Nathan Hunsinger
Audio By Carbonatix
City officials and preservationists have given mixed public reactions following the release of a bombshell report that found the costs of updating Dallas City Hall could exceed $1 billion.
On Friday, The Dallas Morning News released a summary presentation of an Economic Development Corporation-led study on what is needed to address ongoing concerns with the I.M. Pei-designed building.
City Hall needs $329 million to address the most immediate issues facing the structure, with that total jumping to between $906 million and $1.1 billion over the next 20 years “to fully modernize the building and make it functional for employees,” the report found.
The report’s findings are likely to add fuel to the ongoing debate over the structure’s future. Advocates for preservation have questioned reported costs and argued for the building’s civic and architectural significance. Others, including prominent Dallas business leaders, have argued against a costly renovation of the aging building in favor of relocating to another downtown property.
Proponents of a move have pointed to the property’s strategic location and potential to spur redevelopment in the core of the Central Business District, which has faced some of the highest office vacancy rates in the nation in recent years. Instability in the area was compounded by the early January announcement that AT&T would move its corporate headquarters from its offices near City Hall to a new corporate campus in Plano.
The property is also one of two sites in Dallas under consideration for the Dallas Mavericks’ newest stadium, with the other being the former Valley View Mall property in northern Dallas. A stadium, along with surrounding mixed-use development and a new convention center, would help revitalize Dallas’ beleaguered urban core more than saving the structure at 1500 Marilla Street, some advocating for relocation have said.
Local Officials React
Following the release of the report, which was commissioned after an EDC meeting in December, officials have issued statements ranging from diplomatically supportive to vocally critical.
“We are also being asked to rely on conclusions developed by firms that would materially benefit from a move, a redevelopment or a major new construction project. At best, that creates the appearance of bias,” Bazaldua wrote. “At worst, it undermines public confidence in the integrity of this process.”
“Where is the independent review from professionals who have no financial stake in whether City Hall stays or goes? The structural report states there is no widespread structural instability. Deficiencies are described as localized. Any asbestos present poses no immediate risk if undisturbed. Those facts matter. They do not automatically justify full evacuation or the sale of a public asset.”
The Economic Development Corp. report includes findings from consultants with Dallas construction and real estate firms such as AECOM, Corgan and CBRE.
Oak Cliff’s council member Chad West told the Morning News that those opposed to a move should be prepared to offer a path forward.
“If colleagues are honest about wanting to stay in City Hall, then I would hope they would be willing and ready to dive into the data and figure out the plan to finance all the repairs we need for the future,” West said Saturday.
The summary released by the Morning News includes expected financing costs between $299 million and $360 million in the $1 billion price tag.
Council member Zarin Gracey, who has worked at City Hall in the budget, finance, procurement, business diversity, and economic development departments for over 16 years, said the findings were unsurprising in a Facebook post.
“I’ve been honest about my position: Mavs or no Mavs, City Hall is NOT a functional building for today’s City Government operations or for YOU, the residents it’s supposed to serve. Want proof? Think about the last time you visited City Hall,” Gracey wrote. “You parked on one side of the building, then had to walk ALL THE WAY AROUND to the opposite side to enter through security. Why? Because placing the security entrance near the parking lot would “obstruct the art” of City Hall. That tells you everything you need to know about priorities.”
Council member Maxie Johnson said he wanted more time to consult with experts before making a decision.
“We also must remain transparent with our community. That is exactly what I plan to do once we have all the verified information before us,” Johnson said in a statement. “At this time, I have not yet heard from the engineering experts, and I believe it is critical that we receive their professional assessment before moving forward.”
Preservationist group Save Dallas City Hall questioned the report’s findings in an emailed statement.
“The report clearly starts from the premise that City Hall is a problem to solve, and not an iconic civic asset,” the statement reads. “It reveals a bias that City Hall is broken and should be abandoned. It provides no evidence that the building is fundamentally inefficient from a planning perspective. It leaves the impression that all repairs must be done immediately in order to continue to occupy the building despite statements in the report that “identified deficiencies did not generally represent imminent failure conditions”. The assumption that the building must be vacated for five years is extreme and unexplained.”
The report outlines a five-year relocation of city employees and offices during a potential renovation, with leasing and outfitting costs ranging from $113 million to over $200 million over that period.
Council members will be briefed on the report’s findings at a Monday Finance Committee meeting, with further discussion of City Hall’s future expected during a closed session, according to the agenda.
