The Old Parkland lands stood vacant for years at Maple and Oak Lawn Avenues before Crow Holdings restored the historic hospital campus into a significant landmark in 2009.
The new campus surrounds the original 1913 Parkland Hospital building seamlessly. Behind the gates, the historic buildings thrive. Interiors are true works of art, from the intricate wood floors to the fine wood railings, panels, columns and rotundas. Descriptions range from an “Ivy League” corporate park to vibes our publisher felt the first time she was an Old Parkland guest: like being in a Capitol building. There are fine works of art on nearly every wall, “everything from Old Parkland memorabilia to death masks to a piece of a curtain Abraham Lincoln is believed to have grabbed and torn after being shot at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., in 1865—are tucked into every nook and cranny”
Architecturally, it’s an impressive packaging of neoclassical style. CBRE’s Phil Puckett most aptly christened Old Parkland the “Smithsonian Institute in Dallas,” where select tenants congregate (and pay up to $50 per foot) behind walls and gates. There is even a bullpen.
Apparently, the original campus is not big enough.
Old Parkland X 2
On Tuesday, the Oak Lawn Committee saw a request from Crow Holdings to expand the Old Parkland campus across Maple Avenue to fill the block bounded by Maple, Fairmount, Reagan, and Throckmorton – that’s where the restaurants Sprezza and the defunct Merchant House on Maple and the 15-year-old, three-story Seville North apartments facing Fairmount Street are.
Currently, the block carries three zoning categories – the Maple frontage is GR (General Retail) limited to 120-foot heights, with the Seville apartments conforming to their MF-2 designation at under 36-feet in height. Between the two there is a small portion zoned for parking.
Crow’s ask is to solidify a single zoning category on the parcel via a PD subdistrict that would match the Old Parkland zoning across Maple and bordering the Tollway. The new zoning calls for raising the entire parcel to 240 feet in height while at the same time more than doubling the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from a combination of 2:1 and 1.8:1 to 4:1.
The project also wants to do away with setbacks required when building adjacent to multifamily areas (it would interrupt the sheer wall design facing the Alexan/Essence apartments across Fairmount). Ditto eliminating the side and rear yard requirements which equate to sidewalks being pushed onto public land on Throckmorton and Fairmount.
Also part of the ask is to increase lot coverage which, frankly, since this is Phase 2 of the Old Parkland campus, it’s unlikely we’ll actually get to see much of the finished product.
What’s it Mean? More.
Currently the parcels total 111,220 square feet (or 2.56 acres). At their existing FAR, that would result in buildings totaling of roughly 211,318 square feet. At 4:1 FAR, this more than doubles to 445,320 square feet of buildings.
It would also further encroach into the MF-2/36-foot height district east of Maple Avenue. And it would do it exactly three blocks from the recently approved Caven-Ablon project over on Dickason that also borders Reagan and Throckmorton – exactly what Plan Commissioner Jung predicted. But unlike those developments, this proposal calls for at least 90 percent underground parking.
And then there’s height, Crow is asking for 240 feet but the renderings only show a trio of connecting structures topping out at nine stories plus another cupola – or roughly in line with their existing GR zoning or 120 feet. What’s the other 120 feet for?
Crow representatives said that the 240 feet is the height of the top of the cupola, but that doesn’t ring true, at least to this observer. The building is nine stories – even at 15 feet per floor, the cupola/bell tower hardly seems to be 100 feet tall above the building to me.
What Does the Neighborhood Get?
Their proposal lists the “Community Give Backs” as underground parking, enhanced pedestrian experience, upgraded treatment of Maple Avenue corridor, and thoughtful architectural design.
We trust that each of these is something Crow would have done anyway. Just as the main campus (and Crow’s own residence) has underground parking, so will this (do I smell a tunnel at some point?). The other three give backs definitely improve the view from their existing windows across the street.
But is this a win-win? Kinda. Crow (or more likely a developer) could be proposing something else Dallas, and he’s not. But to me, it’s still more of us being allowed to have more Old Parkland than a community’s actual win-win.
The End? I Doubt It.
The Maple-frontage parcels are owned by Crow’s South Tollway 3920 LP, as is the land under restaurant 18th & Vine and four other neighboring parcels (see map above). Currently, those parcels are empty lots – if other vacant gap-toothed blocks are any indication, vacant lots are a way of removing customers and desirability from a block.
I asked Crow representatives if they had also acquired the Seville South complex noted above in red. They said they hadn’t and when pressed about any future plans, they answered they had none at this time. I think the keywords are “at this time.”
It seems to me that the eventual plan is to jump the shark on Maple Avenue well beyond this one proposal. In fact, given this proposal’s orientation towards the corner of Reagan and Maple, it’s easy to see a book-matched set of buildings on the southern block.
I Don’t Hate It (!)
It may surprise you, but I don’t actually hate the look of this proposal. Architecturally it pounds its chest a bit too hard, but it will be a top-quality imitation.
However, I am troubled by the 240-foot height ask. I don’t like the further encroachment into the MF-2 neighborhood.
The Oak Lawn Committee May NOT Be Dead
I’ve pronounced the OLC dead a few times. I think with Paul Ridley as the council member for District 14, it now has a new, perhaps temporary, lease on life. What the group does with that lease to shore up its power and influence only time will tell.
But last night’s meeting wasn’t a step in the right direction. After over a year of Zoom meetings (with no sign of changing) last night’s meeting blocked the chat function because OLC president Paul Ellenbogen decided he didn’t like some of the comments.
That said, I’ll do my part to help the group in my own way.
Conflicts of Interest
Currently, the OLC has no rules in place for conflicts of interest. This means if you are a member of the OLC and also associated with a case before the group, you do not have to recuse yourself from proceedings surrounding your case. You are privy to every conversation and email.
Because of this, the OLC has no space to discuss a project without the applicant hearing and reading every word. This is especially problematic when the OLC opposes a case. Every discussion and strategy is laid bare for the applicant to see and then counter with city leaders.
It’s the literal spy in their midst.
