Policy by panic
The sudden campaign to abandon Dallas City Hall feels eerily familiar. Practically overnight, we’re told the building is an urgent civic danger — a looming threat that can only be solved by packing up and moving out. The number now being circulated, nearly $600 million in deferred maintenance, is presented as though it were some newly discovered intelligence.
We’ve seen this movie before. In the run-up to the Iraq War, abstract risks were inflated into imminent dangers, and alternative interpretations were swept aside. The problem wasn’t just the outcome — it was the rush, the opacity and the sense that the conclusion had been chosen first and the justification assembled later.
I’m not suggesting Dallas is launching a war on architecture. But the rhetoric surrounding City Hall carries the same hallmarks: alarming figures with unclear provenance, a push for decisive action before the public can examine the facts and little patience for asking whether the “threat” has been accurately described.
Dallas deserves better than policy by panic. Before we abandon a landmark — one with decades of civic identity baked into its concrete — we should insist on transparency, independent assessment and a fair accounting of alternatives. The public should see the data, not just the talking points.
Opinion
If City Hall truly needs reinvestment, let the case be made openly. But let’s not mistake a politically convenient crisis for an unavoidable one.
Robert Gilbreath, Dallas/Lakewood
How about a redo?
It’s hard to miss the concern folks are feeling about Dallas City Hall. What to do with an I.M. Pei creation that is a masterpiece for some and a money-sucking structure past its prime for others?
I suggest we consider remaking the building. Scratch the City Hall idea. Transform this art piece into a mini-village with apartments, shops and other entities you’d find in a small community — all under one roof, sheltered from the brutal summer heat and the sometimes challenging ice and snow of winter. I’ve often imagined this would be the way to revive aging malls. It could have worked at the former Valley View Mall before it was leveled. The Galleria offers such a possibility now.
In Austin, a former mall is now the site of a community college campus. The remodel has led to all sorts of ancillary developments. Apartments. Shops. Restaurants have sprung up around its borders. And it’s all walkable.
Our choices for the building that is now City Hall go beyond renovate or destroy. Why not open up the discussion to what some may classify as impossible dreams?
Kathleen Matsumura, Farmers Branch
Reimagine the park
Re: “A farce at Dallas City Hall — Municipal leaders seem bent on leaving the iconic building without consulting voters,“ Sunday Arts & Life column by Mark Lamster.
Yes, it’s a park! City Hall Plaza therefore cannot be transferred by an act of the City Council. As Lamster pointed out, under Texas statutes, cities must hold elections to sell public parkland.
City staff has confirmed that the plaza is subject to this requirement. For all of us who want to “stop the steal,” the facts and the law are on our side. By itself, this still isn’t enough.
As a park, City Hall Plaza hasn’t worked as intended. Saving it does not mean keeping it “as is.” Now is the moment to reimagine this public space. This is about Dallas, so we should be bold.
A well-designed true central park for Dallas would be transformative. It would not merely duplicate the successes of our newest parks, it would be a culmination. As a magnet for development, it would benefit the city far more than a stadium-adjacent project designed to maximize a team owner’s revenues.
And it would be an act of healing, at the heart of our city. Together with a restored City Hall and library, it would reestablish our civic center as a showcase for both preservation and innovation, and a gathering place for Dallas as a whole.
Norwood Andrews, East Dallas
A conventional solution
Re: “Cloud over City Hall grows — Council instructs city manager to explore alternatives,” Nov. 14 news story.
This story helps illuminate the multiple problems that exist in keeping the current structure versus seeking to build another entirely new city hall. I think the council needs to consider moving most of the City Hall offices into the future unused Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center, which is undergoing its several billion-dollar remodel. The convention business has changed dramatically with the internet and the high costs associated with travel, lodging, dining and exhibit hall rental fees.
The Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, which has an infinite number of activities outside the convention for the enjoyment of its visitors, has decreased in attendance from 182,000 participants in 2018 to less than 50,000 attendees this past year.
Dallas needs to look ahead as to what will be done with a beautiful new convention facility that will be decreasingly empty in the future.
Lee P. Oneacre, Dallas
Take the long view
What is the total cost of ownership for Dallas City Hall? As a city that prides itself on its support of business, this standard measure of financial feasibility would help the city make a financially responsible decision.
It’s been said by some that the city budget cannot support the repair costs of the current building. I dare predict that if the scheduled maintenance and repairs of any future building were included in the purchase price, that a new building would be much more expensive.
Let’s not be persuaded solely by the salespeople (developers) clamoring at the door to sell us something new. How many of those developers, or other business leaders, or citizens, would tear down their own home because they deferred a roof, or HVAC upgrade, or a foundation repair caused by a slab leak?
Take the long view. The long view has been the road to success for Warren Buffett.
Jim Manning, Grapevine
Accountability needed
Re: “Now’s the time to move City Hall — It’s not a debate about sentiment or architecture; it’s about economics,” by Albert C. Black Jr., Nov. 7 Opinion.
Black’s op-ed made him seem more like a cheerleader trying to promote Dallas as a forward-looking dynamic city rather than taking a look as to why we’re even having this discussion. While his comments regarding the economics may in fact be correct, I think a look back is needed.
This situation did not happen overnight. Has anyone heard a plausible explanation of how this was allowed to happen? Surely the issues were brought to someone’s attention. I’d like to know how these problems were allowed to fester to the point of saying the building may be unusable. The citizens of Dallas need some accountability here.
Tracy Wallace, Richardson
Kudos for op-eds, Fort Worth
Re: “Weighing Dallas City Hall’s future — Pei’s a genius, but this building is riddled with big issues and not worth restoring, developer says,” by Shawn Todd and “Architects call for comprehensive study balancing renovation of renowned building and replacing it,” by Willis C. Winters and Tipton Housewright, Nov. 3 Opinion.
Two superb opinions from three of the most qualified preservationists in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
I worked as a law clerk for the Federal Trade Commission in the summer of 1976 while Dallas City Hall was being built. It was a treat to watch, living with my parents in Euless, and riding my Honda motorcyle each day to my job and seeing this I.M. Pei marvel rising from the ground. And trying to figure out why it seemed upside down.
It is excellent that The Dallas Morning News found such spectacular writers to articulately and concisely frame this most important issue.
Although I have no standing since I live in Fort Worth, I believe that Fort Worth City Hall is so much better than the one in Dallas, and will always be, no matter what the Dallas City Council decides.
And our mayor, Mattie Parker, and city council are better, too. In fact, all things are better in Tarrant County than in Dallas County. We have the Cowboys and the Rangers, Taylor Sheridan, better barbecue — the list just goes on and on!
Chuck Noteboom, Fort Worth