Forward Dallas

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1. What needs to change? Be specific please.
2. Forward Dallas isn't zoning but the plan would have primacy over zoning laws/rules so I'll forgive the council members.

Allowing commercial corridors (typically where major bus routes are) that are underutilized to develop more density, eliminating industrial uses in/next to residential neighborhoods, stop restricting neighborhoods that actually want missing middle density (I am not talking about apartments and also figure out a way to make those units purchasable), plan a way to encourage more infill development on existing vacant lots in residential neighborhoods (that includes SFH, townhomes, or whatever works best for that neighborhood), focus development along DART’s light rail stations (that way it can help better absorb the traffic that many complain as the main concern), plan to aggressively infill downtown and other downtown adjacent neighborhoods (I mean that’s an easy win. The central core should always be where the highest intensity density should be). That’s just a few things I can think of. If Far North Dallas largely doesn’t want missing middle, fine. Why should they restrict a place like Bishop Arts, which is a growing urban neighborhood? I think those things don’t dramatically change existing single family neighborhoods, but does allow for change within the city as a whole. Again, there are people within the city who want to see ZERO change or adjustments. Prolly the most debatable wound be the commercial corridors depending how close homes are to the main thoroughfares. But if there’s a dying shopping center, they at least should be allowed to build some type of mixed use development with retail/apartments or whatever combo….I am not talking skyscrapers, scale matters too! The same thing can be accomplished without a lot of height, which I know is a major concern too. I like skyscrapers but I do NOT like the look of them plopped in the middle of neighborhoods like Houston. That’s not the right look that Dallas should go for IMO. It’s visually chaotic.

According to city staff it will be used as a guide for rezoning. Meaning, if an area says they want a certain type of change in a certain area, it would be recommended. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in every instance, but at least there’s something to point to. Those council members don’t really know what they’re talking about sometimes TBH. Trust me it’s grandstanding and they call each other out on it sometimes. A lot of that goes on at city hall. It’s like they know people are watching so they purposely do the most so that their constituents can hear it. Side note: based on what I see…some of the council members genuinely don’t like each other, but I’m sure that’s not a surprise.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Forward Dallas is most certainly not that.

Are you suggesting it should be renamed Backwards Dallas?

[tcualum]

I think allowing for infill in areas that make sense is a good idea. The problem is that the City of Dallas isn't good at nuance and making thoughtful decisions.

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

But if there’s a dying shopping center, they at least should be allowed to build some type of mixed use development with retail/apartments or whatever combo….I am not talking skyscrapers, scale matters too! The same thing can be accomplished without a lot of height, which I know is a major concern too. I like skyscrapers but I do NOT like the look of them plopped in the middle of neighborhoods like Houston. That’s not the right look that Dallas should go for IMO. It’s visually chaotic.

I knew eventually you would drag Houston into the discussion…Now scale matters to you? I doubt you complained when Dallas built not one but two incredibly massive and expensive bridges over a drainage ditch that rarely has standing water in it. I think you would accept any structure that would give the illusion of a more urban Dallas, visually chaotic or not.

On this topic I agree with the posters who prefer to preserve SFH neighborhoods. We have the same “progressives” in Houston who love nothing but density at all costs. I’m pretty sure they’ve never owned a home in their life.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

Are you suggesting it should be renamed Backwards Dallas?

I'm suggesting the effort should be scrapped and replaced with a modality that does much of what Dallaz notes and scrapes the ADU nonsense as is. With maybe some carve outs for areas in which ADUs might make sense.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by tcualum

I think allowing for infill in areas that make sense is a good idea. The problem is that the City of Dallas isn't good at nuance and making thoughtful decisions.

No big city ever is.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by SanJac

I knew eventually you would drag Houston into the discussion…Now scale matters to you? I doubt you complained when Dallas built not one but two incredibly massive and expensive bridges over a drainage ditch that rarely has standing water in it. I think you would accept any structure that would give the illusion of a more urban Dallas, visually chaotic or not.

On this topic I agree with the posters who prefer to preserve SFH neighborhoods. We have the same “progressives” in Houston who love nothing but density at all costs. I’m pretty sure they’ve never owned a home in their life.

Here comes the triggered Houstonians. LMAO.

Actually I did. Especially, the Margaret McDermott Bridge, which is a standard bridge with signature pedestrian bridges. It was a waste of money, particularly since the cables were defective and had to be replaced. The whole Trinity River project was a waste of money pushed by Dallas City Hall and the wealthy who run Dallas. But that’s not the same as being in the middle of a residential neighborhood, like the out of scale structures you’d see in Houston. Also, people bring up Houston at Dallas City Hall, some love it, many don’t. It’s the only comparable city within the state and it’s used as a way for people to justify adding additional housing density.

Edit: most cities in Texas have rivers with hardly no water in it LMAO. Texas is mostly made up of plains. The major rivers aren’t really navigable. The Trinity River Floodplain is man made through Dallas and is a major reason Dallas doesn’t see major flooding like you’d see in Houston.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by SanJac

I knew eventually you would drag Houston into the discussion…Now scale matters to you? I doubt you complained when Dallas built not one but two incredibly massive and expensive bridges over a drainage ditch that rarely has standing water in it. I think you would accept any structure that would give the illusion of a more urban Dallas, visually chaotic or not.

On this topic I agree with the posters who prefer to preserve SFH neighborhoods. We have the same “progressives” in Houston who love nothing but density at all costs. I’m pretty sure they’ve never owned a home in their life.

So where does the idea that single family detached homeowners get additional government legal power to dictate what others can do with their property unavailable to no other type of property owner come from? Is there something wrong with enacting private deed restrictions instead of zoning laws?

Neither disallowing ADUs nor having minimum lot or home sizes in greenfield suburbs is justifiable unless there's a real life/safety issue (which generally there isn't). How much you paid for your home makes absolutely no difference in how much legal sayso you should get regarding surrounding land uses.

Houston and the state of Texas (which doesn't allow counties to zone) do it right. The California mentality of so many Texans is very disappointing.

[ChristieP]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

So where does the idea that single family detached homeowners get additional government legal power to dictate what others can do with their property unavailable to no other type of property owner come from? Is there something wrong with enacting private deed restrictions instead of zoning laws?

Neither disallowing ADUs nor having minimum lot or home sizes in greenfield suburbs is justifiable unless there's a real life/safety issue (which generally there isn't). How much you paid for your home makes absolutely no difference in how much legal sayso you should get regarding surrounding land uses.

How would you feel if your neighbors decided to build an apartment in their backyard? What if the new building was 2 stories, and had 2 rental units? Where would those tenants park their cars? What if that second floor unit had a clear view into your backyard, or your upstairs bedroom windows?

These are all reasons why ADUs are usually not allowed in single-family neighborhoods.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

Here comes the triggered Houstonians. LMAO.

Actually I did. Especially, the Margaret McDermott Bridge, which is a standard bridge with signature pedestrian bridges. It was a waste of money, particularly since the cables were defective and had to be replaced. The whole Trinity River project was a waste of money pushed by Dallas City Hall and the wealthy who run Dallas. But that’s not the same as being in the middle of a residential neighborhood, like the out of scale structures you’d see in Houston. Also, people bring up Houston at Dallas City Hall, some love it, many don’t. It’s the only comparable city within the state and it’s used as a way for people to justify adding additional housing density.

Edit: most cities in Texas have rivers with hardly no water in it LMAO. Texas is mostly made up of plains. The major rivers aren’t really navigable. The Trinity River Floodplain is man made through Dallas and is a major reason Dallas doesn’t see major flooding like you’d see in Houston.

Sort of like when someone else got triggered when Dallas’ lesser competition in super markets got brought up elsewhere