75 replies to this topic

[cbellomy]

Um, Fort Worth has this thing called "The T" that sends buses around at an affordable rate. It also has commuter rail and is about to add more. Plus there is planning for light rail, or at least streetcars, underway. Public transportation, all of it.

Also, I can get from I-35W to I-20 on North Side Dr. / University Dr. / Granbury Rd. at rush hour in the time it would take me to drive from 114 to Precinct Line on 1709 at the same hour. 114 and 35W are basically a draw.

I've been misconstrued here as being a FW cheerleader in this thread, but truthfully that's not it at all. I'm an urban cheerleader. All else being equal, someone who lives and works near the urban core has a higher quality of life than the suburban commuter, at less external expense to the taxpayer. That's true for Austin vs. Cedar Park, it's true for Dallas vs. Frisco, it's true here.

To the extent that Southlake, or the NE Tarrant area in general, can become a self-contained community with its own mix of employers, residences and retail, it can become a desirable place to live -- especially if it decreases its dependence on the automobile and the pollution and congestion that implies. I just don't see that really being in the plans there. People move up there because they want to be in a bedroom community away from all the urban awfulness. That's the thing that just doesn't work, in my view.

[Keller Pirate]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can drive from 114 to Davis on 1709 at rush hour in about 10-13 minutes. (Precinct Line doesn't run as far North as 1709) One of the reasons is that the signals are sequenced, something badly lacking in Ft Worth. As far as the T goes, are you a regular user? Those busses are nice but I haven't seen one anywhere near this monster city just west of me. The TRE would be nice too but how often do you ride it?

Light rail, well show me the funding, drawing lines on a map is easy.

I have seen the numbers on commuting and Keller commuters average 35 minutes. Ft Worth commuters average 20 minutes, but in comparing the number of actual commuters, Keller is in the hundreds and FT Worth is in the 10's of thousands, in other words, Keller isn't even a pimple on Ft Worth’s ass. Ft Worth is the major contributor to pollution in the area, not the little communities that are surrounded by Ft Worth sprawl. The Ft Worth commuters aren't on the bus either.

I was at the Keller city council meeting this week and they had had someone there from the North Texas Regional Transportation Council and she said NTX was meeting EPA ozone requirements. In fact, she said pollution has been decreasing here for the last ten years. This defies logic based on the population growth, but hey, I'll take it.

Who says DTFW is the urban core? Ft Worth is one of the least dense cities in the county. Heck, Watauga and Haltom City have far greater density than Ft Worth. Don't even ask about Blue Mound. DFW airport is widely touted as the economic engine of the area, maybe it is the urban core, not sparsely populated DTFW. I even know one crazy guy (good crazy) that commutes from DTFW to Southlake to work.

That lack of density is going to hurt when you try to get money from the feds to pay for the light rail you don’t have.

Oh, the taxes in Keller are half the tax rate in Ft Worth, I hope it is twice as nice down there but you could never find anyone out here that wouldn't think you lacked intellectual integrity if you did.

Out here in the little towns we really do wish the best for and love Ft Worth even if you don't feel the same way about us.

[cberen1]

Cities like Keller, Southlake and Grapevine, just to name a few near me, didn't start out as suburban, they were rural farming communities. Now they have grown to medium sized communities with well defined limits. None of the three I mentioned are going to get much bigger, land wise or population wise. They are self governed, have lower taxes and better infrastructure than their bigger neighbor, Ft Worth.

If these towns had not incorporated they now would just be part of the Ft Worth sprawl. I believe the residents of these communities are better off than residents in Ft Worth that live the same distance from the city center. In fact Ft Worth as a whole is at risk by continuing to sprawl outward. Everyone in Ft Worth is paying for it with higher taxes and higher debt.

So, are Keller, Southlake and Grapevine sustainable in their current format? Or maybe a better phrase would be sustainably self sufficient. As the construction from the last 15 years ages and the demographics change, can those cities maintain the lower taxes, superior infrastructure, etc. ?

I would argue that all three are enjoying the benefits of a relatively homogeneous population and lots of new construction. Everything is still new and shiny. As things change, which they inevitably will, they'll tax and spend as they go. Grapevine and Keller moreso than Southlake.

But, then again, being almost entirely populated by a higher than median income relatively homogenous people, maybe they won't have to raise taxes to support all the other "stuff" that Fort Worth has to support.

[Dcurtis]

I'm an urban cheerleader. All else being equal, someone who lives and works near the urban core has a higher quality of life than the suburban commuter, at less external expense to the taxpayer.

That's extremely subjective. I would rather die than leave my downtown (Dallas) home and move to Frisco or Southlake. But try telling a Southlake resident with their large newish home, unblighted safe streets, new shiny shopping centers, and almost no minority, highly rated PUBLIC school district that their quality of life would improve if they moved to inner FW and rode the T to work. This lifestyle is well worth the commute to these folks.

[dustin]

I think that we all agree that Fort Worth's sprawl problem is bad. I think that we all recognize that it exists. I dont think that, in this argument, it is appropriate to call watauga more dense than FW. I think most of us are taking, predominantly, about the CBD and its immediate areas, not alliance and mira vista.

I agree with you KP that Seaside and others are heralded by the Congress for New Urbanism. I am not disputing that they aren't pristine examples of the principles in their purest form. However, I believe that these aren't the best examples of the possibilities or the practice of New Urbanism. I don't see any net social benefit of building these developments at which only the richest can afford (see Seaside). With STS, every housing option currently is around $600k and I dont see them adding affordable housing any time soon.

As I said before, a multi-nucleated metroplex is basically unavoidable. I think that Southlake and Keller have potential, they just have a long way to go before they approach beneficial in my eyes. I would love to see good numbers on how many people actually live in Southlake and the like and what their commute times are vs people in the urban core of FW.

and almost no minority

this is what breaks my heart. Everywhere we look people are touting how much we have grown towards racial equality, but then you turn on the news and Arlington and Benbrook both have race crime problems. Maybe we should call the suburbs free market racism.

[hannerhan]

this is what breaks my heart. Everywhere we look people are touting how much we have grown towards racial equality, but then you turn on the news and Arlington and Benbrook both have race crime problems. Maybe we should call the suburbs free market racism.

I'm sorry, but I think that's a load of crap. These are a few ISOLATED incidents you're talking about. I agree that it's terrible, but this isn't a trend or anything (local race crimes). I lived in the suburbs in North Fort Worth for 4 years and we had Hispanics, African American, Caucasian, Asian, all in our neighborhood and it was fine.

Sometimes African Americans and Hispanics want to be around people who they can relate to. I know plenty of them who could afford to buy a home in Southlake, but they don't because Southlake is full of white people, and it's not a place that they're familiar with. It's not that they're being kept out, it's that they're staying out. There are plenty of upscale suburbs in places like Atlanta or San Antonio or even Dallas where you will see that the minorities are the majority.

[Tacoma]

I think its unfair to say the suburbs around here have no sense of community and that the people are isolated. They may be isolated from Fort Worth or Dallas, but just as much as each of those cities is isolated from the other.

Many suburbs (Keller, Southlake, Grapevine, Euless, Colleyville, Bedford, Burleson, etc) rally together around a number of issues. I would venture to say that our suburbs create more social interaction than any big city in the DFW area.

Rallying behind the local high school, getting together for the suburb's Christmas parade and even neighborhood block parties add to this. I know many think these neighborhoods are wrong because its all the same people, but that doesn't change the fact that they are socially active. Each of our small suburbs have Chamber of Commerces that allow for more personal interaction than would be seen in a large city.

Its fair to criticize the suburbs for the sprawl issues, but I think its easier to be socially active in your community, feel apart of your community, and develop a sense of community pride in a suburb. The big cities can make it easier to blend in and disappear.

[tjh1]

Rallying behind the local high school, getting together for the suburb's Christmas parade and even neighborhood block parties add to this. I know many think these neighborhoods are wrong because its all the same people, but that doesn't change the fact that they are socially active. Each of our small suburbs have Chamber of Commerces that allow for more personal interaction than would be seen in a large city.

Its fair to criticize the suburbs for the sprawl issues, but I think its easier to be socially active in your community, feel apart of your community, and develop a sense of community pride in a suburb. The big cities can make it easier to blend in and disappear.

I don't think that is entirely accurate. You have just as much opportunity if not more to be involved in the community in big city as in a suburb. City people can rally around their high school (which are often times smaller than the mega schools of the suburbs), join neighborhood associations, country clubs (ok, this is generally only for the upper class), churches, and a plethora of other social groups.

[Tacoma]

Fair enough, but if you have an equal amount of things to socialize with (suburbs also have churches and neighborhoods) how can it be said that suburbs create isolationism? Wouldn't it be easier to become a nameless person in a large urban city than in a suburb?

Maybe not. But I don't think an urban area necessarily creates a social connection. Last time you walked down a busy Manhattan street did anybody say hi? No, because there are too many people for that to be feasible. When I walk around downtown FW sometimes I hear a hello. But my guess is its somebody who doesn't live down there.

[tjh1]

Fair enough, but if you have an equal amount of things to socialize with (suburbs also have churches and neighborhoods) how can it be said that suburbs create isolationism? Wouldn't it be easier to become a nameless person in a large urban city than in a suburb?

Maybe not. But I don't think an urban area necessarily creates a social connection. Last time you walked down a busy Manhattan street did anybody say hi? No, because there are too many people for that to be feasible. When I walk around downtown FW sometimes I hear a hello. But my guess is its somebody who doesn't live down there.

I understand your point, but at least there are streets to walk down in the cities where you come in contact with other people. Suburbs require a person to be so reliant on an automobile that there is rarely a situation where you meet someone walking down a street, because you are forced to drive everywhere.

[dustin]

Tacoma and Hannerham, you are right that there are isolated instances where there are strong examples of social interaction in suburban neighborhood. I dont however think that these examples are normal. In general, suburbs create social isolation. The Streets of Manhattan comparison isnt appropriate either. If you want a more appropriate comparison, try the neighborhoods of Brooklyn, or you could even say an apartment building in Manhattan. I would argue that the potential social network of people in those instances are far greater than that of a suburban neighborhood. You just have personal contact with far more people in the urban model.

Sometimes African Americans and Hispanics want to be around people who they can relate to. I know plenty of them who could afford to buy a home in Southlake, but they don't because Southlake is full of white people, and it's not a place that they're familiar with. It's not that they're being kept out, it's that they're staying out.

And you don't see the problem in this? What happens when you have a kid graduate from high school in a class of 800 with 2 hispanic kids and one african american. Do you think that kid is going to have an adequate understanding of minorities? Even worse what happens when that class of 800 has zero kids below the poverty line. Do you think that that kid is going to understand the world better and how people live?

These are a few ISOLATED incidents you're talking about.

The fact that they are happening at all is a serious problem. The fact that the two that I was talking about involved violence and blatant vandalism made them news worthy. How many instances are there of just verbal discrimination, or even just social discrimination that don't go reported because there isn't a crime or the family chooses not to report it. I imagine it is a far greater number than we would think.

In a dense urban environment, there is more opportunity for diversity. I am not saying that there still isn't going to be predominant neighborhoods of one ethnic majority, but the proximity to other neighborhoods and the relationship between them still offers some chance for diversity.

[PLS]

this thread has gone way off topic... and i don't think the direction we're headed is a positive one. i suggest we refocus this thread quickly.

[Keller Pirate]

So, are Keller, Southlake and Grapevine sustainable in their current format? Or maybe a better phrase would be sustainably self sufficient. As the construction from the last 15 years ages and the demographics change, can those cities maintain the lower taxes, superior infrastructure, etc. ?

I would argue that all three are enjoying the benefits of a relatively homogeneous population and lots of new construction. Everything is still new and shiny. As things change, which they inevitably will, they'll tax and spend as they go. Grapevine and Keller moreso than Southlake.

But, then again, being almost entirely populated by a higher than median income relatively homogenous people, maybe they won't have to raise taxes to support all the other "stuff" that Fort Worth has to support.

I wrote a giant tome to reply to this after considering your questions but I have decided it was too long. I agree with most of what you have here. I also believe that these and other cities can remain self sufficent. Things will change and taxes will go up, no doubt, but I think the cities mentioned will maintain their spread relative to other cities. I base this on my obsevations living in the Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas before coming here. The urban cities outside the core in those metro areas have more or less maintained their places in the pecking order while becoming more diverse in their population.

The fact that the three towns mentioned aren't going grow area wise will benefit them and their citizens. Ft Worth's continued appetite for land and development even farther away from DTFW than where I live will tie up a lot of money building new roads. Keller needs road improvments also, but there is an end in sight to construction.

So, is an urban village on 7th Street good? Yes. Is an urban village on FM 1709 good? I say yes again.

[pallen]

What about the Hometown Development in NRH? How does that fit into this dicussion?

They have plans for more of an urban center, but have added the whole "new old town" feel to the style of architecture.

[PLS]

thought this might provide the spark for some interesting commentary on a thread that was once very spirited...

Inside MXD: What Works, What Doesn't and Why
By Connie Gore

DALLAS-It's a sign of the times: mixed-use development. But, the nuts and bolts of the concept are often misunderstood and misconceived as developers and municipalities ride the coattails of CRE's trend-setting star.
Nearly every development these days in Dallas/Fort Worth, like virtually every other urban and suburban pocket of America, is being built, backfilled and redeveloped with mixed uses. Realistically, some projects will be far more successful than others and some will outright fail.

"It's programming the space to maximize the value of the real estate. It's not just building sticks and bricks, it has to be tailored to where you are," emphasizes Robert Voelker, shareholder of Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr in Dallas and recognized expert in the mixed-use arena.

Another acknowledged industry expert, Galina Tahchieva, partner of Miami-based Duany Plater Zyberk & Co. and its director of town planning, confidently says mixed-use development isn't merely a fad that will fade with time. "It's all over the place, not just the US. Mixed-use development is the bare minimum requirement today," she tells GlobeSt.com. "This is just a baby step to make up for past mistakes. The smaller communities are absolutely right to require it."

But, Tahchieva and Voelker agree that the concept, as it's playing out today in the US, needs to undergo some changes. Whether urban or suburban, a project's success hinges on its flexibility, concentration, affordability and desirability. If it's done smartly, a CBD can attain 24/7 status, which has been proven in foreign cities, and a suburb can contain sprawl by adding mixed-use, stacked space tailored toward its demographics.


Voelker says suburban officials might be reluctant, but they need to consider apartments, with an affordable component, as a viable option for condos in town centers and retail that's not always high-end. Apartments lessen displacement of needed workers and are magnets for a 20-something and over crowd more intent on forging careers than setting down permanent roots in houses or condos. As for the retail, it needs to match the pocketbooks of the local population.

"In my opinion, there are too many town centers going on in Texas. It's the new fad. Some are going to fail, but more are going to be the new hotspots in town," Voelker says. "If you don't change your model, it's going to fail because the retail is going to fail. And if you want to solve some problems that mixed-use is meant to address, mixed-income is something you really need to address."

Ironically, Texas is a laggard in mixed-income thinking because existing laws take away tax credit points for affordable housing projects, according to Voelker. "Until we rethink this whole process in Dallas and Texas, it's going to be incredibly hard to finance or develop mixed-income properties," he says. "You will continue to end up with luxury properties that only the high-income can afford and it will displace more people."

Voelker says condos, particularly luxury branded ones, are exceedingly popular because developers can tack a 15% to 40% premium onto the price. "It allows you to sell at such a premium that it can wipe out debt and equity components so developers end up with huge profits," he explains.

High-end, mixed-use development with an affordable component has been done elsewhere and profitably. Voelker points to the W Hollywood Hotel & Condominiums, situated at the fabled Hollywood and Vine, as a prime example. The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Authority mandated 15% of all apartments and condos to be affordable in the project. Voelker says the developer shifted the full burden to just the apartment component, upped the percentage to 20% and the project hit its goal to become a catalyst for a once-seedy strip. He says there now are more than 3,000 new residential units coming to fruition.

"They didn't want to displace workers, who wanted to still be able to live where they work. This is a perfect model," Voelker says.

Tahchieva says the irony of the mixed-use kingdom is inner cities were once the poorest neighborhoods "and all of a sudden they have the highest price tag" through redevelopment. She, like others in the industry, is concerned city officials aren't always using best practices to keep markets affordable and subsequently sustainable. "We have tools or practices that can be designed with mixed uses, mixed neighborhoods, mixed everything," she says. "We have to learn how to do buildings that are simple, but with longevity, buildings that are durable and flexible enough to adapt or change so they will be sustainable for a long time."

Tahchieva says "Main Street" sustainability is attainable through good management and good design. "The management of a mall is an example of perfect management," she says, explaining all services are available and within walking distance. "This is what our Main Streets need to learn. All these tools are at their disposable. What we can do as planners is to provide the physical vessel for communities."

Mixed-use development won't replace single-use projects. "They will co-exist," Tahchieva says. "In a pure world, things have their place. What we've been striving for is to create some other choices."

Mixed-use development also isn't the Holy Grail. "We will not be able to retrofit every little shopping center at every exit on a freeway," Tahchieva asserts. "The way to identify where retrofitting can happen is concentration, like a mall or an office park. The places of concentration can be counterbalanced in an effective way."

Voelker says densification and all that goes with it, including mass transit, become increasingly important coping tools for fast-growing populations like Texas. "The densification of the US is here to stay. We are going to see mixed-use evolve and get more sophisticated," he says. "Texas is so single-family home oriented. But over time, our thought process is going to evolve."

Among the issues confronting mixed-use developers are the contracts among partners, investors and municipalities. Voelker says the best strategy is to "condominiumize" all project components by creating a master condominium association and add a sub-group dedicated to homeowners. The residential association will be a member of the master association. He says condo owners won't be double paying, but will be paying their fair share for all shared services.

Like all trends, there are red flags for certain issues. Voelker says voting rights in master condominium agreements have become a hot-button issue in mixed-use projects. Yet, they're being more frequently used to facilitate resale down the road and secure construction financing because the projects often than not have one or more developers and sometimes more than one equity backer.

Voelker will be speaking on mixed-use hotel projects at Penn State University's School of Hospitality Management's third international conference on services management May-10 at Penn Stater Conference Hotel in University Park, PA. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, renowned planners with a project on the drawing board in Windcrest, TX and Tahchieva's partners, will be part of the all-star lineup for the National Conference on New Urbanism, slated for April 3-6 at the Austin Convention Center in Austin, TX.

[safly]

Very interested in that Windcrest, TX project.

Practically were SAFLY was raised.

Must be the old WP mall conversion?

[Keller Pirate]

Yesterday the Dallas Morning News had a story about apartment growth in North Texas, this caught my eye.

"The biggest concentrations of apartment starts during the second quarter were in West Plano and Frisco, Lewisville and North Fort Worth."

DFW Number 1 in Apartment Construction
http://www.dallasnew...s.11db657a.html

I suppose the high density folks on the board might cheer this kind of construction, but I am worried. Out here in the wilds 15-20 miles North of DTFW home construction has slowed and vacant property is sprouting giant apartment complexes. I suspect developers are building them because single family home sales are slowing and there are lots of repos on the market and developers have to develop something to keep busy.

As I see it, if you consider the far north sprawl, single family homes are the least offensive sprawl and high density apartments would be the worst sprawl because now you have packed even more people far from the city center. The inadequate roads are even more in adequate as density increases. Then there are schools and public safety issues.

I look at West 7th and it is kind of ironic, what looks like a nice urban concept of mixed use, is a spit in the ocean on the dwelling wise, compared to what is being built way out North. Of course there is no mixed use out here, just apartments in these developments now. The folks that rent these places probably won't be going DTFW to work anyway, maybe they will be people from the Alliance airport and warehouse district and it will make sense.

I don't know what the outcome of this will be, but while the city is patting themselves on the back for the 16 urban villages close to town it seems like they have put the sprawl pedal to the metal.

[AndyN]

I would suppose there is a difference between the high density folks and the sustainable density folks on this board. Although I imagine that there are a few people who want growth for Fort Worth regardless of what form it takes, massive fields of apartments in poorly transit served areas probably aren't looked on favoribly by sustainable development folks or suburban Kellerites. Especially when the freeway is so poorly developed through that corridor.

For those with rental properties, the mortgage mess has been relatively good news as it increases the demand for rental stock. The smart people who are in control with their finances are the ones buying when everyone else is selling or going into foreclosure and then flipping the homes into rentals. We hope to add two rental properties this year (although my family is rather small-fry when it comes to rental properties).

[Keller Pirate]

I would suppose there is a difference between the high density folks and the sustainable density folks on this board. Although I imagine that there are a few people who want growth for Fort Worth regardless of what form it takes, massive fields of apartments in poorly transit served areas probably aren't looked on favoribly by sustainable development folks or suburban Kellerites. Especially when the freeway is so poorly developed through that corridor.

I see your point. You are right about Keller too. We have some developers that want to go big time for apartments also. One developer proposed a mixed use project that really wasn't. They were going to build a 4 story 324 apartment building then put up a strip mall in front of that building on FM 1709 and call it mixed use, work/play. The strip mall would have a coffee shop, nail salon and financial planners. The locals saw through that plan and it looked like the crowds after the Frankenstein monster, pitch forks and torches at city hall. The developer withdrew the plan for a rework. They said they will be coming back with their new plan soon.

In an unrelated story, I read or heard recently that there are 8,000 apartments slated for the I-35 corridor in Ft Worth. They had better start adding the lanes quick. Of course, who knows where those folks will be working, maybe they can just use Blue Mound Rd.

[AndyN]

I see a 20 year +/- cycle between construction of new apartments and their eventual transition into slums. There is noplace I lived in Irving in 1989 that I would want to occupy today.

[McHand]

^^^This is a great point. Cities should consider this before allowing unencumbered apartment construction.

[Samuel]

Postmodern urbanism is a phenomenon based on the return of middle-income people from suburbs to cities. Often this is accompanied by gentrification, the upgrading of older, run-down dwellings into modern and fashionable residences.

In the north, we are also seeing a significant out-migration of African Americans who started moving into northern cities in two huge waves, one following each of the World Wars. By and large, these out-migrants are moving back to the south and to rural and suburban areas.

Postmodern urbanism also includes the concept of "infill." This refers to demolishing older buildings in the city's core and replacing them with new Commercial buildings or "self-contained" urban villages. These urban villages are designed to limit the use of the automobile, thus helping to cut back on the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.

Posemodern urbanism emphasizes new concepts in architecture, living space, and more open channels of communication among people.
1 year ago

[Matt615]

I thought this article was interesting...
http://www.nytimes.c...p&smid=fb-share

[johnfwd]

A very insighful article. I just wonder what a retrenchment back to the inner city environs will mean in terms of population density, new building designs, and alternative transportation. I would guess the cities will become more densely populated, especially downtowns. Wouldn’t that mean, because of the scarcity of developable land the closer to the center, that new skyscraper construction will be necessary as you get closer to downtown? And maybe a more centralized urban area will make rail or other transit networks more economically feasible (less miles to lay track or whatever). Also the new high tech or nano-tech factories are less labor intensive and require less land for construction. Of course, the GE factory that will build locomotives in north FW is one of the exceptions. But there’s also the internet to consider, because it lessens the need for place and travel.

[RD Milhollin]

The S-T editorial Board recognizes that "urban villages" don't have to be urban. The upcoming move of TD Ameritrade's offices from Fort Worth - Alliance to Southlake is not covered in this article... maybe the fodder for a "next in a series" on how urban design attracts people and businesses:

 

http://www.star-tele...le38020539.html

[Doohickie]

The S-T editorial Board recognizes that urban villages" don't have to be urban.

 

That kind of makes sense considering some of the new development going on in what's essentially farmland at Edwards Ranch, not to mention Crystal Springs, Waterside, etc.  Those are all new developments in suburban areas that are fostering an urban feel.