A survey designed to gauge opinion on the fate of Dallas City Hall found that most would prefer to restore and renovate the not-quite-50-year-old building designed by I.M. Pei. Conducted via Google Forms, the unscientific poll used draft questions originally presented to the City Council that were eschewed in the city’s ZenCity survey.
In the ZenCity survey, roughly a third of all residents have never been to City Hall; most residents drive to 1500 Marilla; property owners are more likely to visit City Hall than renters; nearly 40 percent said they attend events at City Hall Plaza; and the southern half of the city visits to pay bills, while the northern half is more likely to come for an event. If they had to choose a new site, most would want it either downtown or downtown and close to transit. You can see the analysis of the responses here.
When it comes to things people are most concerned with, we asked people to rank the list by their biggest concern and second biggest concern:
- Potential for wasteful spending or inflated estimates: first concern, 20.4 percent; second concern, 30.8 percent
- Loss of historic/iconic landmark: first concern, 28 percent; second concern, 19.4 percent
- Transparency and fairness of contracts/developer deals: first concern, 19.4 percent; second concern, 19.9 percent
- Total taxpayer cost: first concern, 16.1 percent; second concern, 10.9 percent
- Long-term maintenance and utility costs: first concern, 10.4 percent; second concern, 8.5 percent
- Risk of higher taxes or debt: first concern, 2.4 percent; second concern, 7.6 percent
- Parking/accessibility and ease of visiting city services: first concern, 1.9 percent; second concern, 1.4 percent
- Disruption to city services during construction/renovation: first concern, 1.4 percent; second concern, 1.4 percent
A Sampling of Responses
Most (92 of 211) ranked an independent condition assessment of the current building as the first thing they would want to know before forming a final opinion, with a side-by-side cost comparison for restoring versus moving coming in second. When asked an open-ended question about any other information respondents would need, a sampling of those responses includes:
- “A side-by-side comparison of costs for staying and leaving the current building. A sound plan for the purchase and construction of a replacement building, since leasing forever makes no sense. An idea of the cash purchase price of the parcel of land and what costs the city would face in selling.”
- “How exactly did this start and why has it moved so fast. The truth, please.”
- “Full disclosure and transparency regarding decisions and information presented. The city has proved untrustworthy so far.”
- “A fully developed building program and concept design.”
- “Apples-to-apples comparison with similar-sized cities in the US and abroad where successful City Halls have been renovated, reconfigured, etc.”
And this lengthy one: “The City (after a robust community engagement process – similar to Forward Dallas) – should develop an updated master plan for the SE area of downtown (the existing KBHCCD Plan does not address redeveloping the City Hall site). The plan should not only include a vision for WHAT structures, uses, and amenities the City desires to have developed, but also an independent analysis (including assumptions) of the financial return it expects to realize (increased property, sales, hotel, mixed-beverage taxes) as well as other tangible benefits (new downtown residents, higher ridership on public transit, additional private investment, etc). The engagement process and the resulting master plan should include a detailed project financing plan that provides significant detail regarding the public incentives (structure, value, type, timing) that the city would be willing to offer a master developer as well as requirements (local hiring, wage floor, retail space reserved for local small businesses, affordable housing units, public space, etc). Proceeding without a plan (i.e. “Send us your ideas”) is more likely to invite real estate development that primarily benefits private interests and raises the risk that the City will be bullied to oversubsidize the project and assume unnecessary risk with mere promises of future public benefits.”…