244 replies to this topic

[Crestline]

Maybe I missed it but did they mention what is considered lower workforce rents? Im just trying to figure what middle class is defined as downtown.

 

See Austin55's post 193; maybe I've taken a bit of creative liberty with it. 

[Presidio Interests]

Pleased to see a number of investors evidently moving forward with more, higher density projects in and around our city's core.  

 

Additional residential density in the core is very good for our city, and a welcoming, handsome building that brings density is even better (for the city & community, that is).

 

I think of testing design success as a hierarchy of questions regarding the project's impact.  (note: for purposes of this discussion, I'm limiting this to design success from perspective of the city/community as a whole, not occupants or financial stakeholders, which are both vital but harder to judge from outside):

 

Level 1:  Does it add density in a central location that brings more people to Downtown/ city core?

Level 2:  Is it in a location that is already walkable or can realistically become pretty walkable?

Level 3:  How does it feel from the street level?  Meaning: does it add to or detract from the appeal for people to walk by, to, or from it?  This has a lot to do with how the building meets the street, lower level windows, stoops, landscaping, sidewalks, street trees....

Level 4:  Does the design increase the visual appeal/intrigue from afar?  Test: would a resident WANT to look out their window and see this? 

Level 5: Is the design durable?  Meaning, will it tolerate fading/weathering of materials, and is the design only appealing now b/c it is of the of-the-moment fashion (like the little ornamental visors we see on top of MF buildings) or will it likely stand the test of time?

 

I can't tell from the renderings how the street or sidewalk level view is, and whether it would be welcoming (or hostile) to pedestrians. 

 

Important to note:  The sidewalk/crosswalk/pedestrian network of this part of Downtown (Upper West Side?) really needs to level up.  I know the team at DFWI is totally aware of this, but for people to realistically walk from this building to City Hall and to the core of Downtown, we need wider sidewalks, street trees, and great, frequent signalized crosswalks.  Plus protected bicycle infrastructure (for cycling obviously). 

[Crestline]

Important to note:  The sidewalk/crosswalk/pedestrian network of this part of Downtown (Upper West Side?) really needs to level up.  I know the team at DFWI is totally aware of this, but for people to realistically walk from this building to City Hall and to the core of Downtown, we need wider sidewalks, street trees, and great, frequent signalized crosswalks.  Plus protected bicycle infrastructure (for cycling obviously). 

 

Jeez, yeah -- I just spent a minute looking at the intersections between this development and City Hall:

 

 

Upon reflection these do seem really hostile to pedestrians, because there are no sidewalks inside the two greenspace "lobes" enclosed by the intersections, and because there aren't any crosswalks serving Bluff or Fahey.

[roverone]

When the newest renderings went up I went and read about the company doing the project.

 

I just did a scan through and realized that I don't think we ever put a link in this thread to them.

 

You can see what their typical projects are like:

 

http://www.ahsresidential.com

[Jeriat]

Just another example of the years of "neglect" (for lack of a better term) for this side of downtown and ignoring or at the very least not knowing what true Urban Design means. 

 

 

 

Important to note:  The sidewalk/crosswalk/pedestrian network of this part of Downtown (Upper West Side?) really needs to level up.  I know the team at DFWI is totally aware of this, but for people to realistically walk from this building to City Hall and to the core of Downtown, we need wider sidewalks, street trees, and great, frequent signalized crosswalks.  Plus protected bicycle infrastructure (for cycling obviously). 

 

Jeez, yeah -- I just spent a minute looking at the intersections between this development and City Hall:

 

 

Upon reflection these do seem really hostile to pedestrians, because there are no sidewalks inside the two greenspace "lobes" enclosed by the intersections, and because there aren't any crosswalks serving Bluff or Fahey.

 

[rriojas71]

 

Important to note:  The sidewalk/crosswalk/pedestrian network of this part of Downtown (Upper West Side?) really needs to level up.  I know the team at DFWI is totally aware of this, but for people to realistically walk from this building to City Hall and to the core of Downtown, we need wider sidewalks, street trees, and great, frequent signalized crosswalks.  Plus protected bicycle infrastructure (for cycling obviously). 

 

Jeez, yeah -- I just spent a minute looking at the intersections between this development and City Hall:

 

Upon reflection these do seem really hostile to pedestrians, because there are no sidewalks inside the two greenspace "lobes" enclosed by the intersections, and because there aren't any crosswalks serving Bluff or Fahey.

 

It would be nice if they did create a more pedestrian and bike friendly environment with the 2 green spaces.  Maybe put some better crosswalks with signal lights, walking paths, benches, trash cans, doggie bag dispensers and lighting at least at the basic level.

 

If they wanted to create something grand near city hall that could create a larger greenspace/park that would span the roadways in the area.  The roads would go beneath the green space; similar to Clyde Warren park.

[Dylan]

When the newest renderings went up I went and read about the company doing the project.

 

I just did a scan through and realized that I don't think we ever put a link in this tread to them.

 

You can see what their typical projects are like:

 

http://www.ahsresidential.com

 

Oops. It appears you are right. Three weeks ago, I looked through their portfolio and commented on it (Nothing above 7 stories; almost all projects in suburban locations).

 

I went back to look for the link Austin posted (did he post a link?), and can't find it. Maybe I searched for AHS' portfolio on my own and have a bad memory.

[RD Milhollin]

 

Important to note:  The sidewalk/crosswalk/pedestrian network of this part of Downtown (Upper West Side?) really needs to level up.  I know the team at DFWI is totally aware of this, but for people to realistically walk from this building to City Hall and to the core of Downtown, we need wider sidewalks, street trees, and great, frequent signalized crosswalks.  Plus protected bicycle infrastructure (for cycling obviously). 

 

Jeez, yeah -- I just spent a minute looking at the intersections between this development and City Hall:

 

 

 

Upon reflection these do seem really hostile to pedestrians, because there are no sidewalks inside the two greenspace "lobes" enclosed by the intersections, and because there aren't any crosswalks serving Bluff or Fahey.

 

Looks like a rural highway intersection that got built up around.

[Austin55]

Weatherford/Belknap and Forest Park are essentially just an extension of 121 but at street level.

[WTXKid]

Does someone have an idea for a redesign of the intersection?

[JBB]

Straightening the connections and squaring off the intersections would be a good start. I seem to remember a discussion here along those lines sometime back.

[Crestline]

Does someone have an idea for a redesign of the intersection?

 

New crosswalks in red, new sidewalks in orange. No charge! 

 

[Dylan]

The easiest way to improve the connection between City Hall and this AHS development is adding pavement to all four corners of the four-way intersection, so you don't have to walk through grass at one corner.

[Austin55]

Straightening the connections and squaring off the intersections would be a good start. I seem to remember a discussion here along those lines sometime back.

 

Yeh this feels like the best option. I would not want unsignaled crosswalks here, this is a psudeo-highway 5 lanes across with cars merging from multiple directions. 

[JBB]

I'm traveling and not using my computer, so I can't draw it up, but that's what I was getting at.  Some of those one-way lanes without signals are basically freeway on-off ramps.  There's a way to clean that up with a 3 way intersection that could make sense.

[Austin55]

Something like this perhaps? Essentially just turns Summit and Forest Park into one road with  two lanes each way (4 total) and Belknap and Weatherford dead ending into it.

Could probably eliminate the right turn slip lanes from NB Summit to WB Belknap and the EB Weatherford to WB Forest Park too.

[JBB]

That's better than what I was thinking and I think I would like it even more without that turn lane business around Belknap, Bluff, and Forest Park.  (That may be what you're talking about at the end.)  I feel like we had a pretty extensive discussion on this somewhere on the forum before.  It would be funny if it was earlier in this thread.

[Stadtplan]

Drainage Study filed:

 

Record DS-22-0044: Drainage Study

Record Status: In Review

 

Permit Address

1000 W WEATHERFORD ST

 

Record Details

Applicant: Jared Earney

Kimley-Horn

 

Project Description:

AHS-Weatherford

Proposed Multifamily Project

 

Owner:

AHS-Residential

1000 W WEATHERFORD ST STE 100

FORT WORTH, TX 76102

 

DRAINAGE PROJECT INFO

Total Plat or Project Area (Acres):2.6

Land Disturbance Area (Acres):2.6

Concept Plan:No

DS - Grading Permit:Yes

DS - Infrastructure Plan Review (IPRC):Yes

Final Plat:YesPreliminary Plat:No

Drainage Study for Zone A Floodplain:No

The project utilizes Low Impact Design:No

The project does not drain through any downstream City Infrastructure:No

 

Parcel Number:

96276

Legal Description:

SMITH WEST SIDE ADDITION Block 2 Lot 1R

[Stadtplan]

Austin55 already posted some highlights from the DDRB, but here's the full presentation for 1000 W. Weatherford Apartments attached to the docket with a few more details and renderings:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rriojas71]

Not the most exciting design but I do like the project overall and I think we need more low rise infill like this on the UWS.

[Urbndwlr]

The design of these could really use improvement. 

They dont look good as rendered, so will likely really look badly when have 40+ years of age on them.

 

At a bare minimum, the garage exterior needs huge improvement.  The metal screening material they're using on the lower floors. Ideally the garage would be shorter and set back a bit farther from the sidewalk so it doesnt tower over the sidewalk.  That would probably require either:

1) Putting some of the structured parking under two of the towers so can reduce the # floors and/or set the free standing garage back slightly more.

 

I think some sort of treatment at the bottom 1-2 floors (could be color change) and at each building's corners that face streets, small corner set backs.  effect of both of these, I think, would reduce the appearance of giant slabs that dropped from the sky arbitrarily on this site. 

 

Im sure this would increase the cost, since the current design appears to absolutely max out cost efficiency.  I totally understand the need for the cost efficiency, so tried to think of comments that might improve without killing the economic feasibility.  (actually, the garage decks under the towers would be pretty major change, so probably the highest hanging fruit of my above suggestions). 

[rriojas71]

These are not going to be high end apartments and are supposed to be more affordable.  The design isn't great as most of us have stated but unfortunately you can't spend money on over designing if the rental rates are going to be lower.

[Stadtplan]

These are not going to be high end apartments and are supposed to be more affordable.  The design isn't great as most of us have stated but unfortunately you can't spend money on over designing if the rental rates are going to be lower.

 

By lower, are we talking about $1,900 - $2,400 per month range? 

[rriojas71]

I'm not sure about what the range is going to be but I do remember reading in some article that a higher percentage of these units would be at or below market rate.  I can't recall where I read that and who knows how much truth there was to it.

[Austin55]

I suspect the prices here will be competitive with nearby wood-framed apartments.

[Stadtplan]

So are we talking income-restricted and income-based HUD rent programs here?  I've spoken to a few people in their 20's that tried to find a basic but nicer apartments around town and were often turned away because they "made too much money."  One of them said trust me, I really don't make too much money, I just happen to have a fulltime job that puts me outside of their income-restricted band for whichever HUD program that particular apartment was signed-up for.  What about those who are caught in the middle, they don't qualify for assistance but they also don't make enough to go it alone and pay $1,900+?  I guess they either get a roommate, second job or settle for a less nice apartment complex?  

[Urbndwlr]

These are not going to be high end apartments and are supposed to be more affordable.  The design isn't great as most of us have stated but unfortunately you can't spend money on over designing if the rental rates are going to be lower.

Yep, I know they are targeting more affordable rents (and am taking that into account in what I think would be appropriate to require - if we throw out my suggestion about the podium, which would have been very expensive).  There isn't a clause in downtown design guidelines that throw out the rules when the goal is more affordable space.  They knew they had to go through design review, so would be unreasonable to expect that whatever they initially draw will sail through without some tweaks at least.  Especially with an un-screened garage. 

 

Agreed that changing designs late in the process can get expensive and disruptive.  What is much more meaningful though is changing major building elements that drive up construction costs or reduce the leasable area.  That project is massive, so adding things like metal screens on garage or awnings or darker color around floor 1-2 would be de minimis. 

 

While I really do value the density, I'm concerned this project will be so hostile to the street/sidewalks (like a giant bunker) it will actually repel pedestrian activity and other desirable development around it. 

[John T Roberts]

Urbndwlr, you raise some interesting points.

[steave]

I think you guys are overthinking it. Not every building can have ground floor retail, and the street it's on isn't a path a lot of pedestrians will take. The key thing this adds is density to the area.

[Crestline]

While I really do value the density, I'm concerned this project will be so hostile to the street/sidewalks (like a giant bunker) it will actually repel pedestrian activity and other desirable development around it. 

I think you guys are overthinking it. Not every building can have ground floor retail, and the street it's on isn't a path a lot of pedestrians will take. The key thing this adds is density to the area.

 

Agreed that this development is all about adding density to the area. In that sense, I hope that instead of repelling pedestrian activity around it, it becomes a huge source of pedestrians: residents walking to and from the trails to the north, downtown to the east, and 7th Street to the south / southwest. In turn this will improve the odds of pedestrian-friendly development nearby on 7th Street and Henderson Street. There are plenty of empty lots nearby that can be developed to serve these residents. 

[Stadtplan]

DFW Average rent for an apartment is now $1,455.

https://www.star-tel...e261047262.html

[rriojas71]

DFW Average rent for an apartment is now $1,455.

https://www.star-tel...e261047262.html

Just to give a little bit of perspective.  When I was living in SF on my last go around from 2011-2014; I was paying $1750 for my room.  I had 2 other roommates and we were paying $5400 total for our 3BR 1Ba flat in the Mission District.

I know $1,455 is nothing to sneeze at but people moving here from CA and the West Coast still find this extremely affordable.

[Crestline]

Some 2022 rental comps for SF:

 

• The average rent for a San Francisco studio apartment is $2,486
• The average rent for a San Francisco 1-bedroom apartment is $3,387
• The average rent for a San Francisco 2-bedroom apartment is $4,536
• The average rent for a San Francisco 3-bedroom apartment is $5,427

 

 

 

[Stadtplan]

Yeah, but the median household income in SF is close to double that in FW. Dont quote me but I want to say its $64k FW to $119k and those figures were a couple years old.

[Austin55]

Moving trucks were pulling furniture out of the existing offices when I drove by earlier today.

[roverone]

I'm pretty concerned about this development and the supportability of the number of people that it proposes to bring in.

 

My understanding is that the threshold of "walkable" is about 1/4 mile -- people deciding to live here might be more comfortable with further, but just using that, it there is not really enough walkable places to go.

 

That'll get you to Burnett and Weatherford, or 5th and Henderson, almost to 10th and Summit, Forest Park and the river.

 

Taco Bell and 7-11 are the best options on foot for now.

 

There are parking lots to be built on, and I guess the demand has to come first.  But I worry a little that this is will end up being a snarl of automobile traffic for a while after it is built.

[rriojas71]

Yeah I think several people on here have pointed out that there is really no retail in the area but maybe as more density is created then that will bring retail development.  I know it is more that a 1/4 mile but they can easily walk to Tom Thumb and the Westbank area. 

[Urbndwlr]

Agree w/ rriojas71. I think an investment of this size assumes that the connectivity (sidewalks & crosswalks) will improve, and that amenities such as places to eat, will emerge.

This building wont have enough cars to meaningfully impact the vehicular traffic by itself.  Those are usually red herring arguments by people who want to block development near their homes (I'm not suggesting Roverone is guilty of that).

 

Roverone is right that 1/4 mile is a general rule of thumb for reliable pedestrian connection.  But, that tolerated distance is heavily dependent on how pleasant the walking path is.  If it has tree-lined comfortable sidewalks and reasonably interesting things to look at along the way including other people walking, that tolerance for distance increases.

 

The challenge with this site is that there is a pretty substantial zone of surface parking between it and the established retail core of Downtown.  Those are privately owned with no announced plans to develop them.  Henderson also could use some improvement as a pedestrian & cyclist crossing.

 

The amenity they may be more focused on, however, is the river trails, which are much closer.  The Braden on 5th (cringy name) - formerly Broadstone, has a similar location in that it is fairly far to walkable restaurant/bar/retail amenities, but close to Trinity Trails, and it seems to be getting really strong rents. 

[Austin55]

This might belong in the City Hall/Pier 1 thread, but it looks like there's at least been some small study for rearranging and simplifying the intersection of Forest Park, Summit, Belknap and Weatherford. 

More info here (PDF).

 

[rriojas71]

This would be a huge improvement IMO

[johnfwd]

Yes, intersection improvements in this area will be needed, particularly when the Weatherford Apartments are constructed.  What's the status of this relatively large residential project?

[rriojas71]

I wonder if the new alignment  will change the design of the apartments at all?  One would think that they would want to reconfigure the western end.

[Stadtplan]

Resia (formerly AHS) set to demo 915 W. Belknap in anticipation of residential project:

 

Record PV22-00276: 

Commercial Razing Permit

Record Status: Pending

 

Permit Address

915 W BELKNAP ST

 

Licensed Professional:

PRECISION DEMOLITION, LLC

1125 EAST STATE HIGHWAY 121

LEWISVILLE, TX, 75057

 

Project Description:

Resia

Mechanical demolition of building, removal of concrete pavement for parking lot and sidewalk removal.

 

Owner:

Henderson Weatherford, LLC

12895 SW 132 Street

Miami TX 33186

[Stadtplan]

Resia Weatherford Parking Garage hits TDLR:

 

https://www.tdlr.tex.../TABS2022027492

 

PROJECT

Project Name: Resia Weatherford Parking Garage

Project Number: TABS2022027492

Facility Name: Weatherford Parking Garage

Location Address: 1000 W Weatherford St.

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Location County: Tarrant

Start Date: 8/31/2023

Completion Date: 12/31/2023

Estimated Cost: $8,999,000

Type of Work: New Construction

Type of Funds: This project is privately funded, on private land for private use.

Scope of Work: 10 level precast concrete parking garage

Square Footage: 255,000 ft 2

Are the private funds provided by the tenant? No

 

Current Status: Project Registered

 

PERSON FILING FORM

Contact Name:

Kerry Hancock

 

OWNER

Owner Name:

Henderson Weatherford, LLC

Owner Address:

12895 SW 132 Street

Miami, Florida 33186

Owner Phone:

 

TENANT

Not Assigned

 

DESIGN FIRM

Not Assigned

[Stadtplan]

And so it begins....temporary power permits filed.

 

Record TP23-00095: 

Electrical Temporary Power

Record Status: Pending

https://aca-prod.acc...ShowInspection=

Permit Address

1000 W WEATHERFORD ST

 

Record TP23-00094: 

Electrical Temporary Power

Record Status: Pending

https://aca-prod.acc...ShowInspection=

Permit Address

915 W BELKNAP ST