Tonight is the last class of the summer session. We discussed adaptive reuse, redevelopment, transportation, Transit Oriented Developments, Architecture, and Facilities Management.

The first discussion was about adaptive reuse. There are pluses and minuses to reusing an old building. Simply using less construction materials is green in and of itself, and LEED recognizes and rewards the value of adaptive reuse. However, there are also often remediation issues or costs that can be unknown until reconstruction begins. Furthermore, an article for this evening points out that reconstruction can often never be as energy efficient or green as entirely new construction, due to the inability to install completely integrated modern systems.

There was a brief discussion about the potential for additional telecommuting benefiting smaller or rural communities. Could high speed internet access and better communications technology provide some benefit to these communities in terms of allowing more people to live and work in places that might be remote from traditional urban employment centers? Some of these small towns, born as service centers for the agricultural economy, have little reason to exist given the economic changes that have occurred since WWII. Small towns will need to be visionary in order to market themselves. Perhaps technology, high speed internet access, and telecommuting from a rural environment could be a good marketing hook.

We finished by citing the top trends identified throughout the course. These included Government sponsored projects, sustainability/green building/LEED, re-urbanization/mixed use/density, regulatory changes, and financial troubles.

Multi-family, single family and the economy really stinks

This evening the class discussed trends in multi-family housing, single-family housing, MFR, Appraisal and evaluation, development, and construction. We even covered the benefits (which are surprisingly large, money wise) of using iPads in construction.

We also had a valuable discussion of common pitfalls in analyzing home construction data. Given the cyclical nature of the home construction industry - with the majority of housing changing hands in the summer months - one has to be careful with period to period analysis. Comparing Summer quarter to 1st quarter sales is not revealing. Instead, same period, year over year comparisons, or even longitudinal comparisons over a long time period would be more useful for analysis.

Another note - a sad one for me - was the news of the bank taking back Valley View Center. When my family first moved to the DFW area in the early 1980's, we lived for a brief period just north of Valley View on Montfort Rd. I remember walking to Sanger Harris and watching movies at the (then) 2 screen theatre at the Mall. A victim of the overall economy and a poorer location vis-a-vis competitors, as well as a surfeit of mall competition in the north Dallas area, Valley View has been in decline for a long time. Still, its kind of wistful to see a piece of Dallas' recent past crumble. There's a great mosaic on the former Sanger Harris (now Foley's) store.

Another interesting article for this evening had to do with property losses from the BP oil spill and how to deal with them. Apparently, Charlie Crist is seeking to tap into BP to cover the losses sustained by businesses and homeowners along the gulf coast of Florida. I would wonder how much of a drop in property value could be attributed to the spill, as opposed to overall market conditions or poor management in the case of businesses. It seems like it will inevitably be a very arbitrary process. The situation does bring to mind the overall effect that the recent economic crisis, and decline in property values in general, has on local government and state government.

Another article discussed this evening dealt with real estate investment companies beginning to look into acquisition of distressed or broken multi-family projects. Some people, at least, are starting to bet that we are at or near the bottom. It will be interesting to see how that pans out, especially in light of the commercial mortgage refinancing cycle.

The discussion of a potentially growing "renter by choice" market was the most interesting portion of the evening. The transition from "the only people who rent are those who have no choice" to "renters by choice" has been ongoing for the past 20 or so years. The current economic cycle has probably reinforced the appeal of renting instead of owning one's home. The notion has been long marketed, by home builders and various government agencies, that owning a home is a sure fire investment, with a price trajectory that is always rising. Well, the recent crisis has shown that home prices can drop, and can drop quickly. So, more people are likely to view renting as a more viable alternative than buying. Also, more people have to rent right now, either as a result of lower or no income due to job loss or downsizing.

Also, more people have to rent as a result of their homes being foreclosed. In addition, there is a demographic element to the rental. As the large baby boom cohort ages into its 60's and 70's, it is likely that they will seek out living situations with less required maintenance and more convenience. Mowing the yard, fixing garbage disposal, and paying homeowner's insurance and property taxes are likely to become even less appealing to a person as they age. The challenge for real estate developers, planners, and architects is to ensure that new or repurposed multi-family properties are part of a whole community, or at least are able to serve the needs of an entire population. This "life-cycle" housing might well become very much a growth industry over the next couple of decades. This would mean viewing multi-family as part and parcel of the community, including retail, office, recreational, and medical care accessibility.

This will remake Fort Worth

This evening we met at campus and then walked over to the Trinity River Vision offices on West 7th Street in downtown Fort Worth. My overall impression of the Trinity corridor plans is that they will fundamentally remake the city of Fort Worth. Trinity Uptown itself would be enough to make a dramatic statement as well as changing the urban landscape of the city. But the plan is much more than that.

The beginnings of the project are similar to the background of the Dallas Trinity project. It begins with devastating floods, flood control methods that sealed off the river from the community, and a desire to reconnect the city with its principle natural resource. The massive levee system installed by the Corps of Engineers in the 20th century certainly protected Fort Worth from flooding, but also sealed off the river with a giant earthen wall. Fellow students pointed out that the North Texas area does not possess a surplus of natural amenities or striking landscapes. And people really like to connect with their environment, even if only in a scenic, sanitized way. People especially like water and interacting with water. It is therefore natural for Fort Worth to explore how to capitalize on its primary natural asset: the Trinity River.

Trinity Uptown has gotten most of the press and the accolades, but the Trinity River Vision is much more expansive than just Trinity Uptown. The Gateway Park plan is as ambitious as Trinity Uptown, and ought to provide a real benefit for residents of surrounding communities, ans well as opportunities for development and redevelopment around the park.Urban park planners always like to compare their plans with the size of Central Park in New York. While Fort Worth doesn’t possess Vaux and Olmstead, in Gateway Park, it does possess a footprint bigger than their Manhattan oasis.

Similarly, there are many smaller projects along the Trinity and its watershed throughout the City that will have large impacts on the quality of life and the value of many neighborhoods. There will be 27 miles of new trails, as well as rowing courses, ballfields, splash fountains, and other amenities that will get people out of their homes and connected with the river and their community. To me, the best part of the plan is how well integrated it is into the overall plan of the city. I also appreciate that there is an emphasis on residential, including an affordable housing component. It would be all too easy to price the working class entirely out of this kind of transformational development.

In comparison with the Dallas vision, Fort Worth seems to have much more organization, integration into the fabric of and overall plan for the city, and more momentum. There is a 12 year plan for finishing all the flood control and other infrastructure, and development of Trinity Uptown can begin as soon as financing loosens up. Local, state, and national interests seem much more aligned and on board with the Fort Worth plan than with Dallas. I would expect more built results from Fort Worth than from Dallas.

After the presentation, the class took a walking tour of downtown Fort Worth, including Sundance Square and the Radio Shack/TCC complex. The downtown residential development was particularly interesting in that it fit seamlessly with the overall built environment of a historic downtown.

The tour of the Radio Shack/TCC campus allowed the class to view the loop of the Trinity that will be redeveloped into Trinity Uptown. It also allowed us to experience the TCC campus. It is corporate monolithic architecture at its finest. Despite the green touches, the massive entry atrium is clearly designed to provoke awe and trembling in the visitor approaching the front desk. Not quite Mussolin's office at the Palazzo Venezia, but the same basic principle. Despite the intimidation factor, I think TCC has the finest junior college campus around.

They had me until the Skyway to Tomorrowland

On July 22, the class took a trip to Dallas to meet and greet at the Trinity River Foundation offices. There was a reception and presentation to an assembled group that included real estate professionals, representatives from design and architecture firms, the Dean of UTA's School of Urban and Public Affairs, and our small group of graduate students.

The Foundation offices were filled with interesting tidbits, including the large model of the vision for the Trinity River in Dallas. The model itself was a bit controversial when it was first constructed, with some eyebrows raised over the cost, estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Complete with a raft of tiny model houses and miniature led streetlights, the model is impressive, and conveys a powerful image of what the vast series of parks, parkways, athletic fields, and iconic bridges could do for Dallas. In addition to the overall model, there were models of the two Calatrava bridges as well as wall murals of the overall plan. And literature. Lots and lots of literature.

We met and mingled, then watched a presentation of the vision for the river corridor. Several aspects stood out. One was the proposed white water course. The design was pretty slick, using changes in elevation to create a course that paralleled the river but flowed in the opposite direction, then switched back to flow in the same direction so that a kayaker could take a trip, then walk up some stairs and start all over again. The Trinity Forest area was also interesting, allowing a very natural, almost wilderness experience within a large city. A decommissioned and repurposed bridge that would be analogous to New York's Highline park is another intriguing aspect of the overall plan.

The design was good and well thought out, but the organization, support, funding, and timeline were all a little more murky. Dallas approved over $200 million in bonds to begin construction of infrastructure for the plan, but has run into difficulties with the location of the proposed parkway and the structural integrity of the levees. The plan is massive, and will require an enormous commitment of time and effort, but seems to be largely based on the hopes that it will all work out one day.

There are plans for real estate development to take advantage of the amenities created by the plan, but these are also sometimes fanciful in conception. The vision offers opportunities to better connect Oak Cliff and Downtown, but certain aspects seem off. The main downtown gateway will be immediately below the Lew Starrett Justice Center, which deter young mothers from taking their toddlers for a stroll. Proposed Oak Cliff side development is linked to Downtown Dallas (at least in part) via a aerial tram. The artwork reminded me of Disney World's Skyway to Tomorrowland (a bit of 1960's technology which has, I believe, been closed). In total, the plan does not always parse well.

If much of this plan actually gets built, it will provide a great deal for Dallas. Not the least will be ample opportunity for additional development to take advantage of the amenities within the park system. It will be interesting to compare and contrast this plan with the Fort Worth vision.