Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Project at Northside & 35 on the Trinity.

Northside

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 14 May 2017 - 09:32 PM

This may have been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything on it. Back in 2013  the Weekly and FWBP were covering a development here with 500 apartment units. I hadn't heard anything since, but it seems there may be some grading work on the site. No idea if something is happening or what. 

 

 



#2 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 15 May 2017 - 09:02 AM

....No idea if something is happening or what.

 

 There always seems to be a cloud of suspicion surrounding the bold ideas that come frm Schuamburg Architecture; and always we hope.



#3 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 07 July 2017 - 02:20 PM

This is on zoning commission.  It consists of 2 phase of two buildings each, all 4 will be 5 floors. A total of 492 units and 748 bedrooms.

 

Q6OAL4w.jpg



#4 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 July 2017 - 02:26 PM

A couple of thoughts:

 

That's a lot of apartments.

 

One of the buildings is right up against 35.  This complex will not be suited for people who are sensitive to freeway noise.

 

I'm surprised this is still a Schaumburg project.



#5 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 07 July 2017 - 05:55 PM

Doesn't seem to be pedestrian friendly at all. Bleh.


- Dylan


#6 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 07 July 2017 - 08:49 PM

Doesn't seem to be pedestrian friendly at all. Bleh.


This is a tough plot to try and make pedestrian friendly.

#7 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:33 AM

This is on zoning commission.  It consists of 2 phase of two buildings each, all 4 will be 5 floors. A total of 492 units and 748 bedrooms.

 

 My preference is for a "Denial".



#8 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 08 July 2017 - 02:59 PM

 

This is on zoning commission.  It consists of 2 phase of two buildings each, all 4 will be 5 floors. A total of 492 units and 748 bedrooms.

 

 My preference is for a "Denial".

 

 

What would make you approve the project?



#9 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 July 2017 - 04:40 PM

 

 My preference is for a "Denial".

 

What would make you approve the project?

 

What comes immediately in mind for "denial" are:

 

#1 - wasteful surface lot parking layout, circa 1980's

#2 - trash bin sites circa 1980's

#3 - poor building orientation  (away from and not facing river)

#4 - Schaumburg, circa 1980's

 

Given some additional time, more critique to come.



#10 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 08 July 2017 - 08:35 PM

 

Doesn't seem to be pedestrian friendly at all. Bleh.


This is a tough plot to try and make pedestrian friendly.

 

 

It's an isolated plot of land that's far away from anything. Bleh.


- Dylan


#11 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 July 2017 - 10:32 PM

 

 

Doesn't seem to be pedestrian friendly at all. Bleh.


This is a tough plot to try and make pedestrian friendly.

 

 

It's an isolated plot of land that's far away from anything. Bleh.

 

 

 It could certainly take better advantage of that plot of land by creating a more engaging riverfront.



#12 CrimsonBuilders

CrimsonBuilders

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 10 July 2017 - 01:28 PM

Funny, we were fee developing this project. Good to see that everyone has the same opinion of the architect that I do. 

 

The property owner decided to go HUD, so we are out. Really strange deal....even for multifamily.



#13 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 10 July 2017 - 01:31 PM

HUD, so low-cost/subsidized housing?


My blog: Doohickie

#14 CrimsonBuilders

CrimsonBuilders

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 10 July 2017 - 02:24 PM

HUD, so low-cost/subsidized housing?

No, just HUD financed.  Market rate product. The equity partner wanted to use their own GC, so we backed out. Plus, I think it's going to have a ton of issues. Not sure why anyone would hire that architect to do 500 units. Baffling. 



#15 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 10 July 2017 - 03:40 PM

This does seem to be... let's say, "out of place" to me.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#16 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 10 July 2017 - 06:02 PM

I wonder what happened to the old thread. 

 

I seem to recall a profile of a cross-section of one of the buildings that showed the parking garage underneath the building, with the flood plain represented by a wavy line - half way up the side of a depiction of a car. Not someplace I would be interested in parking even if it is the 100 year plain.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#17 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 291 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 07:41 AM

I believe this is the original thread. (Moderators, request for merge)



#18 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:05 AM

I wonder what happened to the old thread. 

 

I seem to recall a profile of a cross-section of one of the buildings that showed the parking garage underneath the building, with the flood plain represented by a wavy line - half way up the side of a depiction of a car. Not someplace I would be interested in parking even if it is the 100 year plain.

That wavy line was depicting a 1000 year event, where the water would be flowing over the levy (top of Northside drive). All of the surface parking and the parking below the podiums is at the 100 year elevation.


Erik France


#19 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:15 AM

1000 year event? Don't think I've ever seen that indicated before, but that's a much better situation than a 100 year event. Haven't we had some 500 year events in the past 10 years?


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#20 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:18 AM

 

 

 My preference is for a "Denial".

 

What would make you approve the project?

 

What comes immediately in mind for "denial" are:

 

#1 - wasteful surface lot parking layout, circa 1980's

#2 - trash bin sites circa 1980's

#3 - poor building orientation  (away from and not facing river)

#4 - Schaumburg, circa 1980's

 

Given some additional time, more critique to come.

 

So,

!. What's your solution for the required parking? (it is 1 space per bedroom, plus a few more for the common areas).

2. And your acceptable solution for trash pickup?

3. The better views are of downtown

4. WTF!?!


Erik France


#21 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:23 AM

1000 year event? Don't think I've ever seen that indicated before, but that's a much better situation than a 100 year event. Haven't we had some 500 year events in the past 10 years?

Still have to design for it. I don't think this area has seen anything close to a 500 in quite some time. A couple of years ago, when a lot of the areas were flooding the measurement location just upstream peaked at 7 tenths below the 100' elevation.

 

*edit* I don't even think it was over a 500 year event when Montgomery Wards was under water.

 

All of the occupied spaces are 2' above the project flood elevation established by the Corps of engineers. That's about 12' above the 100 year elevation.


Erik France


#22 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:56 AM

So,

 

 

!. What's your solution for the required parking? (it is 1 space per bedroom, plus a few more for the common areas).

2. And your acceptable solution for trash pickup?

3. The better views are of downtown

4. WTF!?!

 

 

 #1 - The parking is an insurer's nightmare.  A hundred or more cars directly exposed to hailstorms, the Texas summer heat or the occasional ice storm; not a pleasant thought.

 

 #2 - the optics of trash bins filled to the brim and surrounding debris/furniture/mattresses would not be an amenity, just the opposite.

 

#3 - A better view/connection with the river since it is the river that is the immediate asset to the project; not Downtown.

 

#4 - Calm down.  My cynicism stems from what I have seen in the past about this architectural firm. If you don't know about the architect's track record, then perhaps you should investigate their past and promised projects; not much success.



#23 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:59 AM

 

So,

 

 

!. What's your solution for the required parking? (it is 1 space per bedroom, plus a few more for the common areas).

2. And your acceptable solution for trash pickup?

3. The better views are of downtown

4. WTF!?!

 

 

 #1 - The parking is an insurer's nightmare.  A hundred or more cars directly exposed to hailstorms, the Texas summer heat or the occasional ice storm; not a pleasant thought.

 

 #2 - the optics of trash bins filled to the brim and surrounding debris/furniture/mattresses would not be an amenity, just the opposite.

 

#3 - A better view/connection with the river since it is the river that is the immediate asset to the project; not Downtown.

 

#4 - Calm down.  If you don't know about the architect's track record, then perhaps you should investigate their past and promised projects; not much success.

 

1. Still no solution

2. still no solution, besides they are in opaque enclusures. Trash chutes in the building.

3. The river view isn't that great in that location.

4. I know the track record! I've been with Ken for the last 24 years.


Erik France


#24 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 11 July 2017 - 11:17 AM

 

1000 year event? Don't think I've ever seen that indicated before, but that's a much better situation than a 100 year event. Haven't we had some 500 year events in the past 10 years?

Still have to design for it. I don't think this area has seen anything close to a 500 in quite some time. A couple of years ago, when a lot of the areas were flooding the measurement location just upstream peaked at 7 tenths below the 100' elevation.

 

*edit* I don't even think it was over a 500 year event when Montgomery Wards was under water.

 

All of the occupied spaces are 2' above the project flood elevation established by the Corps of engineers. That's about 12' above the 100 year elevation.

 

 

Maybe I am thinking of Midland. I'm pretty sure someone has had a 500 in the last 10 years.

 

They must be getting a map revision, because you normally can't build in the floodway and I'd say a majority of their site is solidly in the floodway, much less the 100 year floodplain. This is a curious project for me. 

 

DOLCE%20VITA%20RIVERSIDE.JPG

 

Of course, these conditions are pre-bypass channel and downstream Gateway park storage, etc. I wonder how much of their engineering relies on the Panther Island Project being completed.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#25 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 11:50 AM

There is another revision to the floodmap forthcoming, mostly just tweaking the floodway lines. That was one of the holdups in getting the plat approved. I was surprised that all the entities would let it be developed as well. The Corps was mostly concerned about the valley storage then anything. I'm sure some of the hydrology design took the bypass into account. I don't know exactly how much, that's what civil engineers are for.

 

That exhibit showing a water level you remembered was one we did when we first talked with the Corps and the TRWD a few years ago. Building permits are ready to be picked up for the two buildings on Phase 1, once zoning does a final check with the signed plat and the developer pays his impact fees.

 

This zoning case is just to allow the phase 2 buildings to be 5 stories (4 stories of wood over a concrete podium). The PD was initially 4 stories.

 

Dealing with the valley storage is going to be a challenge. It can only be impacted by no more than 5%. With the density that the development needs to be financially feasable, and the required parking, it has certainly been a challenging project.


Erik France


#26 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:22 PM

Website is up

 

http://south400.com/

 

If you wanna get in cheap, you're out of luck. 600 sqft runs $1,100. 

 

 

Floorplan - 

 

5e4c6cd90032d00fe76e348ae9a57e19-eddf449

 

 

Just about done. I really like the looks of this one. They've put in a ton of landscaping and it looks really nice. It's hard to see in my pics, but the wavy bits of metal over the staircases look really cool too. One of the better looking multifamily projects to go up.

 

 

 

C6Pw0zJUsAAgYD5.jpg

 

C6Pw3HFU4AAvyLS.jpg

 

 

3. The river view isn't that great in that location

4. I know the track record! I've been with Ken for the last 24 years.

 

 

 It may be seen as being unfair to compare one design to another without knowledge of all the particulars, but since a solution(s) has been solicited then the recently completed residential project illustrated above from my own observation made a quite successful effort in solving its parking and curb appeal.

 

 For whatever the reason, its seems odd to blame it on the river.



#27 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:32 PM

So,
 
 
!. What's your solution for the required parking? (it is 1 space per bedroom, plus a few more for the common areas).
2. And your acceptable solution for trash pickup?
3. The better views are of downtown
4. WTF!?!


 
 
 #1 - The parking is an insurer's nightmare.  A hundred or more cars directly exposed to hailstorms, the Texas summer heat or the occasional ice storm; not a pleasant thought.
 
 #2 - the optics of trash bins filled to the brim and surrounding debris/furniture/mattresses would not be an amenity, just the opposite.
 
#3 - A better view/connection with the river since it is the river that is the immediate asset to the project; not Downtown.
 
#4 - Calm down.  If you don't know about the architect's track record, then perhaps you should investigate their past and promised projects; not much success.
1. Still no solution
2. still no solution, besides they are in opaque enclusures. Trash chutes in the building.
3. The river view isn't that great in that location.
4. I know the track record! I've been with Ken for the last 24 years.
Do you know if there are plans to connect this development to the Trinity Trails? To me that is what I feel like this project is lacking, but I'm also not aware of the total scope of the project from just the siteplan. With all the improvements occurring at nearby Riverside Park I think it would be a huge missed opportunity to ignore it. It would make this project feel more a part of River East/Race St. and much less like an isolated complex.

#28 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:56 PM

Do you know if there are plans to connect this development to the Trinity Trails? To me that is what I feel like this project is lacking, but I'm also not aware of the total scope of the project from just the siteplan. With all the improvements occurring at nearby Riverside Park I think it would be a huge missed opportunity to ignore it. It would make this project feel more a part of River East/Race St. and much less like an isolated complex.


No clue, but if they can get under I35W, Riverside Park is right there.  In fact if they could connect to Riverside Park and bridge over to the south bank, that would represent a significant expansion of the trails, including better bicycle access to Riverside Arts District (Race Street).


My blog: Doohickie

#29 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:59 PM

 

 

 

 

Do you know if there are plans to connect this development to the Trinity Trails? To me that is what I feel like this project is lacking, but I'm also not aware of the total scope of the project from just the siteplan. With all the improvements occurring at nearby Riverside Park I think it would be a huge missed opportunity to ignore it. It would make this project feel more a part of River East/Race St. and much less like an isolated complex.

Yes, there is supposed to be a plan to extend the Trinity Trails. Most of that is not shown, as it is not on our property.

That site plan is just an exhibit for zoning, which will become the PD for the tracts.

 

The open space to the North will be a publicly accessible park with some sand volleyball courts and a fenced dog area. Will be a nice connection to the future trail and access point to the river.


Erik France


#30 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 01:28 PM

 It may be seen as being unfair to compare one design to another without knowledge of all the particulars, but since a solution(s) has been solicited then the recently completed residential project illustrated above from my own observation made a quite successful effort in solving its parking and curb appeal.

 

 For whatever the reason, its seems odd to blame the river and its one reason that I don't ever recall hearing.

 

Couldn't really do a parking garage here, due to the impact on the valley storage issues of the waterway. The entire area below the buildings is covered parking, except for the vertical access and mail room. I don't think structured parking would have worked with some of the hydrological constraints of the site either.

 

The river views were considered, as well as the downtown views. A texas donut, as your example, affords river and downtown views to the least amount of units. The splayed wings of the buildings gives views of the river and downtown to a lot more units. Site constraints and developer density requirements didn't allow us to splay them even more. A dwelling unit doesn't have to directly face something to get a view. The other bank directly across from this site is home to storage of city building materials, not a spectacular view IMO. From what I understand the city isn't going to change that anytime soon.


Erik France


#31 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 11 July 2017 - 01:37 PM

Alsoz notice the utility easements on the site. A powerline, gas pipe, and drainage area all run right through. The buildings are later out to avoid any of these.

#32 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 13 July 2017 - 03:02 PM

Approved by ZC

https://www.virtualb...nity-river.html

#33 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 14 July 2017 - 01:43 PM

Pretty good and accurate write-up on the projects. I'm not liking the pic from the video capture though...


Erik France


#34 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 14 July 2017 - 03:39 PM

Is it just me or is anyone else having trouble locating building 3?

#35 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 14 July 2017 - 04:04 PM

I don't see it either and it's not listed in the summary on the left side of the plans.



#36 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 14 July 2017 - 04:21 PM

The situation is explained in the last link posted. It was going to go in the triangular spot, but instead they ditched it and made all the buildings taller.

#37 David_H

David_H

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 14 July 2017 - 08:41 PM

Maybe I’m missing something, but I drive by there just about every day and I couldn’t imagine wanting to live at that location.

Sure, it’s a total mess at the moment with all the construction, but even so I don’t see anything good about it. Right against the highway, wrong side of the river (or 35W) for the trails, no amenities in the area at all.

There are a lot of more desirable places to live, either existing or under construction.

#38 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 969 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:39 PM

Maybe I’m missing something, but I drive by there just about every day and I couldn’t imagine wanting to live at that location.

Sure, it’s a total mess at the moment with all the construction, but even so I don’t see anything good about it. Right against the highway, wrong side of the river (or 35W) for the trails, no amenities in the area at all.

There are a lot of more desirable places to live, either existing or under construction.

 

Not to mention the UPS trucks heading out every morning. Not fun. 



#39 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 04 August 2017 - 03:31 PM

http://www.fortworth...ccc7bd6ef1.html



#40 rriojas71

rriojas71

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 05 August 2017 - 09:00 AM

The design looks like everything else being built these days, but they are not terrible. I think this complex is going to really stand out being at that intersection pretty much all alone. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing at this point, but I suppose time will tell.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Northside

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users