So of course the city should buy the land and rent it out to movie studios who want to make post-apocalyptic action movies.

I think the city should pass an ordinance that if a developer tears down a structure (or group of structures) and does not do anything with the empty land within 1 year the ownership of the land reverts to the city. The site of the former church/Hard Rock Cafe has been sitting vacant forever now, as has the historic building site on Turtle Creek and Fairmont that the developer just had to tear down. REDUNKULOUS!

FYI: river rocks are going for $216 a ton these days so Dallas might consider a cottage industry in the aftermath of the Great Sylvan Flood of 2009 ("Moon River, wider than a mile. I'm crossing you in style some day") and this lunar eclipse.

Thank goodness they managed to scrape away all those darned annoying trees before going belly up.

"the PR firm doesn't actually handle Provident anymore."

Translation: Their check didn't clear.

Lone Star Towing is going to need...oh, about 42 acres for a short-term lease during the State Fair. Owner of the property may consider a telegram since Lone Star's phone is not exactly reliable.

It took years, YEARS for those developers to come to an agreement with the neighborhood that backs up to it. It will be the same for any new developer's plans. Can't have too much commercial or retail, can't have too much residential, apartments of any great number will be a tough sell. Oy.

Amy S, maybe if the development backed up to your north Dallas yard you'd have a little more concern for what was built. I applaud the Meadows neighborhood for fighting for their own interests.

Guys, lets look at the positive side. What alternate uses can we have for that land?
1. NASA probe testing grounds.
2. Lunar Adventure Park.
3. Our very own District 9.
4. Post Global Warming kibbutz.
5. Another GAP or Walmart or HomeDepot but really BIG this time around.

Posibilities are endless!!!

I hear the Dallas constables are looking for a new place to store towed cars. Might be the "best use" for the next few years.

@ Juan Valdez:

The sad part is that it already IS District 9. If you've seen the documentary "The Garden", you'll see that in District 9 in Los Angeles, the city struck a backroom deal with a developer for the land that made up the largest urban market in America.
After many months of legal fighting, the 14 acres were eventually bulldozed and stand barren to this day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhhfr_hIL7A

Now we have our own here in Dallas.

So damn typical of irresponsible developers. I know there are good meaning ones out there but this is just what often seems to happen. Some developer gets a bright idea, suckers a bunch of lenders in on a deal, make a statement like tearing something down like there really is work going to happen, and then takes off with the money leaving the lenders with a WTF face and Dallas with a blight. In some cases the property involves a building with historic significance. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I really like that beautiful building they erected over the old Hard Rock Cafe property.
Seriously, this is why it is worth it now to overreact when someone comes along and proposes a historic building to be torn down to put something in its place. They do the first part but don't do the second.

It's like taking an ugly lass and shaving her head for good bitter measure, then absconding in the night whilst laughing at your spree.

The developer is not irresponsible in the way you imply, it has it's hands tied by the lender. If you didn't have a development loan 'closed' by last summer you have no deal or enough leverage to turn some sort of profit. Believe me, developer would move forward and go vertical if it could. But you are right in that there is a 'show' going on here. It had to scrape the land to show the investors progress, meanwhile they had no loan and probably no tenants. The 'alternative designs' were most certainly higher density and cheaper materials. I would love to know their basis and what it goes for after the bank sells it to the most convenient bidder.

Hey JM, I love that the population at my kids school dropped by 300 when the old complex was torn down.

But at the same time, it was hopeful that there would be some more (safe, affordable, spacious) housing for those looking to settle in the area. Because granted the old complex did not provide that.

But with a glut of apartments and condos on the market, it will be some time before this gets developed. That having been said, this spot with its access to the medical complexes, DART station and White Rock bike trails will be one of the first to benefit from any recovery.

@David
Fair enough. But my point is that when it comes to sensitive properties/buildings, there should at least be a guarantee to the city that the future structure is paid for before the old one gets razed no matter who in the deal may walk away. Someone needs to be accountable. Hey, I actually think the moonscape is an improvement over the old apartments that used to be there but just imagine if something like this were to happen at say, 501 Park.

can we blame this on don hill and deangelo lee somehow?

Maybe Mayor Tom should have included this property in his "places to see" list on those iPhones he's sending out.

I call this the Esquire Theater syndrome.

Maybe would could bring back another theater to this spot, the Gemini Drive-In - or perhaps the old golf course - the original Glen Lakes:

http://www.texasfreeway.com/Dallas/historic/photos/images/us75_walnut_hill_looking_se_feb-1959.jpg

If not that at least the old Chimney Austrian / Swiss Restaurant. They did a mean calf's liver with little tiny onion rings while a musician tickled the ivories. Crepes, hollandaise, venison - hey that was fancy for Dallas in the seventies.

Yeah, I know. How did I get so nostaligic looking at the moon?

Handsome and the most of you whiners have no idea how business works. Money in place before demo? Revert ownership to the city?

The land is more valuable, and safer cleared than with junk apts, looks better too. No doubt the current owner/bank will take a loss and someone will get a deal.

@ACe
And you call this business working? I hope it is not my bank taking the loss. Yes, Proof of money before demo of a historic building just makes common sense. And if either lenders or developers back out during the deal after Demo, then put consequences to them both. Too many young buck developers with $$ in their eyes are out there right now blowing their wad before they even get their pants down, if you know what I mean. I could care less about some ratty apts., but look at 501 Park, and look what happened to the old Hark Rock building, Look at what almost happened to Fair Park a few decades ago.Some things in this city are more important than their land value....and some things are not.

@ACe
And you call this business working? I hope it is not my bank taking the loss. Yes, Proof of money before demo of a historic building just makes common sense. And if either lenders or developers back out during the deal after Demo, then put consequences to them both. Too many young buck developers with $$ in their eyes are out there right now blowing their wad before they even get their pants down, if you know what I mean. I could care less about some ratty apts., but look at 501 Park, and look what happened to the old Hark Rock building, Look at what almost happened to Fair Park a few decades ago.Some things in this city are more important than their land value....and some things are not.