cowboyeagle05 wrote: My next question will be who owns the giant surface parking at Elm and Harwood? That will be much more attractive with the new park and this development.
mdg109 wrote:Which retail space next to the Majestic has been leased?
lakewoodhobo wrote:Cambria hotel lobby (restaurant?) looking close to finished.
45546769-889A-4AB7-864D-8D35338D535A.jpeg
exelone31 wrote:lakewoodhobo wrote:Cambria hotel lobby (restaurant?) looking close to finished.
45546769-889A-4AB7-864D-8D35338D535A.jpeg
Wow! That looks very sharp
lakewoodhobo wrote:Cambria hotel lobby (restaurant?) looking close to finished.
45546769-889A-4AB7-864D-8D35338D535A.jpeg
Developers redoing an art deco downtown Dallas landmark are just two weeks away from a grand opening. The 23-story Tower Petroleum Building on Elm Street is being converted into a Cambria Hotel.
The hotel adjoins the 18-story Corrigan Tower, which Kirtland has renovated into 150 apartments with ground floor retail space.
The Cambria Downtown Dallas hotel in the Tower Petroleum Building will have 177 rooms, a full-service restaurant and bar plus meeting space.
jrd1964 wrote:I drove by there a few nights ago, and there's no 'Cambria' or 'Cambria Hotel' outdoor sign yet. The only way to see its branding at a glance are flat-screen monitors placed at several of the front windows.
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:jrd1964 wrote:I drove by there a few nights ago, and there's no 'Cambria' or 'Cambria Hotel' outdoor sign yet. The only way to see its branding at a glance are flat-screen monitors placed at several of the front windows.
They do advertising on the on court Ad panels for Dallas Mavericks home games.
exelone31 wrote:I don't think this will happen, but it would be so cool if this kick-started a trend of other businesses along Elm to put blade signs back up to match this and the Majestic.
cowboyeagle05 wrote:A unique special purpose district had to be created just to get this sign to happen inside of an existing historic district you would think would allow it in some form. It sounded like a process the city won't be repeating.
exelone31 wrote:cowboyeagle05 wrote:A unique special purpose district had to be created just to get this sign to happen inside of an existing historic district you would think would allow it in some form. It sounded like a process the city won't be repeating.
It's so ironic, because it seems like it's easier to throw a wrecking ball at an old building than it is to try to restore some of the historical look/feel with a sign.
dukemeredith wrote:From the TOWERS article linked above, it seems the difficulty with this particular blade sign was because Tower Petroleum is within the Harwood Historic District — which only covers a block or so of Elm Street. Presumably, buildings further down Elm not within the historic district wouldn’t have nearly as much trouble erecting similar blade signs.
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:I don't like "i". A capital letter would look better imo.
Tivo_Kenevil wrote:I don't like "i". A capital letter would look better imo.
Did this building used to awnings? It looks like it is missing something..
DPatel304 wrote:Tivo_Kenevil wrote:I don't like "i". A capital letter would look better imo.
I didn't even notice this until you pointed it out. Now it's going to forever bother me..haha.
cowboyeagle05 wrote:The sad thing is when Cambria is no longer the flag for this hotel will the next owner update the sign or remove it? Should have gone with TOWER. Also, I believe they got approval for taking the bus lane away with plans for a patio on Elm with wider sidewalks with trees. The key seems to be 1700 Pacific isn't doing too hot on its leases and isn't planned for any remodeling anytime soon and we kinda need them to extend the curb as well. Thanksgiving Tower did because the city used it as a bargaining chip in incentives for their remodel. I imagine they would also need the Majestic to extend their curb and that would be a city-funded project there. I am hoping the Drever extends theirs.
cowboyeagle05 wrote:The sad thing is when Cambria is no longer the flag for this hotel will the next owner update the sign or remove it? Should have gone with TOWER.
cowboyeagle05 wrote:Also, I believe they got approval for taking the bus lane away with plans for a patio on Elm with wider sidewalks with trees.
tanzoak wrote:cowboyeagle05 wrote:Also, I believe they got approval for taking the bus lane away with plans for a patio on Elm with wider sidewalks with trees.
Taking out the bus lane? Wth..
God forbid we take out the 7 metered parking spaces on the other side instead. Dedicated transit lanes? Nahhhhh, all hail the parking god! The idea that out of 1 bus lane, 3 travel lanes, and 1 parking lane, the bus lane is the one that needs to go is pathetic.
tanzoak wrote:Oh thank god. When you wrote “taking the bus lane away” I thought you meant remove rather than move. Do you know if they’re taking out a travel lane or the parking lane, or just narrowing all the remaining lanes?
Just because DART/the City is bad about enforcement, that doesn’t mean the dedicated transit lane should be removed. All they have to do is put cameras on the front of the buses and have it take a picture of the license if there’s someone in front of them in the lane. If people start getting fined for violations, that’ll clear it right up.
cowboyeagle05 wrote:My question is dedicated lanes, in this case, the right solution? We see dedicated lanes for buses in other cities where the lane is better marked so I am simply asking should DART and the City maintain the concept here in this iteration along Elm? Is it appropriate to have a dedicated bus lane in a three travel lane format for example? Should it have colored paint like the city seems to refuse to want to do all over the city etc? I am just calling into question whether the design of the road previously should be maintained when we are narrowing and evolving it towards new functions.
Users browsing this forum: CTroyMathis, Matt777 and 14 guests