After Years of Following The City’s Rules, Elm Thicket/Northpark Proves it is Worth Saving
Share News:
Dr. Myrna Dartson
Special Contributor
“The secret to success is constancy of purpose.”
Benjamin Disraeli
It has been more than a year since I wrote a column for CandysDirt.com concerning my and my neighbor’s efforts to save the history and maintain the character of the Elm Thicket/Northpark (ETNP) neighborhood. ETNP is one of several historic freedmen’s communities in Dallas.
As a legacy resident, I was reared and continue to call ETNP the only home I know. My father, like many of the legacy families in ETNP, worked two jobs to buy the home where my mother still lives. It was not uncommon for many families to have both spouses work two jobs to afford their homes. ETNP has always been an affordable neighborhood for workforce housing.
Elm Thicket/Northpark is Worth Saving
In the last 12 months, my neighbors and I have tried to get our message out that ETNP is worth saving. That effort begins with the Dallas City Council approving the proposed zoning changes that would limit the lot coverage, and structure height and require hip-and-gable roofing on 90 percent of the roof area on new homes being built in ETNP. The proposal will go before the Dallas City Council at the Oct. 12 meeting.
For instance, on a 50-by-150-foot lot builders can currently construct up to a 6,750-square-foot, two-story home that is 36 feet in height with a flat roof. This style of home does not fit into the character of our traditional neighborhood.
When the proposed changes go into effect, builders will be able to construct a 5,250-square-foot, two-story home on that same 50-by-150-foot lot. That is still an enormous home. Contrary to how we have been portrayed, ETNP neighbors who support the zoning changes are not trying to regulate what makes a home pretty nor are we trying to stop construction. We are simply saying that these overly massive, “futuristic” looking homes do not belong in ETNP.
Six years ago our then councilman, Adam Medrano, rightfully recognized the importance of ETNP as a historic black neighborhood and one critical to maintaining workforce housing in the city. The City of Dallas came to ETNP and led us through the Neighborhood Plus Target Area.
For what seemed like the first time, the city was asking people of color what we wanted for our neighborhood and what we wanted for our future.
During those meetings, the homeowners said they wanted any new construction to conform to the traditional style of home already in existence. To achieve what homeowners voiced during those meetings, the city recommended an authorized hearing.
We were consistent. We followed the city’s recommendation and we waited four long years for the city to act on our case. The ETNP Authorized Hearing Steering Committee was created in the fall of 2020 and consisted of eight ETNP homeowners, two commercial business owners, and the former city plan commissioner who was serving ETNP when going through the Neighborhood Plus program. The committee met 13 times and made recommendations to the city’s Planning and Urban Design department.
The professionals in the department reviewed the recommendations, made appropriate adjustments, and made their own recommendations. The senior planner for our case came to ETNP for three all-day listening sessions. The city and its representatives have gone above and beyond for ETNP. The City Plan Commission approved the proposed changes unanimously in August.
Despite racial and personal attacks from those opposed to the proposed changes, ETNP legacy neighbors have remained consistent.
One of These Things is Not Like The Others
During these past 12 months, I have learned that ETNP is not alone in seeing how these enormous, non-traditional homes ruin neighborhoods. On the Nextdoor app, newer ETNP neighbors as well as neighbors in nearby Devonshire bemoan how this type of construction takes away from the aesthetic of traditional neighborhoods.
Our case has been called the biggest downzoning case in the city. The legacy residents consider the last three years the biggest downzoning of our quality of life. Neighbors that live in cottages next to these homes are losing their privacy, are forced to stare at 36-foot walls out their windows when they used to see the sky, and have to deal with run-off into their backyard when builders do not build appropriate drainage.
And yet, the legacy residents of ETNP have remained consistent. The City of Dallas asked us what we wanted. The City of Dallas heard us and helped us get to this point. It is now time for the Dallas City Council to fulfill its promise and approve these proposed zoning changes. We have been patient and we have waited.
The remainder of the quote by Benjamin Disraeli goes like this:
“The happiness you are searching for comes through reflecting on the worthy aims you are dedicated to achieving and then taking action daily to advance them.”
For the past year, ETNP neighbors who love our neighborhood for its history and its people have been taking action each and every day to have these proposed zoning changes approved.
I have never loved my neighbors more. We have kept each other informed of what is happening. We have watched out for each other. We have given solace to our legacy residents who would be door-knocking with us if their bodies allowed.
It is now up to the Dallas City Council to fulfill its promise and allow us to Save Elm Thicket/Northpark.
Dr. Myrna Dartson is a legacy resident whose family has lived in Elm Thicket/Northpark for almost 60 years. She is a licensed psychologist and shares a private practice in Dallas with her identical twin sister.
19 Comments
Leave a Comment
We have lived at our residence since 1956, and cannot believe the city dares to allow a takeover when it just as easily could agree to a makeover! Where would we be allowed to do the same if we lose this fight! Can we afford to live in any other part of the city if we are forced to move? Is Dallas really showing it’s true self? Surely not!
Beautifully written. Thank you for all you do . I love my village In ETNP❤️
amen!
City council, please stand with ETNP.
Dr. Dartson, I sincerely appreciate your sentiment, as do most of the homeowners in the neighborhood. However, the math that you are using is incomplete, and it provides a warped idea of what will be available to build with the proposed restrictions.
Using a standard 50×150 (7500 square foot lot):
35% lot coverage:
2,625 TOTAL FIRST FLOOR AREA – Architects, builders and the city call this “COVERED BUILDING AREA”.
5,250 total under roof – if you merely double first floor footprint
5,250 Sqft foot home:
First Floor – 2,625 Covered Building Area:
Garage – 400 sqft (minimum requirement for a 2-car garage).
PLEASE NOTE: Many people are needing a 3 car garage as children start to drive or elderly parents move in with their kids. Multi-generational households.
Larger garage spaces keep cars off the streets
Front Patio – 50 Sqft
Covered Outdoor Space – 300 sqft
Most covered outdoor spaces range from 400 – 1,200 sqft
PLEASE NOTE: A good amount of covered outdoor space is a requirement for modern living and buyer’s needs.
Covered outdoor space REDUCES visual “MASSING AND SCALE”.
Covered outdoors keeps the lot looking “open” rather than part of the main structure.
We do not live in an area where kids can freely run around – due to deteriorating infrastructure, street safety/traffic, etc. Covered outdoor space with fans and heaters give a realistic area for families to enjoy the outdoors.
Final Total First Floor A/C Area: 1,800+ (2,625 – 750)
1,800 allocated to first floor A/C sqft is unacceptable NOT TO MENTION impossible to build a new home that meets owners’ needs. Here are standard first floor areas (on the small side for this purpose):
Kitchen – 300 sqft
Dining – 240 sqft
Living – 400 sqft
Master Bedroom – 250 sqft
Master Closet – 180 sqft
Master Bathroom – 200
TOTAL: 1,570 leaving roughly 300 sqft.
Where do WALLS go?
Where do HALLS go?
AC Ducts?
Where does the staircase go?
Fireplace?
Powder Bathroom?
Closets?
What if someone wanted a bar/wine room? A mud room? Laundry room? Fireplace?
Secondary bedroom downstairs for elderly or disabled family members?
Etc…
If the overlay is approved, the homes are just going to look bigger, with a bigger second story (massing) and less outdoor covered space (scale). The homes will be much less desirable… limited outdoor space, small first floor floorplan, no two bedrooms downstairs… the list goes on and on…
What we need is a defining of character, yet the case report for this overlay provides no direction for defining character whatsoever. Therefore, this overlay will not accomplish anything that benefits any of the homeowners. Houses will be boxier with more mass. That will be the effect.
Very informative reading. Thanks! I’ve been a resident on Morton Street well over 50 years. My parents still reside there and have no desire or plans to move. It was and still is their dream home/ neighborhood. Thanks again for a wonderful reading.
This is the urban planner’s grift to bait and switch with the forced into existence HOAs of their Planned Development to pretend to negotiate in order to achieve their end goal of increasing density in existing inner city residential neighborhoods for the Profits of their Big Money “stakeholders” by attacking our Zoning and Land Use. Stop allowing any changes to our existing District Zoning that affect our residential neighborhoods, especially allowing them to change single family zoning to duplex zoning as they are doing in this proposal on Roper. Luxury duplexes for their stakeholders are not affordable housing for displaced legacy property owners. Stop the zoning changes which includes the move for STRs and ADUs that are more property regulations imposed on single family residential property owners and their rights of land use according to their deeds
Thank you. Dr. Myrna Dartson for the support of our community you been here all your life as well and all of our Elm Thicket Residence. I’m 57 and was Raised on thrush Street. I went to K. B. Polk Elementary school . I love ❤️ Elm Thicket Northpark.
Thank you for your comments Dr. Dartson. I fully support the zoning changes!
Well done, great article
Justin R., I think you missed the point of Dr. Dartson’s excellent column by focusing on the square footage. She spoke of the non-traditional homes ruining the ETNP neighborhood. As a 27-year homeowner I have seen the changes first hand, and I agree 100% with what she pointed out. We want homes to look like traditional homes and not dentist offices.
I also need to point out your math. You are correct when you say the first floor maximum footprint is 2650 square feet. What you are calling out is living area when you subtract the garage, patio, and outdoor living areas. I can see that living area is what is important. But saying that up to 1200 square feet under the roof for an outdoor patio is ridiculous. That is larger than my entire house. If someone wants an outdoor space that large, they need an estate lot on Inwood or acreage in the country. And if they want more than 300 square feet of outdoor patio, then they can build a deck to add on that is not part of the home’s footprint. Of course, with these large homes, they don’t have much backyard already because the house’s footprint already eats up most of the yard. Again, buy an estate lot or acreage where you have the space you need.
So, back to the first floor living area. Given your requirements of 750 sq feet for a 2-car garage, front patio, and outdoor living area, that leaves 1875 sq feet (not 1800 as your math provided) for the things like the kitchen, dining, master suite, etc. which take 1570 sq feet per your estimates. That leaves 305 square feet for other things in the downstairs floor. Then add the second floor and another 1500 square feet or so and you can easily have your extra bedrooms and bathrooms with livable area pushing 3500-4000 square feet. That is what can be built and that is more than enough for most people. Of course, if you want more downstairs space for the things you mentioned, I have already pointed out the estate lots and acreage that can easily accommodate those desires. Heck, why not throw in a 4-car garage, bowling alley, and helipad while we’re at it?
Will builders need to be creative? Yes. But they will still make plenty of money building homes with 3500-4000 square feet of living space. I have no doubt the architects can figure out where the halls and duct work go. That’s their job to figure that out. It is not impossible to build a home with that much room on a 50×150 lot. Olerio Homes has been building the big “box” homes you lament about for years now, but at least they look like traditional homes.
In the end, legacy homeowners want to live next to another home and as opposed to something that looks like a medical center office or someone’s idea of a “futuristic” home. This overlay is exactly what we need to Save Elm Thicket/Northpark.
I have a very serious question, why do you support the changes? How do they help you or anyone else? Homes will still be sold, builders will still build – build more massive looking homes at 5′ shorter. Change will still happen is a more detrimental way. Taxes will continue to rise. All we are left with is property values decreasing especially to those who might need the funds the most. (All of these facts have been confirmed by Mike King, Planning Director). So again, why are you in favor?
Gus,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I spoke to square footage because Dr. Dartson’s article makes one assume (unless they’ve seen architectural plans for a 2-story home to built following the overlay) that the square footage is a mood point and unaffected with the overlay. It’s simply not true, and therefore, it’s not a mood point. With the overlay, 2-story homes will actually be boxier (builders will put more square footage on the 2nd floor) to combat the reduced lot coverage. This in turn will increase the mass and scale of the new 2-story homes. Why would you want that if you don’t like the big homes you are already witnessing? Why would you want more space on the 2nd floor, therefore creating more visual obstruction?
Now the more important question, since you spoke to it: What character is being preserved by the overlay? Can you point to it – does it say that homes need to have a certain % of masonry, or need to have a certain traditional presence, or otherwise? The only characteristic is a roof style on a 2nd floor. Please point out what character will be evident now throughout the neighborhood if this passes. No one else, including the council or planning department has indicated such.
Meaning, people will continue to build homes that they prefer in terms of look and feel (ie. material type and architectural style), and you still won’t like it. This overlay does not solve the problem you and Dr. Dartson are concerned about.
Gus – At one point you and those in favor say you dont want big, enormous houses. That the MASSING and SCALE needs to fit with the smaller 1920s/1940s homes. But then you say that you are fine with Olerio’s massive looking, box homes…. you cant have it both ways.
And keep in mind… nothing about these zoning changes will stop modern looking homes from being built. The one-story down the street from me is one of the most modern homes in the area. – could still be built under these changes. My modern home, gable roof on second story, could still be built under these zoning changes. So yet again…. what are these changes solving? No one has yet answer ed this question with facts.
Gus, I really do understand and appreciate your feedback and Dr. Dartson’s article. I do think the City could assist in providing a semblance of character and guidelines for the neighborhood. The issue here is that the overlay actually doesn’t solve the problem. And that’s the problem I have. If we are going to implement an overlay, it should solve the problem.
By copy and pasting this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZxyPZjCnTfV9aKNclLPAR35zlN7CXZUY/view?usp=sharing) you can view architectural plans for a 2-story home in Elm Thicket under the overlay guidelines. Can you see how the floor space will be moved up to the 2nd floor to achieve the same square footage? Look how it creates unattractive massing (a box on a box). This will make the homes look worse.
Best,
Justin
Gus,
By copy and pasting this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZxyPZjCnTfV9aKNclLPAR35zlN7CXZUY/view?usp=sharing) you can view architectural plans for a 2-story home in Elm Thicket under the overlay guidelines. Can you see how the floor space will be moved up to the 2nd floor to achieve the same square footage? Look how it creates unattractive massing (a box on a box). This will make the homes look worse.
Best,
Justin
Reagan, then why are you fighting it????
Myrna – I guess you missed my points. These zoning changes hurt you, me, everyone. People who want smaller homes – the homes will be bigger. Those who don’t want modern homes, these zoning changes don’t stop them. Tax issues – this does not help that. Maintenance for upkeep – no help. Solidifying and honoring the incredibly special history of this area – no help. Why am I opposed and fighting…. because these changes are wrong and disproportionately hurt our lower and middle
socio-economic neighbors. And I will always fight against what is wrong, support what is best for Dallas, and stand up for the very people these change are ‘trying to help”.
Good builders who pay premium prices will leave this area. Cheap/bad builders who take advantage by buying lots for cheap and sell cheap homes will stay… and more will come. Big box homes…. just like Gus said.
Who wins here? Single property owners/legacy residents/neighbors….or big developers? Please think through the facts.
I am concerned more about style and materials than lot coverage, however, what can be done?
Can we do anything about style and materials? Why was this left out of the zoning changes?
The terrible homes by Elev8 are RUINING this area. Taste and style are critical in preservation of home value and neighbor charm. God bless the builders who value architecture and style. RAM, OLERIO, ALEXANDER HUNT, ROBERT ELLIOTT etc…