Behind that Press Release From Preservation Dallas on the Fair Park Briefing

Preservation Dallas sent out a press release tonight that references our Thursday evening panel discussion, the one that “forces” tried to deter. The press release is an inaccurate misrepresentation of that panel discussion. (Press release posted in entirety, see below.) Thankfully, we video-taped and live streamed the whole event, so readers can see and hear and decide for themselves.

I know that many people, from Preservation Dallas to Jennifer Gates, thought the panel was one-sided because we did not invite the “other side” to participate in the panel. Maybe I should have. I also know the timing was crappy because of the budget meetings a lot of Council members were having that very night. (John Jenkins couldn’t be on the panel for that reason.) But then, the City Council’s special agenda is Monday (tomorrow) at 1 p.m. I was out of town until last Monday. Thursday was the only night and the space at the original venue was limited so, I thought, let’s video this and do another panel with the “other side.”

Which I would still love to do.

But then, I thought, what is wrong with just getting information out? What is wrong with listening to other points of view even if it is “one side”? I billed this as a panel discussion, not a debate. The Mayor, like the President, has a huge bully pulpit and the “other side” has had tons of press.

I love the good folks at Preservation Dallas, and I adore Virginia McAlestar. Our historic district would not be here if it wasn’t for her. Dallas is not just lucky to have her, we owe her a lot.

With all due respect and much love, this release is taking some of the discussion from Thursday out of context.

Here’s the deal: most preservationists hate developers… and for good reason. Sometimes, quite frankly, they are idiots with no foresight or economic inclusivity. I mean, look at what developers did to State Thomas.

There is a huge fear that Don Williams, a lawyer who actually worked for one of the largest developers in the world, is going to get all land grubby with Fair Park.

In fact,  a comment about land grabbing was made after our panel, by someone in the audience. The huge fear is that the entire Fair Park deal is one big rush to buy land cheap and flip it when the area gets as hot as State Thomas or Uptown.

The only entity buying real estate around Fair Park has been the State Fair of Texas.

And then I think there is the fear that someone will touch those buildings, the National Historic landmarks, the Art Deco goddesses that are, according to mayor Rawlings, the largest collection of Art Deco buildings in the U.S.

There was no talk of that Thursday night. Touch those buildings over my dead body.

“We are in serious danger of losing our Fair Park National Historic Landmark.”

Not true, never discussed at the panel.

“I have heard constant rumors that it had to do with real estate development, but properly done development around the park could be a wonderful thing. Why were the goals of the Fair Park Texas Foundation-adding tons of green space, active park spaces, great tenants in landmark buildings, and dynamic events activating the park year-round-be anything but positive for development around the park?”  

Properly done development AROUND the park is EXACTLY what was being advocated last Thursday. And we showed examples of what was done successfully in other cities. In the words of that former developer, Don Williams, when you elevate the park you elevate the surrounding area: homes looking at a beautiful green park will hold more value, the land will be more desirable. A rising tide.

“Those who lead the vehement opposition to the Fair Park Texas Foundation have real estate development in mind.

 AND, THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ADJACENT TO FAIR PARK, IT IS IN FAIR PARK!”

How would you suggest making the area around Fair Park self-sustaining if those homes are not improved and preserved? For the homes that are not condemned, I foresee an M Streets like conservation district. Just look at Parkdale!

What was discussed was that if we create, finally, a huge park at Fair Park (which Robert Wilonsky so rightly calls “Fair Parking Lot”), that would be the impetus to improving the whole area. In the agreement currently before City Council, there is no guarantee as to size, and the Foundation has a year to conceive it.

In fact, the Walt Humann plan is requesting $1,600,000 to repair and landscape two parking lots where the Fair Park Texas Foundation has promised to rip out the parking lots and create a community park. Maybe it was an oversight, but, where’s the park?

What was discussed was that Don Williams would like to see a BIGGER park than the one being discussed. What was discussed was that IF we actually get a real leafy green park down there, private development might come in and bring the surrounding area up, much like what has happened in Bishop Arts.

If any development IS in Fair Park propery, it could be in the form of leasing out, say, the Swine Building or finding tenants for the days of the year when the State Fair is not occupying them. It’s really hard in real estate to find tenants on a shorted lease. If you have not seen nor understood the public/private trust owned Presidio in San Francisco, then you should. Taking up three square miles on the northern coast of San Francisco, the Presidio is an old army post that dates back to 1776:

Hundreds of former military buildings are now animated by more than 3,000 residents and 200 companies—including high tech start-ups, innovative non-profits and others that offer a surprising mix of visitor experiences. The park is home to museums and food trucks, art and archaeological sites, San Francisco’s newest recreation facilities and its most historic building. On any given day at the Presidio, organizations are pursuing new ideas, scientists are conducting research, and people of all ages are learning, playing and exploring.

Nothing was torn down, the original military buildings were beautifully restored and preserved, the homes once occupied by generals were remodeled and are now leased at ridiculous monthly rates. I would live in one in a heartbeat.

Twelve years ago, George Lucas built the Letterman Digital Arts Center, a satellite campus to his famous Skywalker Ranch, at The Presidio. An idyllic campus of pristine brick buildings, old and new, white verandas, and green bunny hills, it is the headquarters of Lucas Films, housing industrial light and magic, animation, consumer products, digital media, and more. If any of those guys on Thursday was talking about “tenants”, this is what they had in mind. A Lucas-film type operation in South Dallas.

“Then Thursday night I attended a panel on Fair Park, featuring Don Williams and others. I was stunned by the misinformation being given to the audience and there was no one on the panel to refute any of it. There was no one to represent park interests or the foundation. There were no preservationists.”

I have explained this: it was a panel, not a debate, and we ALL are preservationists. The “others” were Texas state representative Eric Johnson (full disclosure, Don Williams is one of his major campaign contributors), Urban Land Institute leader and Price Waterhouse Coopers executive Byron Carlock, Jr., former City Councilwoman Angela Hunt, and our editor Jon Anderson.

“One panel member, a former executive with Post Properties who was active in Uptown, showed slides of “best practices” redevelopment projects around the country-examples of what might be good for Fair Park (hotels, housing, and many other uses). All would transform the park into something entirely inconsistent with its historic landmark status. Asked for the “best example,” he pointed to “The Gulch” development near the Nashville Country Music Hall of Fame, which was moved from its Music Row site and spurred redevelopment of a work-live-play environment. This is the “best” example for what is most appropriate for Fair Park itself?”

Bryon Carlock used that example in that it was another location with a lot of local emotion attached to it, i.e. the State Fair of Texas, NOT the buildings. (He also mentioned The Presidio.) He was referring to giving the State Fair less permanent space on the Fair Park campus, allowing more for a park or the work/live/play environment that would uplift the area and actually bring in more funds to restore, maintain and preserve the historical buildings.

“Mind you it could be wonderful to have a Texas Music Hall of Fame in Fair Park (one of the uses suggested for the old Women’s Museum) and to see the land across the street (in three different directions even?) redevelop.”

Yep, that’s the kind of thing we were talking about. In three different directions.

“A panelist complained that this process had treated Fair Park as a park and been overseen by the Park Department, when it should have been handled by the Economic Development Department.”

That panelist was State Representative Eric Johnson, and this is a complete misquote. Plus he disclosed, at the onset, that he had no knowledge of nor control over the Humann plan/proposal, only opinions on what was best for the neighborhood. Eric Johnson represents District 100, which includes Fair Park. He was speaking from the point of view of his constituents, his personal opinion, that we should treat Fair Park as an economic development opportunity to benefit those constituents who have been held down so long by the historical crap. (He told of growing up in the neighborhood and hearing his grandparents talk of “Negro day” at the fair.) I wanted to hear from someone who represented the neighborhood. In fact, I wanted to explore ways of minimizing displacement — last thing you want to do is uplift the area and then chase out the current residents.

BTW, is there anything, anyplace, anywhere in the Humann plan where displacement is discussed? We mentioned a few ways, watch the video.

One of the most important things Eric Johnson, a lawyer, said, was that you MUST spell out promises in a government contract, any contract. Because even when they are spelled out, they are hard to enforce. When they are NOT spelled out, they are impossible to enforce.

In a nutshell, this is our main beef with the Humann plan. 

“No one mentioned the excellent Hargreaves Plan that “puts the park back into Fair Park,” and was developed with more than a year of public meetings, and was unanimously adopted by the city council. It was a true public planning process. And in addition to its fine treatment of Fair Park itself, included preliminary work on an entertainment district just outside the park, along with street sections that could transform Cullum’s walkability.”

The Hargreaves Plan is date stamped 2003. That’s thirteen years ago. Also, our Suzanne Felber tells me that Fair Park is a lively, busy place 364 days a year. But the Hargreaves Plan says, on page 9:

Despite its myriad virtues, Fair Park is not reaching its potential visitor capacity. On any given weekday, the park remains largely vacant. Many of the museums report attendance figures that are far below their goal levels and are struggling to stay in operation. Misperceptions about safety and access keep some visitors away, and the lack of visitors adds to the perception that the park is closed. At this point, Fair Park lacks a cohesive identity. The absence of any significant green recreation space belies its very title as “park”. Managing the park in a manner such that the wealth of events supports daily attendance— rather than detracts from it—is crucial to the life of Fair Park. Past efforts have attempted to revitalize this gem, yet as of now, no one plan has succeeded in turning it into the vibrant place it has the potential to be.

Thirteen years ago a park was suggested and we still don’t have one?

Finally, Virginia took great concern over one of the panelists saying — I think it was Byron — that Fair Park has 277 acres in southern Dallas that could be developed without displacing a single house or business:

Another panelist explained that Fair Park was the only 277 acres in southern Dallas that could be developed without displacing a single house or business. Apparently, it is not enough to create a fantastic park that will dramatically improve the area around it. One must redevelop the site itself as a real estate boomtown like Uptown, another one of the panelists “best practice” examples? 

What he meant, what all of us meant, was that Fair Park is a unique opportunity because of the vast amount of space. It is a good thing to not displace people, and eminent domain is a dirty word(s). I am sure Virginia would have no problem in building live/work/play environments on some of the parking lots currently owned by the State Fair of Texas, or any of the current parking lots.

Point is, there is enough space to do a lot of development WITHOUT touching one historical building, not one swan boat.

Again, here is the proof, thanks to the guys at RocketBrand.

Here is the press release sent by Preservation Dallas:

Special Letter from 

Virginia McAlester 

regarding Fair Park

IS FAIR PARK A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK AND PARK TO BE ENHANCED WITH GREEN SPACE, YEAR-ROUND USES, EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES?

 OR, IS IT A 277 ACRE REDEVELOPMENT SITE?

 All,

 We are in serious danger of losing our Fair Park National Historic Landmark. Short of a natural disaster, I never thought I would write those words.

 The huge amounts of negative social media about the non-profit Fair Park Texas Foundation, the many different plans solicited by an individual, and the one-sided panel discussions have taken me aback.

 I have heard constant rumors that it had to do with real estate development, but properly done development around the park could be a wonderful thing. Why were the goals of the Fair Park Texas Foundation-adding tons of green space, active park spaces, great tenants in landmark buildings, and dynamic events activating the park year-round-be anything but positive for development around the park?  

 Then on Thursday morning I received the upcoming Op Ed piece (or so it was presented to me) that suddenly made it all clear.  It simply confirms what many suspected. Those who lead the vehement opposition to the Fair Park Texas Foundation have real estate development in mind.

 AND, THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ADJACENT TO FAIR PARK, IT IS IN FAIR PARK!

 The Fair Park Texas Foundation is the equivalent of the Central Park Conservancy. What would have happened if forty years ago (when Central Park was in trouble) development interests had said “leave it to us, we will take care of all that unsafe, abandoned land. We will develop it and see that the park doesn’t cost the city anything! And of course we will leave a privately funded park or two.” This, versus the non-profit Conservancy dedicated to the preservation of the park and its assets. Where would Central Park be today? Or the Boston Common? Or San Diego’s Balboa Park?

 Then Thursday night I attended a panel on Fair Park, featuring Don Williams and others. I was stunned by the misinformation being given to the audience and there was no one on the panel to refute any of it. There was no one to represent park interests or the foundation. There were no preservationists.

 One panel member, a former executive with Post Properties who was active in Uptown, showed slides of “best practices” redevelopment projects around the country-examples of what might be good for Fair Park (hotels, housing, and many other uses). All would transform the park into something entirely inconsistent with its historic landmark status. Asked for the “best example,” he pointed to “The Gulch” development near the Nashville Country Music Hall of Fame, which was moved from its Music Row site and spurred redevelopment of a work-live-play environment. This is the “best” example for what is most appropriate for Fair Park itself?

 Mind you it could be wonderful to have a Texas Music Hall of Fame in Fair Park (one of the uses suggested for the old Women’s Museum) and to see the land across the street (in three different directions even?) redevelop.

 A panelist complained that this process had treated Fair Park as a park and been overseen by the Park Department, when it should have been handled by the Economic Development Department.

 No one mentioned the excellent Hargreaves Plan that “puts the park back into Fair Park,” and was developed with more than a year of public meetings, and was unanimously adopted by the city council. It was a true public planning process. And in addition to its fine treatment of Fair Park itself, included preliminary work on an entertainment district just outside the park, along with street sections that could transform Cullum’s walkability.

 Another panelist explained that Fair Park was the only 277 acres in southern Dallas that could be developed without displacing a single house or business.

 Apparently, it is not enough to create a fantastic park that will dramatically improve the area around it. One must redevelop the site itself as a real estate boomtown like Uptown, another one of the panelists “best practice” examples? 

 If you want to save Fair Park as a Park and as a National Historic Landmark please attend the Council Briefing at City Hall this Monday at 1 PM.  

 And by all means, PLEASE send a letter or email to the Dallas City Council. (click for addresses below)

 Virginia McAlester

District 1 – Scott Griggs

 District 2 – Adam Medrano

District 3 – Casey Thomas c/o Richard Soto

 District 4 – Carolyn Arnold c/o Franklin Meredith

 District 5 – Rick Callahan

 District 6 – Monica Alonzo c/o Yolanda Ramirez

 District 7 – Tiffani Young

 District 8 – Eric Wilson c/o Maria Salazar

 District 9 – Mark Clayton

 District 10 – Adam McGough

 District 11 – Lee Kleinman c/o Sophia Figueroa

 District 12 – Sandy Greyson

 District 13 – Jennifer Staubach Gates c/o Carolyn Williamson

 District 14 – Philip Kingston

 Mayor Mike Rawlings c/o Scott Goldstein

 You can also send a message to City Officials as a group by clicking here and filling out the form at the top or by phone 214-670-3301  

Show your Support for the Fair Park Texas Foundation and the future of Fair Park!

Monday, August 29

1:00

City Hall – Council Chamber (6th floor, take red or green elevators)

Arrive early to get a seat and to pick up a support sticker!