collect rent from Walmart until 2032 even if it's bad for the neighborhood.

It's not dissimilar to the Cuellar family selling El Corazon to the developers of a CVS. The corporation gets all of the blame for sticking it to the neighborhood, but the landowner gets a pass for being local and needing to feed the kids.

At least Lower Greenville has Trader Joe's. Who knows when Bishop Arts will get their Central Market.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 11 Apr 2018 09:32

what a waste

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1151
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 11 Apr 2018 10:11

I imagine this is more of a Walmart mob hit like scenario. They are glad to keep someone else out of the spot if nothing else. Opening the Neighborhood Market there always seemed like a stop-gap project for them anyways cause signing a lease but not building a store in the space would be wrong. Opening one, seeing if the market uses it then shuttering it isn't a bad deal if you can keep your competitors at bay and have the money to do so.

LongonBigD
Posts: 129
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 13:40
Location: Knox Park

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby LongonBigD » 11 Apr 2018 10:49

I don't understand why the dissatisfaction resulting from this giant waste of space is focused onto just WalMart? Didn't Whole Foods vacate the space before WM? and BlockBuster Video (local) before them?

Is the issue just that WalMart can leave it empty for years as long as they can afford to pay the rent?

DPatel304
Posts: 911
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby DPatel304 » 11 Apr 2018 11:59

It's certainly an eyesore, but thankfully it's basically at the 'top' of Lower Greenville, and isn't smack dab in the middle of the all the action.

I can live with this for the time being, as Lower Greenville is a hit with or without this lot, and, whenever the lease is up, Dallas will be a much different city and hopefully more progressive when it comes to urban development so something amazing could take its spot. It's a long time for sure, but nothing is really stopping Lower Greenville from expanding south towards the Ross and Henderson areas.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 11 Apr 2018 12:06

WalMart is known to lease an empty space for years simply to keep out a potential competitor; nothing illegal about it, but is a terrible neighbor to have. The LG location doesn't seem to be one of those anti-competitor deals -- isn't the nearest Walmart retail store in West Village? or Skillman@NW Hwy? I'm not sure, but surely if the space was available to rent, someone would give it a go. Maybe even something from Half Price books, arcades are popular.

My favorite niche establishment want for Dallas is an Organic Macrobiotic Chinese place -- is there a more likely neighborhood for something like that?

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1151
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 11 Apr 2018 12:42

Target does the same btw just to be clear they did it where the edge of Garland and Richardson. Target jumped ship to a spot at Richardson Square mall and left a spot in Garland with a non-compete clause. Eventually, an Asian Mini Mall leased the space since it wasn't a competitor to Target.

I don't love the practice but it is legal. Also, I don't blame the owners for being ok with collecting that rent check. It's just that the practice does not make a positive impact on the surrounding community. For that property to not be generating customers and further potential tax revenue related to those sales is just a disappointment. If it was an open green space lot well at least then it could hold some neighborhood events. Would it work as an urban park space? That would be a good use if they were willing to sell and maybe make the neighborhood happier than another big box retailer or dense apartment project which always stirs trouble for single-family home neighbors.

lakewoodhobo
Posts: 542
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 13:49
Location: Elmwood, Oak Cliff

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby lakewoodhobo » 11 Apr 2018 13:11

The article cites how costly it is to divide and how the ceilings are too low for trampolines.

Is it really that hard to convince Spec's or Total Wine to go in there? Maybe one of those Daiso stores.

DPatel304
Posts: 911
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby DPatel304 » 11 Apr 2018 13:14

Is there a reason we can't, at the very least, use the parking lot? I know that goes against making LG walkable, but, if the space is going to sit idle for years and years, I don't see the harm in more parking spaces in the short term.

User avatar
exelone31
Posts: 278
Joined: 31 Oct 2016 11:35

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby exelone31 » 11 Apr 2018 14:43

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Target does the same btw just to be clear they did it where the edge of Garland and Richardson. Target jumped ship to a spot at Richardson Square mall and left a spot in Garland with a non-compete clause. Eventually, an Asian Mini Mall leased the space since it wasn't a competitor to Target.

I don't love the practice but it is legal. Also, I don't blame the owners for being ok with collecting that rent check. It's just that the practice does not make a positive impact on the surrounding community. For that property to not be generating customers and further potential tax revenue related to those sales is just a disappointment. If it was an open green space lot well at least then it could hold some neighborhood events. Would it work as an urban park space? That would be a good use if they were willing to sell and maybe make the neighborhood happier than another big box retailer or dense apartment project which always stirs trouble for single-family home neighbors.


Man, I remember that Target. I grew up right around there. That entire shopping center took a hit when Target left. But I personally was much more affected by the departure of Funcoland.

LongonBigD
Posts: 129
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 13:40
Location: Knox Park

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby LongonBigD » 11 Apr 2018 15:26

tamtagon wrote:I'm not sure, but surely if the space was available to rent, someone would give it a go. Maybe even something from Half Price books


Never even thought about that, but HPB would be a huge hit (I would think) in that area. I don't even think the neighbors would object too much (famous last words in the NIMBYest neighborhood in Dallas!). I wonder if the rent is within HPB's comfort zone?

Now I see the problem more clearly. Why would the owner persue a new tenant unless he could get more per sq ft?

User avatar
Cbdallas
Posts: 171
Joined: 29 Nov 2016 16:42

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Cbdallas » 11 Apr 2018 16:19

I think a good option would be a new urban target at this location. Close the cityplace one tear down that entire strip center and densify mixed use that entire block and do another urban target somewhere in uptown... downtown... oaklawn.

User avatar
CRE_Investor
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Jan 2017 08:52

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby CRE_Investor » 11 Apr 2018 17:21

This board cracks me up sometimes. Unlike some other tenants who vacate spaces with term left on their lease, Walmart can easily absorb the $683k per year in rent without batting an eye. Someone who doesn't compete with Walmart in any way would have to come to them with a sublease offer that would be willing to invest significant money in to the space (their personal/investor money since the landlord has no incentive to give TIs). In no universe can Half Price Books afford to pay $19.50 PSF plus operating costs on a 35k SF space. I've always thought this building would make a great bowling alley/arcade/bar, but that would require a huge upfront investment. There just aren't many retailers/entertainment concepts that need 35k SF, can make use of the existing building, and can afford that rent.

I've been involved in numerous developments and leases for Walmart Neighborhood Markets across the country, and when they did this deal their business plan was to put stores all over the place to gain market share without worrying much about costs. That business plan has totally changed and today they wouldn't pay $19.50 PSF for a store in the heart of Dallas for a Neighborhood Market.

As to the Cityplace Market retail center, Target owns their own store so they have no incentive to tear it down for someone else to redevelop. The rest of the retail is owned by Kimco, a publicly traded REIT focused on owning and operating shopping centers, and is fully leased with a roster of strong credit tenants. They have no incentive to tear it down either.

Lots of people also wonder why the parking lot can't be used, but it's a liability issue for Walmart and they don't care enough about the minuscule incremental revenue they would get from hiring a parking operator to charge for parking.

The only way I see this site getting re-purposed is if someone can come in and operate a business in the existing building without much capital investment. The owner could always sell if a developer came to him with a big offer and the intent to redevelop, but good luck getting anything through the entitlement process on that lot that would justify the price the owner would want to sell today.

I would love to see this space re-purposed as much as anyone, but unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon.

User avatar
Cbdallas
Posts: 171
Joined: 29 Nov 2016 16:42

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Cbdallas » 12 Apr 2018 11:08

That is what this board is all about sharing information so we can learn and understand how it all works and how to improve. Thanks for providing that insight I was not aware of all of those conditions at lower Greenville site or the Cityplace Target center. Based on what you have said again sadly my hopes for everything east of 75 are dashed for the long term. Perhaps that is why the other urban areas around downtown are growing up and this area is not.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 12 Apr 2018 12:03

That Walmart lease is until 2032, right? That's a looooong time. Whatever Walmart Neighborhood Market, this is one failed business plan fertilizing an already bad reputation. Let it sit idle for a while, sure. This should turn out to be a much better location for thoughtfully designed residential with lower traffic retail, specifically tailored to pedestrians.

The pending really big deal for Lower Greenville and Henderson Avenue --- and much bigger NIMBY fight is the old Sears new Fiesta location. That triangle is the future end of Downtown Dallas Ross Avenue, as the business-commercial transitions into residential-commercial. Threshold, fulcrum, linchpin they all apply to what happens with this site over the next decade. As important a redevelopment as exists in remaking of this city.

Actually, this could turn into the next generation Department Store with as much focus on pick-up and delivery as traditional brick & mortar. Multiple floors selling every possible product type. Subdued human operating hours and parking lot share taking care of the church neighbor, a signature Dallas department store brand evolves providing solutions to Sunbelt Cities making the transition from suburban to urban lifestyles. I like it, alot.

lakewoodhobo
Posts: 542
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 13:49
Location: Elmwood, Oak Cliff

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby lakewoodhobo » 12 Apr 2018 12:24

tamtagon wrote:The pending really big deal for Lower Greenville and Henderson Avenue --- and much bigger NIMBY fight is the old Sears new Fiesta location. That triangle is the future end of Downtown Dallas Ross Avenue, as the business-commercial transitions into residential-commercial. Threshold, fulcrum, linchpin they all apply to what happens with this site over the next decade. As important a redevelopment as exists in remaking of this city.


I'm fascinated by what's happening with this shopping center. You have the Ross section that was demolished for Fiesta stuck in 1980s pre-gentrified Old East Dallas while the Greenville Ave section is 2018 Hipsterville. It has two completely different personalities.

Untitled.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 314
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby The_Overdog » 16 Apr 2018 09:59

That business plan has totally changed and today they wouldn't pay $19.50 PSF for a store in the heart of Dallas for a Neighborhood Market.


By your own logic, they are (still) paying that. You say they are paying $19.50 for a 35k sq ft place which is $682,500 in rent. I doubt they are paying that much, or if they were they'd reopen it as a store. I'd bet they are paying 1/2 at most of that now that it is closed. The owners have a lot in their favor - a contract, a paying tenant, and a building that either has to support a grocer where one doesn't work or has to be redeveloped and they don't want to sell. If Dallas had the immigrant population, then maybe an Asian grocer would pop in to bail it out, but no-one else wants it and it's too big for other uses. It's better to take that rent and wait. Those jump places (a huge step down from a grocer) are more like $5 a sq ft places.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 16 Apr 2018 10:48

The_Overdog wrote:
That business plan has totally changed and today they wouldn't pay $19.50 PSF for a store in the heart of Dallas for a Neighborhood Market.


By your own logic, they are (still) paying that. You say they are paying $19.50 for a 35k sq ft place which is $682,500 in rent. I doubt they are paying that much, or if they were they'd reopen it as a store. I'd bet they are paying 1/2 at most of that now that it is closed. The owners have a lot in their favor - a contract, a paying tenant, and a building that either has to support a grocer where one doesn't work or has to be redeveloped and they don't want to sell. If Dallas had the immigrant population, then maybe an Asian grocer would pop in to bail it out, but no-one else wants it and it's too big for other uses. It's better to take that rent and wait. Those jump places (a huge step down from a grocer) are more like $5 a sq ft places.


...consider this what-if: Wallyworld has tiny profit margin of ~3% ($485 billion revenue, $14 billion profit), more than 5,000 US stores so just wildly guessing that if they're carrying 300 similar leases, that would be an unacceptable $180,000,000.00 or 1% or the profit. Stupid computation assumptions, I know, but that's a lot of money - within an organization world famous for ruthless accounting creating one of the world wealthiest families, hundreds of thousands of employees doing a limbo penury dance.

I would assume Walmart, in it's wisdom, gets an income tax entry for these empty leases that one way or another makes up for the substantial loss line-item. So.... in the spreadsheet world of paying taxes on profit the biggest company in the world gets a touch more public assistance to lease empty buildings draining neighborhoods.

This practice should be punishable with a fine and jail time. A perversion of finance manufactured across decades for sure, but there's really no reason we should continue the practice.

Sorry about the rant. In the long run, I actually think sequestering this shopping center while Henderson & Ross & Greenville Avenues converge is better for the neighborhood, in the long run. Right now, we don't really know what will end up being the most beneficial development for the neighborhood. I suspect it'll be something we don't already have much of, a slight variation of SOP retail/commercial venture... similar but different, not the same.

User avatar
CRE_Investor
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Jan 2017 08:52

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby CRE_Investor » 16 Apr 2018 11:18

The_Overdog wrote:
That business plan has totally changed and today they wouldn't pay $19.50 PSF for a store in the heart of Dallas for a Neighborhood Market.


By your own logic, they are (still) paying that. You say they are paying $19.50 for a 35k sq ft place which is $682,500 in rent. I doubt they are paying that much, or if they were they'd reopen it as a store. I'd bet they are paying 1/2 at most of that now that it is closed. The owners have a lot in their favor - a contract, a paying tenant, and a building that either has to support a grocer where one doesn't work or has to be redeveloped and they don't want to sell. If Dallas had the immigrant population, then maybe an Asian grocer would pop in to bail it out, but no-one else wants it and it's too big for other uses. It's better to take that rent and wait. Those jump places (a huge step down from a grocer) are more like $5 a sq ft places.


That's not how leases work. When you sign a lease, the tenant and/or guarantor of the lease is on the hook for the full rent amount over the full term. Just because you close the store doesn't mean your rent liability changes. The landlord doesn't care if the building is vacant because he's getting his $19.50 PSF from Walmart regardless for the remainder of the lease term.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 16 Apr 2018 17:06

tamtagon wrote:So.... in the spreadsheet world of paying taxes on profit the biggest company in the world gets a touch more public assistance to lease empty buildings draining neighborhoods.


So not paying taxes on income you didn't make is now considered "public assistance"?

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1209
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby tamtagon » 16 Apr 2018 17:17

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
tamtagon wrote:So.... in the spreadsheet world of paying taxes on profit the biggest company in the world gets a touch more public assistance to lease empty buildings draining neighborhoods.


So not paying taxes on income you didn't make is now considered "public assistance"?


No. Purposefully taking a loss to gain an income tax deduction is public assistance. Furthermore, it would seem Walmart started out with a plan to open smaller grocery stores all over the place, the old Greenville Ave Blockbuster turned Whole Foods turned empty space a specific example. How many other empty spaces are there similar to this that Walmart will carry for another decade? This is a failed business plan for which the company should not "qualify" for tax deduction. Eat the loss and don't make that mistake again. Talk about your whacked out safety net --- when it happens to people, charity is order because they are people. When it happens to a business, charity is not in order because it was bad business. duh

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 314
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby The_Overdog » 17 Apr 2018 11:37

That's not how leases work. When you sign a lease, the tenant and/or guarantor of the lease is on the hook for the full rent amount over the full term.


Leases are contracts. Every contract is negotiable.

...consider this what-if: Wallyworld has tiny profit margin of ~3% ($485 billion revenue, $14 billion profit), more than 5,000 US stores so just wildly guessing that if they're carrying 300 similar leases, that would be an unacceptable $180,000,000.00 or 1% or the profit. Stupid computation assumptions, I know, but that's a lot of money - within an organization world famous for ruthless accounting creating one of the world wealthiest families, hundreds of thousands of employees doing a limbo penury dance.


Your math is not stupid. Unless Wal-Mart thinks this property is so amazingly special there is no way they are paying full-bill on large numbers of closed properties (not even for a tax write off) without somebody up high questioning that decision. They don't think its special - otherwise they'd have a store there. They closed over 60 Sam's Clubs this year alone. Their fallow real estate empire would be massive.

User avatar
CRE_Investor
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Jan 2017 08:52

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby CRE_Investor » 17 Apr 2018 12:38

The_Overdog wrote:
That's not how leases work. When you sign a lease, the tenant and/or guarantor of the lease is on the hook for the full rent amount over the full term.


Leases are contracts. Every contract is negotiable.


I agree with that in theory, but in order to negotiate each party has to get something and give something up. In this instance the landlord already has a 100% guaranteed income stream so what incentive does he get for reducing that future income stream and thereby the value of his property? They could negotiate a buyout of the lease for a discounted sum today, but based on the article that hasn't happened.


I can also guarantee you that Walmart has former stores all over the country that have closed but are still paying rent on the building at their contractual lease rate. Lots of big retailers do that, but none more than Walmart. At the end of the day they close stores because they aren't making money and whatever insignificant amount they pay in rent (relative to the cash flow of the company as a whole) on a closed store doesn't move the needle.

User avatar
Pike5370
Posts: 9
Joined: 03 Feb 2017 09:04

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Pike5370 » 17 Apr 2018 17:16

The_Overdog wrote:Leases are contracts. Every contract is negotiable.

Your math is not stupid. Unless Wal-Mart thinks this property is so amazingly special there is no way they are paying full-bill on large numbers of closed properties (not even for a tax write off) without somebody up high questioning that decision. They don't think its special - otherwise they'd have a store there. They closed over 60 Sam's Clubs this year alone. Their fallow real estate empire would be massive.


So many statements in this post, and your prior post, are proof that you have never been within a million miles of a commercial property lease. You may have shopped at a Walmart or a Sam's but that does not translate to you having an ounce of grasp of their real estate strategy. Whether you approve of their strategy or not, I can assure you the things you claim don't happen do in fact happen. My 36-year commercial property leasing career, which has included several dozen properties either leased to or shadow anchored by Walmart or Sam's, will not allow me to abide blatantly incorrect statements, if for no other reason than readers of this forum might actually consider you an expert.

But on the chance that I am wrong about you, please share with us how exactly you expect Walmart might RE-negotiate an existing signed and enforceable lease to obtain a lower rent or an early termination.

User avatar
CRE_Investor
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Jan 2017 08:52

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby CRE_Investor » 14 Jun 2018 12:25

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/ret ... dnt-expect

Walmart is looking to re-open their store as a new smaller format Sam's Club. I saw a tweet from Phillip Kingston yesterday urging people to sign a change.org petition to stop this from happening. Not only is that asinine from a legal perspective as they already have a lease on the property and have previously had all the required permits, but if you are as concerned about neighborhood blight as you claim to be you should be happy, even if it isn't your personal favorite use.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1151
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 14 Jun 2018 12:41

It's also about how Walmart is approaching the project. According to some they are secretly meeting with "neighborhood" leaders and I assume Philip Kingston is not being included or flat out ignored. Walmart isn't stupid they know plenty of people don't like them and would rather see the strip sold for something else. Even if Philip is against it they have the upper hand so why bother with someone they consider irrelevant to their plans anyway. The Dallas City Council has a habit of not supporting council members when they object to something in their district so if Walmart needs the council they can depend on south Dallas to vote yes.

User avatar
CRE_Investor
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Jan 2017 08:52

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby CRE_Investor » 14 Jun 2018 12:46

cowboyeagle05 wrote:It's also about how Walmart is approaching the project. According to some they are secretly meeting with "neighborhood" leaders and I assume Philip Kingston is not being included or flat out ignored. Walmart isn't stupid they know plenty of people don't like them and would rather see the strip sold for something else. Even if Philip is against it they have the upper hand so why bother with someone they consider irrelevant to their plans anyway. The Dallas City Council has a habit of not supporting council members when they object to something in their district so if Walmart needs the council they can depend on south Dallas to vote yes.


It's my understanding they just need a building permit to finish out the interior and potentially a permit to operate if the city requires one. Both of those are administrative and require no council input or approval. I wouldn't meet with him either if I were them unless individuals at Walmart enjoy an endless brow beating just for the sake of it.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1151
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 14 Jun 2018 12:51

I personally don't mind him giving them the up and down. I think the neighborhood deserves better but hey I also know they have the rights to do what they are doing so besides showing my displeasure at their plans that's about all I can do. It's not like the neighborhood would ever approve a 5 story apartment block here with ground retail space. Any future development would have to be maybe townhouses on most of the lot with some sort of minor amount of retail facing Greenville to get approval from neighborhood leaders.

User avatar
Matt777
Posts: 311
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 09:10

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Matt777 » 14 Jun 2018 15:03

cowboyeagle05 wrote:It's not like the neighborhood would ever approve a 5 story apartment block here with ground retail space. Any future development would have to be maybe townhouses on most of the lot with some sort of minor amount of retail facing Greenville to get approval from neighborhood leaders.


We don't know that. I don't think a well-designed apartment building with ground floor retail would receive too much backlash in this spot. In fact, cater-corner to the Walmart site is the upcoming 475 unit Alexan Lower Greenville which received the Lower Greenville Neighborhood Association's seal of approval with the quote "We look forward to seeing this project completed and welcoming our new neighbors at the Alexan Lower Greenville."
Source: https://lgna.net/2017/01/19/update-on-vickery-towers/

User avatar
jrd1964
Posts: 390
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 06:38

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby jrd1964 » 14 Jun 2018 19:06

How do you have a small-format Sam's (or even Costco for that matter)? Only the best-selling items and the rest have to be delivered/ordered? SMH.....

User avatar
willyk
Posts: 378
Joined: 18 Oct 2016 20:20

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby willyk » 15 Jun 2018 05:29

My neighborhood whined and whined about a Wal-Mart going in and people put up “Stop Wal-Mart” signs. Wal-Mart built a nice store that fit the neighborhood, everybody shops there and the whiners are forgotten.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1151
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 15 Jun 2018 08:28

Matt777 wrote:
cowboyeagle05 wrote:It's not like the neighborhood would ever approve a 5 story apartment block here with ground retail space. Any future development would have to be maybe townhouses on most of the lot with some sort of minor amount of retail facing Greenville to get approval from neighborhood leaders.


We don't know that. I don't think a well-designed apartment building with ground floor retail would receive too much backlash in this spot. In fact, cater-corner to the Walmart site is the upcoming 475 unit Alexan Lower Greenville which received the Lower Greenville Neighborhood Association's seal of approval with the quote "We look forward to seeing this project completed and welcoming our new neighbors at the Alexan Lower Greenville."
Source: https://lgna.net/2017/01/19/update-on-vickery-towers/


There is a large part of the story of that project missing. The developer wanted to build something better more urban up to the street. Their other design had fewer units and was more walkable but when the neighborhood pushed back the developer built what they could without having to get city council approval. Instead, they had to build using the layout of the previous development which was suburban in nature. I am sure the development will lease up fine but the neighborhood would kill the project if they could and they couldn't so they made the best of it.

User avatar
Tucy
Posts: 393
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 12:50

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Tucy » 15 Jun 2018 10:33

jrd1964 wrote:How do you have a small-format Sam's (or even Costco for that matter)? Only the best-selling items and the rest have to be delivered/ordered? SMH.....


More or less, I would imagine. Not unlike the small-format Targets.

User avatar
homeworld1031tx
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 12:23

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby homeworld1031tx » 25 Jul 2018 09:55

Has anyone seen the Trammel Crow development? I had high hopes for it as they had multiple tower cranes on the site and went reasonably far below grade for parking, so I was expecting something much, much larger/nicer/denser than what we ended up with. Even worse, the units that front Greenville look like rural ski lodges and don't fit in with any of the surroundings at all.

User avatar
Thymant
Posts: 130
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 17:23

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Thymant » 25 Jul 2018 12:32

homeworld1031tx wrote:Has anyone seen the Trammel Crow development? I had high hopes for it as they had multiple tower cranes on the site and went reasonably far below grade for parking, so I was expecting something much, much larger/nicer/denser than what we ended up with. Even worse, the units that front Greenville look like rural ski lodges and don't fit in with any of the surroundings at all.


Image
Alexan Lower Greenville by Thymant, on Flickr

Image
Alexan Lower Greenville by Thymant, on Flickr


Didn't like it at first but it is different than most apartments going up in the region and think the ski lodge look fits in nicely with the dense oak trees that can be found in the surrounding areas. I also feel the design is aiming to be more neighborhood friendly as in these aparments are not trying to change anything from how they are. You can also see evidence of this by advocation from TCR for local companies and charities on the construction fence which I haven't seen on any of their other projects.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1151
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 25 Jul 2018 12:44

Keep in mind the neighborhood groups fought this project tooth and nail so TCR had to build what they were allowed to build on the current footprint from the previous senior retirement center. The neighborhood groups were not interested in a bunch of the Uptown stuff showing up and causing traffic so they refused to accept most of what TCR wanted. TCR instead built what they were already legally allowed to get away with current zoning and plats at city hall for this property. I believe they are going for a craftsman style to fit in with the homes in the area.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 897
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 25 Jul 2018 15:04

Meh...This sucks. Both the asetheic and the neighborhood association.

User avatar
eburress
Posts: 302
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:13

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby eburress » 25 Jul 2018 15:41

I think the craftsman style is fine. It's not my personal cup of tea but it fits in well with the rest of the neighborhood. I do agree though about the neighborhood association sucking and wish more could have been done with this project.

DPatel304
Posts: 911
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby DPatel304 » 25 Jul 2018 15:55

I'll have to see this one in person to really judge, but it's definitely looking underwhelming. This won't happen anytime soon, but there is still room to grow to the south where Greenville/Henderson/Ross all converge.

User avatar
willyk
Posts: 378
Joined: 18 Oct 2016 20:20

Re: Lower Greenville Development

Postby willyk » 25 Jul 2018 22:29

Reminds me of how much they disappointed everyone with Goat Hill.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Login