My column in this month's magazine dealt with the city's plans to increase density in development -- that is, to cram more stuff into the same space. It was mostly a hypothetical discussion, with some thoughts about the difference between good density and bad density.
Apparently, though, I waited too long to write the piece, and all you need to do is to check this out to see why. How does a 20,000 square foot, multi-story retail, bar and and restaurant building on lowest Greenville sound? The site, which is being developed by UCR (big signs are already up), is where the Arcadia move theater was before it burned.
Again, this development is neither good nor bad until we know more about it. And UCR has a good reputation and often does fine work. I'll make a couple of calls this week to see what's what, but I have a feeling that it can be built as planned -- no zoning approval required.
But some questions do need to be asked:
• Why will this work when the site down the street, 1811 Greenville, has sat mostly empty since it was built? And it caused a huge zoning controversy.
• Does the neighborhood want not just more bars and restaurants, but about twice as many more bars and restaurants than were originally on the site?
• How did this fly under the neighborhood radar? I missed it until I was poking around working on something else, and there are others who pay much more attention to development in that part of town than I do.
More density sounds good. Especially if it is a quality (well-conceived, designed and constructed)project, which UCR has a reputation for.
More density means more tax base and less sprawl outwards. More density is needed to support a mass transit system. More density means more diversity.
Posted by: Robert | Apr 28, 2008 at 09:48 AM
More density means more traffic. More density means more people looking for parking spaces. More density means more beer trucks blocking traffic while they make deliveries.
More density means more mass transit?!?! What, more DART busses?!?! Oh yeah, that'll help.
Maybe they'll turn the Whole Foods locations into a parking garage after it moves out. That would help (this is an ironic statement).
Posted by: Ryly | Apr 28, 2008 at 10:13 AM
People are coming to Texas, especially the Dallas/Forth Worth area.
Planners have two choices to accomodate this growth - either upward or outward.
I prefer upward. Sprawl solves no problems and creates a boring endless landscape. More density, espeically within the core urban area, is a sensible use of our resources. It is more sustainable, unless you want to argue for population growth controls.
Posted by: Robert | Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM
More density sounds great! This looks like an excellent development. In order for our neighborhood to survive, we need something unique. More strip malls is not the way to compete with Frisco and Plano. Arcadia was a huge building. It needs to be replaced by something of similar size that is pedestrian oriented.
Bars on lower Greenville? What's next? Skyscrapers in downtown? Houses in Lakewood? Eegads!
If you don't want more density, move to northern Collin County. Dallas needs density. If you don't want it, it's time to move. I'll rent the U-Haul for you.
Posted by: Hamilton | Apr 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM
1811 Greenville doesn't have any retail because of ridiculous anti-density knee-jerk reactions just like yours. The retail can only be open from 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday-Friday. No retail can survive under those archaic standards. As the above poster stated, if you can't stand density then you need to move to Plano.
Being against density in Dallas is like being against gravity. It's going to happen, and you sound silly opposing it.
Posted by: Roger | Apr 28, 2008 at 11:36 AM
They better not need any zoning changes because we all saw what happened to the mixed use development on the vacant Carnival site on Henderson.
Posted by: Alfredo | Apr 28, 2008 at 01:30 PM
If you're against 4 more restaurants on Greenville Avenue, you want East Dallas to go backwards. A garden center (what is currently on this site) does not belong on Greenville. Bars and restaurants do.
And let's just call a spade a spade. You think that TWO STORIES on Greenville is DENSITY? Even farms have barns that are two stories! A two story building on a one of the most popular streets for nightlife in a metropolitan area of 6 million people? It shouldn't be just two stories. It should be ten.
Posted by: Willie | Apr 28, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Hey, urban density is the only way to expand in the city, and a very great idea. Maybe if we can increase density, we'll drive the coyotes back out to the country.
Posted by: Bill | Apr 28, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Dallas has only 3,605 residents per square mile. By comparison, Los Angeles, a city known for its never-ending sprawl, has 8,205 residents per square mile. On the other end of the spectrum, New York City has 27,282 residents per square mile. Dallas will never be Manhattan. In fact, we could become twice as dense, and still have a long way to go before we can be as “dense” as Los Angeles.
Posted by: Hamilton | Apr 28, 2008 at 03:40 PM
A clarification of terminology is called for - this is not mixed-use like the Carnival proposal or the ill-fated CityVille.
This is mixed-use business only - retail on the bottom level, offices on the top level.
Per the Community Retail zoning, it will NOT require any kind of rezoning process.
And at the rates they are charging, I don't see any 'bar' facility moving in. A nice restaurant with a bar, and lots of food, would be cool.
And since the same company owns tons of land down the street, parking is taken care of too.
Posted by: Avi S. Adelman | Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41 PM