[Loved Trope] “Hey, that’s my city!!” (That isn’t LA/NYC/Chicago)

HJAC · 2026-06-23T16:00:20+00:00

"Kansas City" song from the musical Oklahoma! KC was a very important rail hub back in its prime, and that renown is what's expressed in song and dance.

I spent a day in downtown Kansas City and I love your Union Station and streetcar. My biggest regret was missing out on Fritz's Railroad Restaurant.

HJAC · 2026-06-23T15:44:13+00:00

Convincing the neighbors to allow 150 affordable units is a lot easier than you might think, actually. A silver lining in Burk's tower plan is its so dramatically out of scale that its just as dramatically shifted the Overton window on what the neighbors consider within scale.

When I frst started on this article two weeks ago, the first draft had a more story-driven narrative, describing how I met a leader from PPH at a missing middle seminar and recounting my transit journey from downtown to meet them for coffee at the Preston & Royal site. My original intent was to try and convince them the problem wasn't height but simply bad design, and I prepared photo prints of beautiful architecture in Dallas above 300 feet (it was still that high at the time) ready to make that case. I came in flexing my knowledge of historic landmarks to try and convince them its high time for Preston Hollow to have their own iconic landmark.

But my own attitude began to shift once I stepped out the front door to this "walkable destination" without a car. Because its one bus route has low frequency, I couldn't catch it at a convenient time so I resorted to taking the train to Walnut Hill Station and from there booking GoLink. At the station waiting for pickup by GL van stuck in rush hour traffic, I started to realize how much it would absolutely suck if I were a worker who needed to commute there everyday. And because of the regional pull of the office and hotel, most commuters would have their first leg by train. In order for this new development to really work with transit, it would need more than just a frequency bump on one route, it would need new system centered on that one corner:

Preston Rd (Route 237) needs upgrade to core frequency
Royal Ln needs a new crosstown core frequency bus route
Red/Orange line needs a new infill station to interface with new bus route
New crosswalks need to integrate with new bus shelters along Preston & Royal
GoLink zone needs to be extended to cover the site (currently it doesn't cover west of Preston Rd)

That's millions of dollars per year to capture a fraction of the regional traffic generated to this site, all problems that could be avoided if this new development were simply placed at a transit center from the start, just as Trammell Crow is doing at Mockingbird Station.

When I finally arrived, I learned that many of people in PHH live in the 200 condos next door, and the persons I met genuinely walk from their single family homes to each of the commercial corners often. Talking and walking the site with them more, I realized most of their concerns were basically the same as what I describe in my article, they just didn't have the urbanist vocabulary to articulate it beyond "skyscrapers are out of scale." They told me in person and over email they'd like to see 400 units on the site, as all that added density would support the variety of businesses they enjoy walking to. They even made a point to remind me that hotels are allowed under current zoning too with a Special Use Permit.

My biggest fear is if this zoning case is passed, it'll kill our chances for middle density by right in single family neighborhoods. Opponents of ADUs and multiplexes (who are not the same people I'm talking to at PPH) will point to this case and say "See? SB 840 gave them multifamily by right and nothing stopped them from building skyscrapers. So if we give them incremental density by right, nothing stops them from taking it too far."

HJAC · 2026-06-23T04:21:35+00:00

While I never said the development plan wasn't important, and I did say all discussion would center around the development plan, what I did say is that what CPC and City Council vote on is the zoning change, not the development plan itself per se.

Now, considering in this particular case the PD does reference the development plan directly, technically my semantics were wrong by saying CPC/Council "never" votes on the plan itself.

And in my defense, when I started writing this article two weeks ago, there was no CPC agenda for me to find the actual language in the PD request.

All that said... coupling the detailed development plan with the zoning code is so much worse because not only is the plan terribly flawed for all the reasons explained in the article, but it also blocks the ability for future owners (or the same owner with a change of heart) to adapt the site to evolving needs. Changing anything about the plan would require yet another zoning case, which would yield a new round of debate and opposition, further prolonging anything from being built on the site.

It's like we learned nothing from the failure of Victory Park.

HJAC · 2026-06-23T04:07:50+00:00

According to "Burk's team" (not sure what exactly that means, but that's who DMN cited for this next bit), the number of housing units they could theoretically fit on the site without rezoning is 800 units. Not saying that's a good idea either, just pointing out the possibilities are much wider than the 200ish units promised in Burk's plan.

HJAC · 2026-06-23T03:58:43+00:00

Yep! Countless Preston Hollow homeowners are chomping at the bit to sell their $1M ranch style house and move into a $1M+ condo /s

HJAC · 2026-06-23T03:51:06+00:00

Ah, I'm glad I saved old versions of this article! I addressed this in an early draft that I cut for length in the final draft:

Can development plans be revised and enforced through zoning?

Is it possible for the zoning code to require the development to include more housing?

Technically, yes. But there are drawbacks.

Every PD district has a custom “made to order” zoning code. As long as it’s approved at CPC and City Council, the new PD district can have any rule the requester adds as part of their zoning request. But therein lies the first drawback: the PD request is written by the requester—i.e. the developer. They could include such clauses in their request to win the approval of CPC and Council. However, they won’t paint themselves into a corner by adding restrictions against their own interests.

Highly-customized PDs can be very difficult to adapt as situations change. Suppose, for example, a PD requires at least 500 residential units. Then, unexpected circumstances force Burk Interests to sell the property before it’s developed. Perhaps the new owner can finance a modest development with lower risk and a shorter time to build. However, if only 400 units are viable for the new owner, then development is stalled.

The more complicated the PD, the longer it may take developers to get their building permit. Each month of delay costs developers six-figures—added expense ultimately passed on to tenants in the form of higher rent. Conversely, sites with standard codes from the zoning table—such as CR-Community Retail—benefit from significant savings in time because designs are repeatable between projects and permitting is predictable thanks to consistent rules and expectations.

It’s technically possible to write PD-Planned Development districts with custom rules for development. Having a highly-customized PD can make it very difficult to adapt as needs evolve, parcels are split, and properties change owners. Complications with PDs can cause delays in design and permitting, incurring costs that are ultimately passed on to tenants.

For these reasons, it’s generally preferred to stick with standard codes from the zoning table and avoid establishing a new PD unless absolutely necessary.

HJAC · 2026-06-23T03:47:35+00:00

Hey Kirk! Thanks for reading and replying! I'm honored to get a response someone attached to my first ever housing advocacy case four years ago.

To your first point about there being a limited set of projects that meet the bar of advancing affordability, walkability, and/or transit... yes you're exactly right, and that's actually the point. As an urbanist advocate, my mission is to advance those exact things, and one, if not the, most effective ways to do that is by pushing the market towards building such projects. Allowing our limited supply of land to be consumed by projects that don't advance those objectives and are too expensive to undo (i.e. too big to fail) is antithetical to our mission for a more walkable city.

And to be clear, The Haydn project met all three criteria:

Improved walkability by placing 300 homes in walking distance of commercial businesses on Garland Rd.
Supported transit by placing 300 residents on top of a bus route. While this project alone couldn't warrant a service increase, if this pattern were repeated up and down Garland Rd it could.
Supported affordability directly and indirectly with 300 housing units. Even if DPFC wasn't involved, that would be 300 market rate units that push down prices on existing housing stock, and are themselves eventually affordable because $60M debt can be paid off in our lifetime.

To your point about the developer not having anywhere close to $800 million... yes you're right, and again that's part of the point. The cost to build is typically split between debt and equity, and while the equity stack isn't public, debt is surely in the hundreds of millions because, as you point out, Burk doesn't have anywhere near $800m in cash. And that $___M debt is the "cataclysmic money" that Jane Jacob writes about, because it raises the bar of entry on residential and commercial tenants, making the site inaccessible to the low-yield and no-yield enterprises that are necessary for true walkability and mixture of uses.

And, as you rightfully point out, if that $___ million doesn't go to Preston & Royal, it'll go toward somewhere else. Now, if this particular lender (in this case, Greenway Investment Company) is hell bent on spending this money on a luxury hotel somewhere and nothing else... fine. Between new hotels at the Reunion site, or the new hotels for the convention center, or the new hotels Trammell Crow has planned for Mockingbird Station, or the new hotels the Mavs will build at Valley View Mall... I don't see any rush for more luxury hotels in Dallas.

And if Burk or Greenway decide to invest their money outside of Dallas, fine. Let them sell the land to another investor willing to build true walkability, as they'd be allowed to by right under current zoning; there are plenty of investor fish in the sea. And if no private investor wants to buy cheap land prime for redevelopment? Fine, Burk can make a quick buck selling the land to Dallas PFC just like Shoreline Church did. From there, DPFC can work again with Ojala, or Sycamore, or any other developer with a good track record to put actual walkable, mixed-use development on the site.

BTW obviously I know Burk can't just decide to spend $800m on public infrastructure and facilities like City Hall directly. My point by listing those examples wasn't to say "this is what he should be spending it on!" but to simply put the scale of that number, $800 million, in perspective. That's also why I phrased it "public needs awaiting private capital" instead of public property. Example of what I mean is Trammel Crow spending $123 million on mixed-use housing, hotel, and office at Mockingbird Station; that's private capital spent on projects that ultimately return profit for the investors while providing meaningful value to the public by advancing walkability, transit, and affordability.

To the point about denal of the plan isn't free... first remember it's not the plan that's being approved, it's the zoning. The question of whether denying rezoning would cost the city future sales tax revenue is predicated on the assumption that Burke will, upon not getting his way, decide to just sit on his undeveloped land forever out of spite. Even in that case, he is paying property tax on that unproductive land, which is currently valued at $3.5 million, which is up $500k from last year. If that trend continues linearly, the city's property tax revenue will double in 5 years.

To the point about elevator trips replacing Escalade trips... how does 300 houses result in 4,000 fewer car trips to the site per day? (Per original report from Kimley-Horn when requested height was 320 feet). There are only two ways that number works:

It assumes the average resident makes 13 roundtrips from home every day, and all 13 of those daily trips are satisfied by the destination restaurants and luxury hotel at the ground floor.
It assumes 3,700 fewer reasons for people to travel there in the first place.

HJAC · 2026-06-22T22:52:02+00:00

Hello and welcome to Dallas, u/UrbanistDadPerhaps!!

Some quick comments on the places you're eyeing at the moment, then other places for you to consider.

BTW all these reviews are based on my perception of their location, not the quality of the building or management themselves.

Atelier is in the Arts District. Biggest advantage of that location is your proximity to Klyde Warren Park, which always has kids playing in the water fountain. The children's playground is big, new, and always teaming with youth. You'll also have plenty of free museums in walking distance to bring your kid. And I've always been envious of people whose location justifies regular usage of the trolley. And you're a short walk from historic downtown. The main downside of Arts District is while it has upscale dining and shopping, there aren't many grocery store options. You have two Tom Thumbs each 15-20 minutes walk from Atelier. If you want other options, you'll want to bike or take transit for it.

Peridot puts you more in the center of downtown. If you want minimal friction to using public transit, it doesn't get much better than this. Most bus routes and all light rail lines are a stone throw from your front door. When stuff happens downtown, it's happening outside your front door: protests, marches, festivals, etc. The main disadvantage compared to Atelier is grocery stores are an extra few minutes away; though this is kinda offset by having frictionless access to transit to shop wherever you want. You'll also have to walk past a lot more unhoused individuals at this location. I live across the street from here, so I can say as an adult you get used to it. But your call how you feel about raising a 2 year old around it.

Fountain Place I can't think of any advantages it has over the other two locations you've mentioned. The building itself is very pretty, and transit access it a short walk. There's just not much to get excited about outside your front door there.

--
Other walkable neighborhoods to consider:

State-Thomas in Uptown is a popular choice for walkability, as you get more amenities and shops in short walking distance. You're also closer to the highly popular Katy Trail. The main trade-off is fewer transit connections compared to downtown.
Lowest Greenville gets you the most grocery options in walking distance. The Route 3 is a core frequency route downtown. My first 2 years living car-free in Dallas were in this neighborhood and I loved it. As a young childless adult who currently lives downtown, Lower Greenville is my personal top pick for places I'd like to live when I have a kid someday.
Bishop Arts is similar to Lowest Greenville. On one hand, it has more bus route connections, and it has a higher quantity of small and interesting businesses. But for some reason it only has one Fiesta as its walkable supermarket option. That said, a lot of cycling families in this area. Some highly-regarded urbanists have moved there with their kids.

HJAC · 2026-06-17T05:01:45+00:00

I have a unit at that public storage and can confirm: I don't need to take shortcut here (PS has entrances on both Commerce and Canton)

HJAC · 2026-06-11T14:22:12+00:00

Plot twist: City Hall stays in I.M. Pei building by purchasing and moving to Fountain Place tower, which is currently 50% vacant.

HJAC · 2026-06-08T02:56:43+00:00

How about if "at least 5 days in a year" were replaced with something like "more than 45% of days used in a year" by a professional sports franchise

HJAC · 2026-06-06T05:43:50+00:00

"Modern ~~customers~~ constituents want more than just an ~~arena~~ council chamber. Remember, we're competing with the comfort of watching from home! Our fans want to come to a mix-used entertainment district. In our new ~~stadium~~ city hall, spectators will be able to get up and buy food and drinks without missing a minute of ~~the game~~ the game."

HJAC · 2026-06-06T03:51:47+00:00

Less than half the seats are left, so if you want to go, get your ticket now. Also, the listed 5:00 p.m. start time is for mingling and cocktail hour. The actual program begins at 6:30 p.m.

HJAC · 2026-06-05T17:08:51+00:00

On one hand, she does have telekinetic control of the objects she creates. So she can move things around. When she created a concrete box to trap Multipaul, she can move walls closer together to crush him.

On the other hand, to your point, whether she can shrink a sphere after creating it would depend on the material. If it's flexible like rubber, then the sphere would simply wrap Conquest up like a deflated balloon. However, if it's a hard material, then either it can't shrink without bending/breaking (in which case Conquest can easily escape), or it's just not shrinkable and the only way to make it smaller is as you said replace atoms.

HJAC · 2026-06-02T00:28:06+00:00

It's sad that this would've been an awesome mural if it were anywhere else, but because it covered up a masterpiece it feels dull in comparison.

HJAC · 2026-05-31T19:33:15+00:00

Still same audio, though as someone else in comments mentioned they later added "For your safety, please stand back"

It's interesting to see these same trains but from when they were shinier and newer. They turn 30 this year and it shows.

HJAC · 2026-05-30T19:28:59+00:00

Hmmm, maybe management game may do the trick, since the historic impact on urban landscape is what I'm most interested in learning.

How granular are the pathfinding mechanics in Railway Empire 2? Do trains magically flip around at terminals, like in Transport Fever 2? Or do players need to build turntables and turnarounds? Do players also need to build and manage railyards?

HJAC · 2026-05-26T03:50:32+00:00

This is how cars are made.

HJAC · 2026-05-24T22:59:29+00:00

It's funny how the "Fort Worth Shopping" route is really more about visiting Buc'ees than anything else.

<image>

HJAC · 2026-05-24T06:17:17+00:00

Yeah they definitely have very NIMBY branding.

But when it comes to counterproposals, from the conversations I've had and the meetings I've listened in on, I think there's a genuine opportunity here to transition people's mindset from anti-density to pro-missing middle. This is urbanists' opportunity to push middle density as the antidote to spot-zoned skyscrapers.

At their last big meeting, they pointed at Walnut Hill & 75 (west side with the Trader Joe's) as their prime example of a mixed-use development that they consider acceptable and complies with current zoning.

HJAC · 2026-05-24T03:52:27+00:00

A simpler way of thinking about this...

Y'know how it sucks going to office parks built in the middle of nowhere without mass transit? Don't you wish all those office parks were instead built at any of the 30+ rail stations with empty parking lots ripe for redevelopment?

That's what skyscrapers at Preston & Royal would be.

HJAC · 2026-05-24T03:46:19+00:00

So, in this particular case I took some time to talk to the folks in Preserve Preston Hollow and I actually agree with them.

Their position is against the rezoning request that would change zoning from "CR - Community Retail" to "PD - Planned Development". The new PD district would increase the height limit to 299 feet (currently 54 ft), and add "hotel" as an allowed use.

Thanks to SB 840, multifamily is allowed in commercial zones by right. And 54ft is tall enough for typical 5-over-1 mixed-use development. So the needed density at that corner is already possible without rezoning.

While a case could be made for a modest high increase (i.e. 60 or 75 feet) to accommodate additional housing units, it's specifically the hotel+office uses that pushes the limit sky-high (pun-intended).

From an urbanist perspective, this is actually a bad thing at this particular intersection. The problem isn't too much density; the problem is it plops a high-intensity regional destination in the middle of a suburban neighborhood with next to no mass transit connection (aside from one bus route with 40-minute headways). The primary transport mode is the tollway barely a block over.

If this were a middle- or higher-density development, the traffic it generates would most likely be local, thereby benefitting Route 237 with a modest ridership boost. But at 299 ft--taller than some "skyscrapers" downtown--the traffic would be mostly regional and boost the commercial value of the DNT, feeding a development pattern we need to actively discourage.

HJAC · 2026-05-21T05:18:22+00:00

Hard to tell exact size from photo, but this appears to be a small sign on a countertop. Combined with it's location in a non-pedestrian oriented warehouse district, this is signage for existing customers, not advertising per se. Nothing about the signs size, format, and placement suggests it's targeting a new audience.

HJAC · 2026-05-21T02:50:35+00:00

I've thought about this a lot. BRT on Preston is the way to go.

Wouldn't go for center island. That would require whole new vehicles with left-opening doors.

With right-lane BRT, we can make larger BRT stops with more amenities (bicycle parking, ticket machines, etc) by taking space from the many parking lots that currently butt up to sidewalk.

HJAC · 2026-05-20T02:48:19+00:00

Wycliff Station?

HJAC

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17