$11.25 million development incentive possible for Alamo Manhattan

West Seventh, looking east; notice the stepped-back facades

The developer planning to build 200 apartments over ground-floor retail in the Bishop Arts District is seeking $11.25 million in future tax reimbursements.

The Oak Cliff Gateway TIF District board of directors, in a meeting Thursday, will consider whether Alamo Manhattan LLC should receive an eight-figure tax recoup for its planned Bishop Arts Station project.

The project being considered for tax reimbursements includes developments on the northwest and southeast corners of corners of West Davis at Zang. That’s where Sonic Drive-In, Zoli’s NY Pizza and a collision repair shop are now. The development also includes a streetcar stop and plaza on Zang at West Seventh.

When Alamo Manhattan’s original plans for the project came to light last summer, Oak Cliff residents hated the proposed design with its massive, overwhelming buildings. But the developer came back in September with a new design featuring stepped-back building heights and varied facades.

The TIF board likely will approve the reimbursements for Bishop Arts Station and send the proposal to City Council for consideration.

Alamo Manhattan could begin demolition as soon as this summer.

By |2016-01-11T11:50:36-05:00January 11th, 2016|Development, News|16 Comments

About the Author:

Rachel Stone is the Oak Cliff editor. Email rstone@advocatemag.com or follow twitter.com/advocate_oc.                                     


  1. […] economic development and housing committees approved the proposal to grant a developer $11.25 million in reimbursements for a Bishop Arts District project that includes multistory apartments, shops and […]

  2. donovan acree January 21, 2016 at 1:15 PM

    The boundaries of Oak Cliff are not in question. They have been long established. I’ve never heard anyone say south of Clarendon is not Oak Cliff. In fact, most of Oak Cliff is south of Clarendon.
    I was referring to multi story buildings in Oak Cliff in general and not just Hampton Hills.

  3. lakewoodhobo January 21, 2016 at 10:49 AM

    Nobody is talking about building multi-story buildings in Hampton Hills. This controversy is specific to Zang and Davis. And nobody thinks Bishop Arts should have buildings over the what’s currently allowed either, but Zang and Davis was never within the boundaries of Bishop Arts. Funny how it’s ok to call this Bishop Arts District but not ok for certain neighborhoods south of Clarendon Dr to claim they’re in Oak Cliff.

  4. donovan acree January 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM

    The character we are referring to is a mix of original architecture and cultures. Fabricated facade buildings and fabricated facade people don’t really fit in.
    I’m not against something replacing a fast food joint, I’m against a multi story multi tenant building being erected. Ever notice those sort of buildings in are rare in OC and stick out like a sore thumb? The ones we do have are clearly out of place and are relatively recent (last 50 years or so) BTW, Oak Cliff is not ‘vast’. It is quite small but surrounding neighborhoods are counting themselves as OC.
    Take a look at Hampton Hills. We have one of the most undisturbed original architecture neighborhoods in Dallas and nothing there is over one story.
    The Nazerians are another issue entirely. In truth, I’m against both projects.

  5. lakewoodhobo January 15, 2016 at 9:29 AM

    I’ve lived in Dallas 10 years, and here’s what I know about Oak Cliff: Oak Cliff is vast and diverse and the most interesting part of Dallas.

    It is so much more than Bishop Arts. When people talk about the “character” of Oak Cliff, like you are, I have to wonder if they think it’s a homogenous place. Are they talking about the pre-war streetcar buildings, the midcentury homes on Kiest, the taquerías, the quinceañera shops on Jefferson or the hipster stores on Bishop? Rich, middle-class or poor? White, black, hispanic, young, old, gay or straight? There is room for everyone.

    If you want something with character, why are you fighting something that will replace a fast-food store (one of two Sonics on Zang) and a collision repair shop? As sad as I am about Zoli’s, they did say it wasn’t working out for them. And good for the community for pushing back on Alamo Manhattan and getting them to back off of Local Oak and Ten Bells. Democracy in action.

    I agree with you that we should fight displacement of the disadvantaged, but Alamo didn’t do that. You should be angry at the Nazerians who tore down a bunch of houses south of Bishop Arts and still haven’t started rebuilding.

  6. donovan acree January 15, 2016 at 7:42 AM

    I’d say how ever many generations it takes until you can see how these sort of projects hurt the people of Oak Cliff. Sure, a select few will benefit but only at the expense of the easily displaced.
    It’s not about generations or years in Oak Cliff. It’s about the desire to keep the character and people of Oak Cliff intact – to preserve what makes Oak Cliff unique. Which brings me back to the question you avoided by – what would be the benefit to the community for that tax offset? You mention that they would spend some money at local shops. Will they fight to keep the taxes paid by poor and disadvantaged low or will they try to drive up the price of real estate so they get better return on their investment? With this kind of project, it’s clear that money is the driving factor. What about the character of Oak Cliff? Will they fight to keep it intact or do they want to tear down old buildings rather than renovate? It’s clear to me that this project is more of a tear it down and build ugly plastic ‘charm’.

  7. Erica January 14, 2016 at 12:36 PM

    I don’t actually have an opinion as to whether a tax incentive should be given for this project, but I also find this attitude about folks who move in amusing. Except for college and law school and 2 years living in a condo behind a Blockbuster on Oak Lawn Avenue in the 1990s, I’ve lived in Oak Cliff since 1976. Should I get a greater vote than everyone who moved in later? How about that I remember when Bishop Arts was only a pizza place, Tillman’s, and Bishop Arts Market and a bunch of artists (but we could always get a parking spot). Should I have a standing parking spot down there because I was an “urban pioneer?” What about my godmother and the other elderly men and women who attended the church I attended as a child (Elmwood Methodist)? They all graduated from Sunset and Adamson back in the 50s. Should their votes be even greater? Have a discussion about the merits of the tax incentive, but let’s stop with the grading of others as to how “old school” Oak Cliff they are. Because most of the folks doing the grading aren’t really all that old.

  8. lakewoodhobo January 13, 2016 at 9:33 PM

    I’m sorry, exactly how many generations do you have to go back before you’re officially considered from Oak Cliff?

  9. donovan acree January 13, 2016 at 1:27 PM

    I mean folk who aren’t from Oak Cliff who would move in and support such a terrible project. That building would be out of place and out of character for our neighborhood.
    And no one is surprised that a townie doesn’t have a problem with other townies moving to the Cliff. You have no idea what it does to the people who live here already to have their neighborhood priced out from under them by people wanting a hipper more now lifestyle.

  10. lakewoodhobo January 11, 2016 at 3:52 PM

    By non-locals, do you mean people from outside Oak Cliff? I lived in other parts of Dallas (Lakewood, Oak Lawn and Downtown) before buying a house here. I don’t have a problem with people from outside renting here as long as they spend money here. And that’s really the benefit to the community: more people moving to Oak Cliff and spending their money at Oddfellows, Eno’s, Bbbop, the Kessler Theater, etc.

  11. donovan acree January 11, 2016 at 2:54 PM

    And what would be the benefit to the community for that tax offset – non-locals moving in to an out of place monstrosity which devalues the very thing that makes the location desirable?

  12. KeepOurFreedoms January 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM

    We don’t want this in Oak Cliff. Things like this ruin Oak Cliff.

  13. Stephanie Behring January 11, 2016 at 2:08 PM

    My understanding was that there was going to be a fair amount of infrastructure and street improvements first, but I haven’t seen that start yet.

  14. Rachel Stone January 11, 2016 at 1:37 PM

    Thanks. I will check with them

  15. Christopher Kelley January 11, 2016 at 1:15 PM

    So tax payers kick in $55,000 or so per apartment. If it’s not profitable to build on the location then let it set until it is. At 11.25 million we are better off just giving that money to poor residents to pay their rent. I’m tired of corporate hand outs. Alamo Manhattan should follow the Republicans advice and pull themselves up by thier boot straps, rather than clinging to the tax payers boots

  16. lakewoodhobo January 11, 2016 at 11:36 AM

    Interesting that they were originally asking $11M for three buildings, but now it’s $11.25M for two. It really doesn’t matter to me, just making an observation.

    Any update on the Nazerian Bishop Arts Village project? They bulldozed everything and were supposed to start building in August. It’s been exactly five months since you published a story with the headline “42-million Bishop Arts project to break ground this month” and nothing has happened.

Comments are closed.