148 replies to this topic

[Crestline]

I've noticed from Fort Worth and downtowns in other US cities (especially 2021-2022 when homelessness increased everywhere) that the places that seem to attract encampments or clusters of people who seem to be "hiding out" are those that have no ground floor windows.  I do not mean in any way to vilify those who lack housing.  We are, however, hyper focused on promoting good desig for a pedestrian environment that attracts/welcomes large numbers of people, is comfortable and attractive for people of all ages to walk. 

 

If there are no "eyes on the street" (i.e. windows facing the street so presents feeling that activity on the sidewalk is visible by neighbors), that part of the street feels less safe, period.  Blank walls at ground floor level are a MAJOR NO-NO. 

 

This is what I was getting at in my post from a few months ago:

 

It'll be interesting to see if homelessness and transience around the ITC declines once this development is filled up with residents. I'm hoping that the residents attract additional policing that'll keep property crime in the ground-floor units down. With appropriate policing, and securely-built ground-floor patio locks, etc., I think this development will be safe for residents on every floor. 

 

I think that exposing ground-floor units to the street makes the neighborhood safer, perhaps a bit paradoxically, because residents keep a close eye on trouble and attract policing when they see problems.

[Austin55]

Newer rendering from the next DDRB agenda. Some changes made, looks like maybe an entrance at the corner? The full staff report is not published yet.

[Stadtplan]

I dont know if it is the balconies, but my first reaction looking at this rendering is it feels like it should be on a beach in Florida. Now that I think about it, isnt the developer from Florida?

[steave]

Good to see this is still going.

[rriojas71]

Is that fencing around the base of the building?... maybe that is some sort of security for the ground floor apartments.  It looks strange.  Not a huge fan of the design but I like the fact that it is more residential in the SE quadrant of DT.

[Stadtplan]

Sort of looks like a timeshare in Orlando or a retirement community in Naples.

[John T Roberts]

This definitely looks like it would fit better in Florida than Fort Worth.  I don't really care for the design on this one, but if we can get more residential buildings in Downtown that are not stick construction, I'm all for it.

[TLA]

I wonder if the one side has darker facade like in earlier renderings.

Anyway, I love the density adjacent to the train station. It doesn’t scream luxury high rise so hopefully we get an apartment that is relatively affordable, fills up with folks, and proves our viability for grander residential projects more visually appealing.

[Stadtplan]

What's the deal with these "c" horseshoe looking screens connecting the balconies?  What's this going to look like when people start decorating their balconies with Christmas lights, storing their old bike out there?  It will start to look like student housing on a college campus, which I guess is what we're doing here, right?  Hopefully, management will enforce some standards.

 

On the corner does that say "Corner Cafe?" 

 

[Stadtplan]

Instead of bringing the fence out nearly flush with the sidewalk, here's another design in the area that steps it back incramentally:

https://goo.gl/maps/vYtHt8XtQsKmuWoZ9

 

 

 

[Austin55]

It does appear that it will have more retail, 

 

 

Here is a PDF: https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

[Jeriat]

It does appear that it will have more retail

Figured.

[Crestline]

It does appear that it will have more retail, 

 

Here is a PDF: https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

I didn't realize this before, but the planned paseo is basically in the same position as my hoped-for rebuilt 10th Street from January:

 

 

And now they're planning interior retail to activate the paseo? Awesome! Now all we need is:

 

1) a pedestrian crosswalk across Jones connecting the paseo to the ITC,

2) a second paseo (or an actual rebuilt one-block 10th Street) between Calhoun and Commerce after the latter is straightened out,

 

And we'll have a fully restored walkable grid in the area.

[Stadtplan]

Here's some more renderings from Austin55's link.  I'm still not a huge fan of all the screens on the façade, but hats off to whomever spent some time mocking this up, they did a nice job laying this out for DDRB:

 

 

 

[rriojas71]

So I'm not a fan of the design and like other have mentioned the screening but I am definitely a fan of this having retail and the paseo.  That is a game changer for this proposal and much needed in this area of downtown.

[NThomas]

...And now they're planning interior retail to activate the paseo? Awesome! Now all we need is:
 
1) a pedestrian crosswalk across Jones connecting the paseo to the ITC,
2) a second paseo (or an actual rebuilt one-block 10th Street) between Calhoun and Commerce after the latter is straightened out,
 
And we'll have a fully restored walkable grid in the area.

I'm guessing the placement of the paseo is due to utilities/right of way from when 10th St was there originally?

The Throckmorton St & W 2nd St intersection to connect through City Place could benefit from a mid-block crossing too (is it still considered a mid-block crossing if it's a t-intersection?).

[JBB]

The screens are a bit odd, but I don't hate them.  I mean, aren't we all saying we want something different from the general look of the matchstick pancake complexes that have become so common?  At least there is some uniformity and consistency to how they're placed.  I dislike features like that when they're slapped on randomly and haphazardly.

[John T Roberts]

It appears to me that the paseo is approximately where 10th Street was located.  I had to scale the drawings to get its location, so I could be a little off.  As for the utilities that were in the right-of-way, I can't say for sure if they have all been removed, or they are still beneath the block.

 

I agree with you about adding the crossing at Throckmorton and W. 2nd St.  I'm not a traffic engineer, but I think a T intersection is not considered to be mid-block.

[rriojas71]

The screens are a bit odd, but I don't hate them.  I mean, aren't we all saying we want something different from the general look of the matchstick pancake complexes that have become so common?  At least there is some uniformity and consistency to how they're placed.  I dislike features like that when they're slapped on randomly and haphazardly.

Honestly the screening on the ground floor is really the only part of it that I find odd but it was primarily based on the rendering from Austin's post #102.  From that rendering it made it look like a bird cage.  LOL.   Looking at the other renderings and conceptual images that were posted today I do like it a lot better than what I was imaging it would look like.  It has definitely grown on me.

[John T Roberts]

It seems like this project is more residential that it is anything else.  I'm tempted to move it over to the Residential Forum.

[Stadtplan]

From DDRB Meeting:  
Approved 5:1  It sounds like what caused the proposed changes to the podium is there are issues with the deal getting financed based on interest rate hikes and no bank was willing to finance retail on the main building.  There was also comments that about the concrete superstructure design which I'm gathering becomes more cost effective with the residential reconfiguration at the podium vs larger retail areas.  The ideas is to move the retail outside of the main building due to the equity contribution.  Take amenities and turn them into retail and the paseo becomes a destination point.  DDRB pointed out that Jones is a major circulation street and there needs to be an emphasis on Jones St.  Also, one person submitted a letter of opposition stating that the exterior is too plain.

[Jeriat]

It seems like this project is more residential that it is anything else.  I'm tempted to move it over to the Residential Forum.

This would technically be "Mixed-Use", right?

[John T Roberts]

We don't have a separate forum for "Mixed-Use".  If you look at the definitions of the forum categories.  Residential is for projects with the primary component being residential.  Commercial is for the primary component to be commercial.  To me, this looks like a residential property with some commercial in the parking garage.  In my opinion, this project is far from "Mixed-Use". 

[Crestline]

Third-ing the notion that 2nd at Throckmorton should have a pedestrian crossing supporting the City Place paseo.

 

It seems like this project is more residential that it is anything else.  I'm tempted to move it over to the Residential Forum.

 

Go for it. I'm always surprised to find this thread in the Commercial Forum. 

[John T Roberts]

Austin55 can tell you because he started the thread, but I think when we all first heard about this project, the proportion of commercial space to residential space was unknown, so he put it in the Commercial Forum due to it being in Downtown.

[Stadtplan]

Because of the larger-than-usual size of this parcel it would be an easy location to build a "pancake" style wood framed apartment building here. Honestly I don't think that'd be too bad, provided there would be decent interaction with the ground floor, particularly along 9th and Jones. Calhoun already has a de-facto alley feel to it.

But it'd certainly be nice to see more of that 969 Commerce energy. Sites of this scope and location are extremely rate. 

 

The only member of DDRB that voted against approving the redesign expressed his disappointment in the non-activation of Jones St. by retail.  "That was a guiding principle of the downtown Fort Worth Master Plan."

[rriojas71]

We don't have a separate forum for "Mixed-Use".  If you look at the definitions of the forum categories.  Residential is for projects with the primary component being residential.  Commercial is for the primary component to be commercial.  To me, this looks like a residential property with some commercial in the parking garage.  In my opinion, this project is far from "Mixed-Use". 

I agree with you JTR that it is far from mixed use however it is more mixed use than most Residential that they propose and build which usually includes no retail.  Take Burnett Lofts as an example.  They went from a whole section proposed as retail to one small retail space.  All of the development in Uptown is rather disappointing because of no retail and well as the 3 large apartment building on W Rosedale that have no retail.

I also thought from the first rendering that was released that no retail was included so it having at least a little retail was a shocker to me.

[John T Roberts]

Yes, this project does have more retail than many of the others that have been built, but we don't have a separate forum category for "Mixed-Use".  Therefore, a project like this has to be placed in either "Residential" or "Commercial". 

 

I will be moving this thread to the "Residential" forum over the weekend.

[John T Roberts]

This thread has been relocated to the "Residential" forum.

[Urbndwlr]

It looks like that ground floor change involved slightly lower floor to ceiling heights (retail would have required higher)?

[Stadtplan]

Part of the developers comments at DDRB was regarding a more cost efficient structural design of the residential space on the first floor, at least thats how I recall.

[John T Roberts]

Retail floor to floor heights require more vertical space than residential.  Taking retail and that height out of the first floor would save some in material costs.  It would also save a little amount of labor.  Therefore, this would be slightly more cost efficient.

[Urbndwlr]

Did they mention whether they are simultaneously moving forward with their project on Weatherford/Belknap Streets?  I know they're separate cases but seems this one on Jones has been moving through DDRB and wasnt sure if the other one had the approvals already and therefore is quiet from entitlement standpoint. 

 

Frankly I can't believe anyone could get a construction loan to start right now given how the Federal Reserve is doing everything it can to tell these guys (and every other developer) NOT to start construction.

[Stadtplan]

Here's the last DDRB meeting video if you want to hear the board's comments.  Jone's case starts at timestamp 2:02:00

 

https://fortworthgov...af1b2881dae4ae0

[WTXKid]

Unpopular opinion, but I hope this project stalls. With TAMU Fort Worth coming in, another developer will come with a better vision. I noticed someone mentioned podium during ddrb. Podium design is more appropriate in downtown.

[Stadtplan]

I lean towards we could do better / taller.

[rriojas71]

I hate to dissuade any new development but I do have to agree with both of you

[Crestline]

Voting "get this built as planned ASAP, and then build Austin-style supertalls on the surface lots to the north and south."

[steave]

Yes, I actually like it for some odd reason. I think we need lots of units in the CBD to help with vitality these days and the sooner the better. There are many other places to build tall landmarks.

[rriojas71]

Yes, I actually like it for some odd reason. I think we need lots of units in the CBD to help with vitality these days and the sooner the better. There are many other places to build tall landmarks.

You are right.  We are not short on parking lots to build on.

[Urbndwlr]

Thinking more about what should be required at street level. 

 

IMO, there are:

1) high/primary street spots where retail is established, already heavy foot traffic - retail/commercial ground floor 100% should be required - is appropriate.

2) secondary streets that currently lack any ground floor retail but ones that *probably could* in future but would be hard to get financed at time of development.

3) tertiary streets - hard to require/expect retail there.

 

Requiring ground floor retail has backfired in many places in various cities where city required it in spots where it was simply not feasible - policy had no nuance & staff/commissioners must not have understood retail real estate.

 

IMO the goal isnt necessarily having a certain kind of use on the ground floor but rather the ACTIVE or ENGAGING street level presence that comes with that use.   Maybe there are other ways to achieve that engaging/interesting/welcoming presence without that use.  Problem is, if not built to allow GFL retail, will be hard to add later when foot traffic picks up.

If is really issue of "too early" for retail, City could step in with financial incentives to bridge that gap.  Tie incentives to having some sort of engaging use there whether non-profit art space, mural covering vacant space, or an occupied space (be flexible - treat developers like partners, not adversaries on this) - good thing is the space is there for the future & get short term good looking ground floor use.

 

If issue is "too much GFL retail" focus should be on the corners.  If can get active, occupied corners that engage the street, that's the most important.  T

 

Seems we could come up with some good alternative uses to literal retail uses on those corners (and in between) that could really help.  Need other people's minds from the FWAF engaged on this.  Cheers.

example: shallow window box displays that enable rotating art installations on building ground floors & corners? 

[Crestline]

Need other people's minds from the FWAF engaged on this.  

 

Is zoning law granular enough to require GFL retail when a street, corner, or neighborhood is "ready" (according to some objective criteria)? For example, could we have a zoning law that required:

 

1) a developer to add GFL to its project when planning to build into a high/primary street or secondary street, but not a tertiary street?

 

Or, a bit more objectively:

 

2) a developer to add corner GFL to its project when planning to build on the third or fourth corner of any downtown four-way intersection, but not the first or second corner? Or,

3) a developer to add GFL to its project in proportion to the in-place plus planned population density within "x" blocks (say, two or three blocks) of its project?

 

These proposals arguably "punish" later developers by forcing them to build GFL into neighborhoods where earlier developers didn't have the same requirement. Could the law do this; or, is this actually how it already works?

[Urbndwlr]

I think the Downtown guidelines are that specific so can have nuance.

[WTXKid]

The supertalls are going to be a stretch. We dont have the magic yet aka rents (dont know if we ever will). I still dont understand how our 800 acre island is going to attract development. People can build on it right now and are largely choosing not to do it. So is it going to be 100% residential with donuts.? I think the truth is that Fort Worth is not birthing innovative companies at the same rate as Austin. Largely due to the fact that it lacks the same talent pipeline. UT is a machine. And Austin doesnt compete with Dallas for talent. Again, thinking were making the mistake of the century by not building AM on Panther Island. Fort Worths Urban environment is huge. We have plenty of infill opportunities already. What is going to make this island more attractive to corporate relocations than downtown? And I think our downtown is top 2 for walkability in Texas. Please dont say the lake thats going to be built.

Voting "get this built as planned ASAP, and then build Austin-style supertalls on the surface lots to the north and south."

[rriojas71]

The supertalls are going to be a stretch. We dont have the magic yet aka rents (dont know if we ever will). I still dont understand how our 800 acre island is going to attract development. People can build on it right now and are largely choosing not to do it. So is it going to be 100% residential with donuts.? I think the truth is that Fort Worth is not birthing innovative companies at the same rate as Austin. Largely due to the fact that it lacks the same talent pipeline. UT is a machine. And Austin doesnt compete with Dallas for talent. Again, thinking were making the mistake of the century by not building AM on Panther Island. Fort Worths Urban environment is huge. We have plenty of infill opportunities already. What is going to make this island more attractive to corporate relocations than downtown? And I think our downtown is top 2 for walkability in Texas. Please dont say the lake thats going to be built.
 

Voting "get this built as planned ASAP, and then build Austin-style supertalls on the surface lots to the north and south."

 

People are not building on Panther Island because the plan is still in flux without a genuine direction.  No one truly knows what Panther Island is going to be so that is what is causing lack of interest from developers.  I agree that A&M would have been a great development but that ship has sailed.  At this point, it's crying over spilled milk.  Panther Island will develop but it's far from ready for development.

 

Also, I don't want to use Austin as a model for our growth.  I travel quite a bit and love very urban cities with dense walkability if possible but Austin is not that.  It is a jumbled chaotic mess IMO.  When i visit there it feels like a city that is trying too hard because everything going on there is new and without precedent.  You can't compare FW with Austin.  Austin does not have another large city that is vying for businesses and talent right next door.  Fort Worth has to forge its own path and grow organically because we are pretty much starting from scratch.  

[JBB]

We also have to stop looking for public uses for hard to develop space.  People here have regularly called for some kind of public use for the T&P Warehouse.  The city spent and is spending a ton more of money to move city hall into the Pier One building with seemingly no effort to find a private use.  Now we're calling for a massive campus that A&M has expressed no desire to build on the Panther Island land.  All the while continuing to subsidize sprawl in every direction.  The inner core of FW is never going to be valued if we keep pushing for public use of valuable land.

[Stadtplan]

Project Description:

AHS Calhoun

Final Plat

Final Plat Original Town of Fort Worth Lot1, Block 49R

 

Record FP-23-137: 

Final Plat

Record Status: Applied

 

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

 

[steave]

Does this suggest this project is alive? Or dead? Or no meaning at all?

[John T Roberts]

This means that the project is progressing.  This final plat incorporates the 5 1/2 lots in two separate city plats into one lot.  This replat is required by the city when a situation like this exists.  The project could still be cancelled, but once this replat is made the new piece of property is defined by the new metes and bounds.