Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

WFW (Aledo) - Morning Star Ranch


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 PLS

PLS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 299 posts

Posted 26 March 2007 - 09:03 AM

736-acre west Fort Worth development in the works
Marsha Brown - March 26, 2007

Dallas-based development company WY Atlantis has acquired 736 acres in west Fort Worth and is planning a mixed-use development that will add more than 2,000 homes and 50 to 75 acres of retail to the area.

“Its close proximity to employment and the fact that it’s located within the Aledo Independent School District were what we found most attractive about this property – really the deciding factors in the

purchase,” said Allen Jones, principal at WY Atlantis. “That’s a big plus. The people who make up the demographic that we’re hoping to reach with this development are people [who] want access to employment and a great school district.”

The city of Fort Worth has approved preliminary plans for MorningStar Ranch at Mary’s Creek,

located near Interstate 20 and FM 3325, within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Fort Worth and the Aledo Independent School District.

Jones and partner Wyatt Henderson, along with Dallas-based Westmount Realty Capital LLC and The Yucaipa Cos., a Los Angeles-based private equity investment firm, are combining efforts for the development. Construction of its infrastructure is scheduled to begin within the next six months, while homes are expected to be ready for purchase and occupancy by early 2008.


Mixed-use appeal

The commercial section of MorningStar Ranch will be an essential element to the development, according to Jones, since there are no grocery stores, restaurants or other retailers in the area. Until recently, there was nothing for miles except ranch land, Jones said.

“There is a lot of demand for retail out there,” he said. “We’ll be looking closely at the retail portion of our development. We aren’t sure exactly just how much of the property we want to devote to retail, but we do know that in this area there is a great need for it. We don’t know precisely what retail, but we’ll make that determination within the next few weeks.”

On the residential end, homes will range from $180,000 to $400,000 plus, according to Jones.

Surrounded by about 140 acres of open spaces, the community will feature a clubhouse with an Olympic-size pool, an elementary school site and a trail system weaving throughout the property, Jones said. He expects the development to appeal to families with school-age children.

MorningStar Ranch is not the only development WY Atlantis has in the works.

“This is the first of several purchases currently under way by WY Atlantis in a number of Texas cities,” said Cliff Booth, president of Westmount Realty Capital. “We anticipate announcing another sizable land purchase [soon] involving another large tract … of land. The MorningStar Ranch at Mary’s Creek represents the WY Atlantis partnership’s initial acquisition.”

Jones and Henderson are former principals and co-founders of Marlin Atlantis, a development firm that was also based in Dallas. That company developed Cross Oak Ranch in Denton County, Plantation in Burleson, Trinity Falls in McKinney and Terrace Landing in Fort Worth.



#2 PLS

PLS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 299 posts

Posted 26 March 2007 - 09:06 AM

i've worked with alan and wyatt before and they do a first rate job. their new firm will be growing a lot in the next few years, keep an eye on them.

#3 JKC

JKC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 26 March 2007 - 01:49 PM

QUOTE(PLS @ Mar 26 2007, 10:06 AM) View Post

i've worked with alan and wyatt before and they do a first rate job. their new firm will be growing a lot in the next few years, keep an eye on them.

Where was that article from?

#4 PLS

PLS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 299 posts

Posted 26 March 2007 - 01:58 PM

QUOTE(JKC @ Mar 26 2007, 02:49 PM) View Post

QUOTE(PLS @ Mar 26 2007, 10:06 AM) View Post

i've worked with alan and wyatt before and they do a first rate job. their new firm will be growing a lot in the next few years, keep an eye on them.

Where was that article from?



fw business press

#5 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wedgwood

Posted 26 March 2007 - 08:33 PM

And so the prettiest, best example of native prairie close to town turns into more suburban generica.

Great view, though.

*sigh*


#6 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 17 November 2015 - 06:19 AM

I'm wondering if this is the same development that was announced in 2007...ST article by Sandra Baker.

 

 

http://www.star-tele...le44984577.html



#7 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 11 December 2015 - 06:07 PM

What will this part of Fort Worth be commonly called in the future?

Is Morningstar large enough to have its own name (e.g. Ridgmar)?

 

I looked at the Walsh Ranch web site and seemed they might be migrating toward just calling it "Walsh". 

 

I just don't want this to be referred to as Aledo, because it isn't.  In Far North Fort Worth, there is confusion it seems with the Keller name - because of Keller ISD zone that goes well into Fort Worth.  So many just say "Keller" because of the school and it explains "east of I-35, north of 820". 



#8 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,678 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 December 2015 - 10:01 PM

What will this part of Fort Worth be commonly called in the future?

Is Morningstar large enough to have its own name (e.g. Ridgmar)?

 

I looked at the Walsh Ranch web site and seemed they might be migrating toward just calling it "Walsh". 

 

I just don't want this to be referred to as Aledo, because it isn't.  In Far North Fort Worth, there is confusion it seems with the Keller name - because of Keller ISD zone that goes well into Fort Worth.  So many just say "Keller" because of the school and it explains "east of I-35, north of 820". 

 

The cynic in me thinks that just like Alliance, the people out there, many who shall be new to the region, will think of themselves as Aledoians, will vote against mass transit, demand major street improvement every 2-5 years, and feel as though they have very little in common with "Looped Fort Worth" <_<



#9 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 03 January 2016 - 02:39 AM

You know, I just had a thought. Well, I had it while I was at Ridgmar today.

If they're going to start building more suburban development west of 820, then that means that the very outdated section of I-30 is going to get the 35/NTTA treatment, or at the very least more serious talks about it....

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#10 Mr_Brightside526

Mr_Brightside526

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Linwood
  • Interests:Fort Worth

Posted 04 January 2016 - 01:02 PM

You know, I just had a thought. Well, I had it while I was at Ridgmar today.

If they're going to start building more suburban development west of 820, then that means that the very outdated section of I-30 is going to get the 35/NTTA treatment, or at the very least more serious talks about it....

 

I brought this up one morning at a mentoring breakfast with the Assistant VP of Marketing for The T (the irony is that we talked more about vision than marketing) and his response is they weren't focused on the potential growth out west but rather with what we need now (gas and rubber solutions, ugh). This blows my mind because what we need is a transportation system focused on the future. It is so exhausting to watch the city play catch up with areas that have grown too fast for their infrastructure.

 

You are right, there is going to need to be some serious expansion between Walsh and the CBD to ensure the western developments stay appealing and the city center stays accessible.



#11 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,678 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 05 January 2016 - 12:32 PM

You know, I just had a thought. Well, I had it while I was at Ridgmar today.

If they're going to start building more suburban development west of 820, then that means that the very outdated section of I-30 is going to get the 35/NTTA treatment, or at the very least more serious talks about it....

 

 

You are right, there is going to need to be some serious expansion between Walsh and the CBD to ensure the western developments stay appealing and the city center stays accessible.

 

I agree with both of you.  I predict that there are, if not already on the drawing board at NTTA, plans for the "Lonesome Dove Trail HOV". :D



#12 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:25 PM

 

What will this part of Fort Worth be commonly called in the future?

Is Morningstar large enough to have its own name (e.g. Ridgmar)?

 

I looked at the Walsh Ranch web site and seemed they might be migrating toward just calling it "Walsh". 

 

I just don't want this to be referred to as Aledo, because it isn't.  In Far North Fort Worth, there is confusion it seems with the Keller name - because of Keller ISD zone that goes well into Fort Worth.  So many just say "Keller" because of the school and it explains "east of I-35, north of 820". 

 

The cynic in me thinks that just like Alliance, the people out there, many who shall be new to the region, will think of themselves as Aledoians, will vote against mass transit, demand major street improvement every 2-5 years, and feel as though they have very little in common with "Looped Fort Worth" <_<

 

Or, maybe, if a resident living in Walsh Ranch in 20 years is asked while out of town "where are you from?" Reply: "Fort Worth". 

When asked what part of Fort Worth, their response "Aledo". 

I suspect the area served by Aledo ISD will have a similar nomenclature as what we use today: "West Side of Fort Worth" or Southwest Fort Worth" 

 

Yes, it is very important that Fort Worth work to ensure that its outlying districts (as well as nearby suburbs) associate closely with Fort Worth economically and socially. 

Otherwise we risk what was mentioned: those residents are likely to vote against initiatives that are good for Fort Worth as a whole because they see themselves as isolated.

 

How do we make sure they associate? 

Off the top of my head:

1) Prominent signage that reminds people (sign toppers on street signs),

2) Post office addresses - dont know how to govern this but when someone's mailing address is in Aledo, Keller, Roanoake, etc, that sends a strong message about where they are. 

3) Good quality transportation and services that connect them to the central city core. 

4) Other physical identity - personally I think that strong landscape ordinance, tree preservation, zoning ordinances that promote greater walkability - these are things that the surrounding suburbs will not have - will signal inclusion in the city and provide better long term property value and quality of life. 



#13 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 06 January 2016 - 11:18 AM

The simplest solution of them all is for Fort Worth to quit extending its boundaries so far and let these people that want to live out in the country incorporate as their own city/town.  Then we wouldn't have to worry about making sure they feel like they are part of the city that by living so far from the center of, they obviously are not a part of.



#14 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 06 January 2016 - 06:04 PM

Agreed !


Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#15 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:37 AM

Of course people who settle in Aledo are going to call themselves "Aledoans."  Aledo is a city in Parker County, just ask their mayor.  But I for one favor Fort Worth expanding it's corporate limits.  It's not only a question of the city's identity, but also to minimize the number of suburban community stakeholders who make mass transit decisions.  Fort Worth has wisely done what Dallas should have done years ago; instead that city finds itself landlocked and surrounded by numerous satellite communities in every direction.  ​​



#16 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 January 2016 - 12:45 PM

Expanding the city's ETJ and annexation in the name of city identity and issues of being landlocked has a far greater consequence that plays right into your mass transit issue. In Fort Worth's case, they have rampantly expanded and annexed land whose property value is far below the money it takes to provide services to those areas. The city's budget has suffered and street repairs and a whole mountain of city services have lagged far behind where they should. I would go so far as to say that rampant annexation has been just as detrimental to the city's financial situation as the often blamed retirement system. Think about how different Fort Worth might look if investment had been made to the inner core instead of trying to build enough roof tops to allow someone to walk from the loop to Denton County or Parker County without touching the ground. Sure, Fort Worth might be able to make sovereign decisions about mass transit, but they don't have much means to afford it.

#17 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:28 PM

 

What will this part of Fort Worth be commonly called in the future?

Is Morningstar large enough to have its own name (e.g. Ridgmar)?

 

I looked at the Walsh Ranch web site and seemed they might be migrating toward just calling it "Walsh". 

 

I just don't want this to be referred to as Aledo, because it isn't.  In Far North Fort Worth, there is confusion it seems with the Keller name - because of Keller ISD zone that goes well into Fort Worth.  So many just say "Keller" because of the school and it explains "east of I-35, north of 820". 

 

The cynic in me thinks that just like Alliance, the people out there, many who shall be new to the region, will think of themselves as Aledoians, will vote against mass transit, demand major street improvement every 2-5 years, and feel as though they have very little in common with "Looped Fort Worth" <_<

 

 

I understand the dilemma of expansion beyond the means to provide the necessary services to the outlying areas.  But if you read the above passage ("The cynic...") surely you can see the contradiction here.  If people don't want to live in Fort Worth so they live near Aledo, they cry about lack of city services yet vote against mass transit which would address the vital service of efficient transportation.  Also obviously efficient transportation means quick response by police, fire, and other emergency services.  You can't live outside the major metropolitan area, then refuse to cooperate with it on major issues such as transit, then expect that city to provide you with necessary services (when, say, Aledo hasn't the financial budget to do it).



#18 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:46 PM

It's not just city services in the outlying areas that suffer.

#19 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 07 January 2016 - 03:39 PM

Fort Worth was in a Catch 22.

 

If it did not annex the area allowed by state law, the land could be incorporated by other small municipalities.  Those municipalities would wind up competing with Fort Worth for various things, most particularly commercial uses seen as economic development.  Dallas vs Plano is an example.  Plano and Frisco throw dollars at companies in the city of Dallas to move across the city line.  Dallas is not allowed to use the same economic development incentives as Frisco and Plano because of Dallas' size.

 

Also, for long term urban planning, to try to stitch the urbanized areas together (which the entire ETJ will wind up being whether or not FW annexes it), FW can exercise its planning over it or allow it to happen with zero planning, which certainly will not result in something that works well in the long run - disconnected, poorly planned roads and infrastructure.

 

While it has near term pain, I believe the annexation is a wise move in the long run - over the next several decades it will be viewed as wise. 



#20 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,324 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 January 2016 - 03:50 PM

Also, for long term urban planning, to try to stitch the urbanized areas together (which the entire ETJ will wind up being whether or not FW annexes it), FW can exercise its planning over it or allow it to happen with zero planning, which certainly will not result in something that works well in the long run - disconnected, poorly planned roads and infrastructure.


Not completely disagreeing with you, but can I get an example of where this has happened? The suburbs you described earlier north of Dallas aren't perfect, but they all look alike and don't really look like that.

#21 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 08 January 2016 - 12:10 AM

 

Also, for long term urban planning, to try to stitch the urbanized areas together (which the entire ETJ will wind up being whether or not FW annexes it), FW can exercise its planning over it or allow it to happen with zero planning, which certainly will not result in something that works well in the long run - disconnected, poorly planned roads and infrastructure.


Not completely disagreeing with you, but can I get an example of where this has happened? The suburbs you described earlier north of Dallas aren't perfect, but they all look alike and don't really look like that.

 

 

Also, how would you rate Fort Worth's execution in planning and development within its expanded ETJ, and how confident are you that they will control future development in a way that ensures the city's core benefits? I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's not uncommon to see an organization grab available assets to ensure control over them and then plan poorly or execute poorly, resulting in a lot of expense with little real benefit. And I may tend slightly to cynicism about government economic planning.



#22 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 08 January 2016 - 11:42 AM

Who has the better transit system in the area?  Fort Worth, which controls everything, or Dallas, who has to coordinate with partners?

 

I think it's very easy to compare these 2 maps.

Dallas

Fort Worth

 

And then I would take a look at places like Boston, D.C., San Francisco, Portland, or even L.A.  It appears that all of them were able to work out all the issues amongst the different cities to build what on the surface appears to be decent transit systems.  And yet we can't even get our act together to do a study.



#23 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 08 January 2016 - 02:56 PM

Who has the better transit system in the area?  Fort Worth, which controls everything, or Dallas, who has to coordinate with partners?

 

I think it's very easy to compare these 2 maps.

Dallas

Fort Worth

 

And then I would take a look at places like Boston, D.C., San Francisco, Portland, or even L.A.  It appears that all of them were able to work out all the issues amongst the different cities to build what on the surface appears to be decent transit systems.  And yet we can't even get our act together to do a study.

 

Of course we do have plans... 

newrrcs.jpg

 

Unfortunately, the majority of what you see is still "on the drawing board" and not in the construction phase. One of the things I do hate about this city is the lack push for more transit. I think it's beginning to change... the recent "T" meetings I've been to seem to be showing signs of improvement and all. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#24 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 10 January 2016 - 01:05 AM

Who has the better transit system in the area?  Fort Worth, which controls everything, or Dallas, who has to coordinate with partners?

 

I think it's very easy to compare these 2 maps.

Dallas

Fort Worth

 

And then I would take a look at places like Boston, D.C., San Francisco, Portland, or even L.A.  It appears that all of them were able to work out all the issues amongst the different cities to build what on the surface appears to be decent transit systems.  And yet we can't even get our act together to do a study.

 

Fort Worth has suburbs just like Dallas does.

 

The problem is voters in most Fort Worth suburbs rejected transit, while voters in most Dallas suburbs approved transit.


- Dylan





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users